by minimus 113 Replies latest jw friends
ozziepost
You seem to be puzzled by my appearance on this board and are still worried about my degrees. I thought I adequately explained the nature of my degrees and yet you are still puzzled. The letters I have sent in the past were directed to the Writing Committee and the replies were from the committee as shown by the letterhead. In addition, the reply was stamped with the initials AB with the accompanying date.
scholar
hilary_step
I received a signed copy of Furuli's book this week and it represent a unbiased critique of traditional chronology which I believe exposes the many flaws in the Jonsson hypothesis. Have you read it yet? At the very least it is written by an accredited scholar which is something that Jonsson is not but simply an amateur with a personal vendetta against the Society's brilliant and evidential chronology.
scholar
Scholar,
I am fairly new to this board and have been following this thread with great interest.
I am glad you have stopped putting BA, MA etc after your name because it is really embarrassing.
I have a degree like many on this board but have always thought that people who felt the need to tell eveyone what they had studied by adding silly letters to the end of their name must have a big problem with self-esteem.
I just wanted to comment on one point you made which made me angry.
You said "All Witnesses are encouraged to ask questions and can find answers by means of the Index, local elders and a letter to the Society. If there is a contentious matter then one can write and leave the matter to dealt with."
Do you have ANY IDEA what happens when you approach the elders with questions or doubts? I find it hard to believe that you are a JW if you think it is that easy. Not only have I been 'marked' for questioning the JWs unscriptural practices (such as shunning - you know - the 'loving' practice of making someone come to the KH when the meeting has started, sit at the back being ignored, then leave as soon as the meeting is ended because they are so contaminated they might as well be lepers) but they are outraged if anyone dares question anything, particularly if you are a woman! I want to be able to discuss scriptures and express what they mean to me at meetings. I don't want to be forced to parrot what's in the paragraphs - that isn't teaching anybody anything. Why don't JWs have meetings where everyone is free to express themselves and voice any doubts etc? What is the WTS afraid of? If they have the truth, no amount of doubting or questioning will make it any less true. If what they teach is from God, then nobody will be able to make this organisation crumble. Why can't we have open and free discussion?
To answer the main question on this thread, JWs CANNOT EVER freely express themselves because they are too damn scared!
Terri
Well said, Terri.
Scholar,
I take it that you believe that individual dubs (such as yourself) are able to freely question those who form the hierarchy of the JW religion.
The letters I have sent in the past were directed to the Writing Committee and the replies were from the committee as shown by the letterhead. In addition, the reply was stamped with the initials AB with the accompanying date.
So I see that you have written more than one letter and addressed to the Writing Committee. You may be surprised to find that I find it difficult to believe that letters can be directed directly to the Writing Committee, let alone that they would reply on their letterhead. Further I must point out that the symbol used on the letters "AB" is not the symbol used for the Writing Committee. In the Australia Branch it's used by someone else. Or are you saying that the letter came directly to you from the USA?
I'm sure that many of us would find such replies most interesting to read. What were you questioning the Writing Committee about? How were the replies?
If you are indeed a poster in Oz and a dub as well, what reaction did you have in your congregation to your studying for so many years at university and specialising in religious studies? Weren't you counselled by the elders to beware of the course you were engaged upon?
Ozzie
Scholar,
At the very least it is written by an accredited scholar which is something that Jonsson is not but simply an amateur with a personal vendetta against the Society's brilliant and evidential chronology.
Might I ask you a question. You defend a chronology constructed by a collection of non-scholars. From Miller to Franz no degrees, or accredited scholars status is claimed by the people who concocted this chronology, defended it and then wrote ad naseum trying to explain it over decades. It is these people that the Jehovah’s Witnesses have placed their trust.
Given your continual tirade against the lack of scholarly credentials of such as Jonnson, Jesus Christ etc., do you not think in all fairness the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses should equally receive your ire for their lack of academic credentials? They are after all, ‘unlettered and ordinary’. They are also the ones who despite having no accreditation as ‘scholars’ brutally punish those who will not accept their version of human history. I have not heard of Jonsson shunning those who do not accept his collation.
As I say, you are going to have to do better than that. I presume your defense of the ‘Oslo Chronology’ will be forthcoming. I received my book a couple of weeks ago, and am engaged in reading it with an unbiased eye, one I would hope that as a ‘scholar’ you also bought to the situation. As of yet, ‘acredited scholar’ that he may be, I find nothing in his hypothesis that seriously challenges the conventional view of chronology and scripture as collated by Jonsson. When you bring your defense to the table, we can talk again.
Best regards - HS
I also can certainly attest to the fact that I was severely chastised for daring to question the society through the elders and eventually the CO.
SFF
ozziepost
My letters were sent to the Writing Department as indicated by the letterhead and the replies were forwarded to the Australian Branch who forwarded it to me. The letters AB with date was a stamp indicating that the reply was sent from and received by the Australian Branch. Many people are aware of my academic studies and interests including my local elders and I have found no difficulty whatsoever. This proves beyond doubt that we truly enjoy Christian freedom.
You made some comment about the reception of the Jonsson hypothesis as being to difficult to understand. What utter rubbish, the brothers wanted to handle it in the appropriate manner and told Jonsson that it should be confidential but his presumptuousness mastered him.
scholar
hilary_step
You can ask me as many questions as you like but I have no time for idiotic questions. The WT chronology is based upon men of learning and certainly well educated and has its roots in James Ussher and Sir Isaac Newton moving through to many expositors who lived in the eigtheenth and nineteenth century. So this biblical chronology is based on received Church doctrine and is not the product of higher criticism of Jonsson's ilk. The matter of academic credentials is releveant when amateurs such as Raymond Franz and Jonsson conspire to present an historical blunder and have not got the intellectual honesty to admit to at least ONE basic flaw in their writings. These men have deceived many who are ignorant and childlike in their understanding of chronology and theology. These men have set themselves as teachers and they bear a heavy responsibility when they pass their chronology as infallible doctrine. By way of contrast that when you read Furulis's work one can see the lack of bias and an openness to criticism. At least this man is a well qualified scholar of which Jonsson is not.
scholar
BA MA Studies in Religion
Scholar
The letters AB with date was a stamp indicating that the reply was sent from and received by the Australian Branch.
You are mistaken! The initials AB do not signify Australia Branch. Our readers here need to be informed of that.
You have not revealed the content of the letters, nor even the questions you had of the GB that have resulted in you believing that the R&F have real freedom in the Borg.
This comment to HS is revealing of the Borg's "split personality":
So this biblical chronology is based on received Church doctrine and is not the product of higher criticism of Jonsson's ilk.
You see, the Bible canon is the result of what the Borg claims is "Babylon the Great". It was the Catholic Church that established the Bible canon. It was the Catholic church which had it translated. It was the reformation which brought the Bible, the word of God, to the people.
Despite this, the WTS, with some incongruity, decries the churches of christendom with all the bile and vile words they can muster.
I note your comment:
Many people are aware of my academic studies and interests including my local elders and I have found no difficulty whatsoever.
Would they be so understanding of you if they knew of your mixing with apostates? Let's test it out. Tell us your congregation and I'll be happy to pass on to them your compliments! Go on, I dare you!
You won't?.......So do you really have (in your words) "beyond doubt .........Christian freedom"?
Ozzie
