A question about lying and the Jehovah's Witnesses (page 9)

DATA-DOG

Change-name,

I am sorry that you did not understand my point, or that I did not make it clear. Your following comment shows that you missed the point completely, for one reason or another.

" Hi Data-Dog - The scriptures never support lying. Okay. But you really did not do anything in your post but agree that Abraham did lie in order to save his life. Like I made mention before, "a person is not under obligation to divulge truthful information to people who are not entitled to it". The JWs teach that we should "chose either to say nothing or to divert the conversation in another direction".

I am sorry that you cannot understand the principle of lying being disapproved of by God. If all you gleaned from my comment was that " Abraham did lie ", then your powers of deduction are seriously lacking. The point was that YHWH promised Abraham that he would not die by promising to make a great Nation through him. Logically, Abraham was not going to die, at least not until his heir was born. That is very simple to grasp, wouldn't you agree? The point was that Abraham did not need to lie, he lied due to fear of man. Once again, there is no scriptural precedent for lying. Jesus did not tell his disciples lies. He may have told them only what they could handle at the time, but that is not a lie. Do you understand the difference?

Your next comment also shows your lack of desire for truth, or your ignorance of the term. Jesus said you must love truth. Here is yourcomment:

" Hi again Data-Dog - Revisionist history, controlling information, forbidding Bible studies, misquoting authors. There are two sides to every conflict. History is subjectiveto the one who lives it. The history of the US is different from the perspective of the political parties. Which viewed history is more correct?The republican or the democrat? How does Rush Limbaugh's view of history differ from that of Thom Hartmann's? What kind of information do they control. I have heard from opposers that the JW's have misquoted authors but it seems more likely that they quoted correctly but the context may have been a bit off

Subjective? Perspective? More correct? It seems more likely? Truth has nothing to do with perspective. True is true, and false is false. Your view at any given time is altered by you perspective. That would not mean that you view was factual or truthful. Two political parties may have different perspectives on an issue. That does not make their perspective " truth. " As far as History is concerned, what happened, happened. The perspective of the individual does not change a fact, or make something true into a falsehood. One Country may lose a war, so losing is a fact. Their perspective could be that they showed courage, and therefore could not be considered to have really lost. This may be the " history " they present to their citizens. Their perspective does not make it true. Can you understand that? Revising history, changing facts to suit your perspective, those actions are dishonest. Do you believe that Christ has given religious leaders a green light to give thier perspective instead of truth?

wasblind

Without using the WTS as a crutch, what is your truth?____Change name

Good question .

The truth in what one believes should not need to be adjusted

or completely changed. It should stand firm on its foundation in the light of day

If it does change as the light get brighter , then what they believed to be the truth

is no longer so

Hananiah the prophet, believed the things he said were true

when they did not come to pass. He became know as a false prophet

He did not get a second chance

EVIDENTLY, truth does not originate from a mistake made from men

no matter who they are or what they may believe

.

DATA-DOG

WASBLIND,

Change-name,

I don't believed you ever answered my question about df'ing someone who does not believe a humans interpretaion of an existing prophecy?

Pterist

Change name ***I am not interested in copy and pasters loading this topic up with "proof texts" from websites that oppose them. I would like to know why people overlook this blantant misrepresentation of their teachings.****

I'm sure that can happen, it's happens to us all, it's part of life, intensionaly or un-intentionally !

However, as Jesus said our own words can condemn us. The copy and paste from original Watchtower literature condemn them, and that's transparent.

Shalom

LisaRose

Hi LisaRose - You say that from experience that they use this "theocratic warfare" to excuse cover up and misrepresentation. I do not understand your example. Russell thought that the gentile times would end in 1914 and that the end times would start in the same year. Okay, they believe that. From what I understand, the end times will last for an indefinate period of time which will culminate in the great tribulation and then Armeggedon. I know from talking to many who were there in 1975 that they were hoping that the great tribulation and then Armegeddon would be in that year. But they also knew that many other prophesies would need to be revealed. They always looked forward and never let up their preaching activities. So how did they invoke this "theocratic war strategy" in regards to 1975?

LE ME: You have it all wrong, Russell did not expect the end times to START in 1914, he expected them to END. He thought Armageddon was to be in 1914. It was only when it didn't come that they made up the "invisible presence" silliness, as a way to explain away the failed prophecy, a tactic that has served them well when their predictions fail, as they always do, as when they predicted the end in 1897, 1925, 1975, etc.

So 100% failure on predictions so far, why would you believe anything they say, it's obvious they are just making it up as they go along? Yeah, that's the ticket, 1897, no, it's 1914, I'm sure of it, wait, no, it must be 1925. Hmmm..... 1975, yes, that's it, it must be! (Fake date, day for a year, more fake dates, dodgy math, yup it all works) You don't need college when the world is ending within months. Oh snap, bad, bad sheeples, you went ahead (by believing us) it wasn't anything WE said, but still, it's right around the corner, soon, before this generation passes away. But, wait, didn't we tell you, a generation could overlap, yeah, that's right, A generation could be more than one, see? (Hee hee, they fell for the "overlapping generations", oldest trick in the book). Join us now, the big A is coming, must be soon, we said so.

This emperor has no clothes, if you choose to pretend he does, well enjoy the ride.

144001

I'm not fooled. The screen name "Change Name" is aptly chosen. I think we've seen posts from this individual before, under another screen name.

jgnat

I see you missed my point, Change Name. I was referring to your two studies without baptism. You got the full sales pitch without ever trying to live as a Jehovah's Witness. You know, two meetings and field service every week, your turn at janitorial, scraping gum off the undersides of stadium seats, "reaching out" for priveleges, yadda yadda.

Will you be attending the Memorial?

Finkelstein

Hi Finklestein - Oh boy. You used the WTS as a crutch.

Hardly, the WTS/JWS is crutch though that ignorant and perhaps lazy minded people have put under themselves to support a very false corrupt premise.

The false premise that the WTS/JWS is something unique, godly chosen or godly directed, which this organization has self described itself.

Exposing the actual truth of its indulgent corruption concerning this religious organization and how it operates is my intent and others as well .

Why ? because it hurts people on a individual to individual basis and to greater extent humanity in general.

I hope by you yourself coming here will be helped by this endeavor to finally realize " The Truth about The Truth "

Dismissing servant

"You say that from experience that they use this "theocratic warfare" to excuse cover up and misrepresentation. I do not understand your example. Russell thought that the gentile times would end in 1914 ."

This shows how much you know about the organisations history. Russel thought (as far as I remember) that the gentile times ended in 1799. Christs return was in 1874 according to Russel. But....maybe this is all apostate lies?

TD

Hi there TD - cut and paste - nice one! Can you explain what each one of those articles are teaching?

Those were not cut and pastes from "websites that oppose them [Jehovah's Witness]" which you specifically said you objected to. Those excerpts were taken from the 2006 Edition of The Watchtower Library. If you object to material from that source, I would be curious as to why, as I'm not sure if there's another way to have a discussion with a JW if JW literature is exempted from said discussion.

I'm not going to attempt to explain to you what each one of those articles are teaching as I'm an "unbelieving" husband of a JW; not a JW myself. You would obviously understand the doctrinal content of those articles much better than I.

I asked a fairly simple question: Would those excerpts from your literature qualify as, "...couching one's words so that they are technically accurate", yet deliberately misleading?

A question about lying and the Jehovah's Witnesses

Share this