During my nearly 50 yrs as jws, i can tell u that it is all about group think and speak. running ahead is wrong, and will get u booted out. (or at least demoted). We must read the WT and awake and other pubs, and read the questions that go with them and that is the correct thinking , until the FDS tells us otherwise. I do remeber a time, when i was a very small child 3-5 when jws used to get together in homes and have speculation parties. It was actually great fun. (over being the key word)
Why Aren't Jehovah's Witnesses Allowed To Freely Express Themselves?
by minimus 113 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Elsewhere
** Kicking back with my popcorn and beer to watch Scholar **
-
Odrade
I think Berylblue hit the nail on the head. I also have known JWs that actually didn't believe anything the "proper" JW way. But they were so "out there" that even the elders would just smile and nod when they started talking. It does make you wonder how they ever became JWs in the first place, but there they are.
For the rest of us, me especially, I think fear must have been the bottom line. I can't say for sure. Actually, the thought of questioning the WTS and the basic doctrine never really entered my mind until this last year. Now that I am finally learning to think for myself, I remember little moments all through my life where I had an instant of clarity and said "This just can't be right." But I quickly would smother that thought.
My JW brother put it very eloquently when he told me: "I look at it like a garden. Little tiny weeds (doubts) come up, and the good gardener will pluck them out before they get big enough for roots to extend. If you pluck the doubts out when they are tiny, you will never have any weeds in your garden." It was very sad, he spoke of many "weeds" that he had to constantly pluck out. I hope someday he gets over his fear too.
Well, many cultivated flowers were once considered weeds by somebody. And I am letting mine grow all they want to see if they produce something lovely or worthwhile eventually.
Odrade
-
hillary_step
Scholar,
Many thanks for your post.
In the past you have honestly acknowledged that the WTS has no right to shun those who disagree with their particular chronological interpretation of scripture. I was very pleased to read this admission as it evidenced the fact that you have a heart as well as a mind on these matters. Now, you have also agreed that WTS chronology regarding the dating of the first fall of Jerusalem is ‘tentative’, to use your own words.
Perhaps you might be good enough to answer the question left unanswered in my last post to you, I will quote it again :
What is important in this whole debate, and yes debates are very useful tools for informing onlookers and getting fact before many minds for discussion, is that once you accept that the WTS chronological interpretation is ‘tentative’ how does this acknowledgment impact the rest of WTS doctrine attached to this issue?
As to what you continue to refer to as the ‘Jonsson hypothesis’, which you previously insinuated that he felt was ‘infallible’, I think you do the man a great injustice. Nowhere in his book does he suggest that his COLLATION of evidence is infallible, but what he strongly proposes is that what he has COLLATED is evidence. In a court of Law in order for evidence to be overturned, it has to be challenged with superior evidence that undermines what has previously been assessed. This has never happened with the vast amount of evidence that historians, archaeologists and other scholars have presented for the dating of Jerusalem’s first fall during the past few hundred years. It is this evidence that Jonsson COLLATED in his work, ‘The Gentile Times Revisited’.
I have noticed that when cornered over details of your assertion that 607BCE is the correct dating of Jerusalem’s fall, you default to the typical JW defense, that is, that one can never truly understand the JW viewpoint without having strong faith in Jehovah and his Organization. I am quite sure that you, who place such importance on the scholarly credentials of the critics of your stance, must see the absurdity of such an unscholarly approach.
A number of years ago I was able, in a relaxed moment, to question a member of the GB regarding the 607BCE issue. This person acknowledged that the WTS had problems providing evidence for this and that the dating as presented by the WTS could be faulty. His argument, one that I have noticed many JW’s mimicking in recent times is that ‘chronology is not important, it is the big picture that counts - who else is doing the preaching work. Who else is warning of the imminence of Armageddon’? Of course, as is obvious, one issue impacts the other, chronology impacts the issue of the last days.
Tell me Scholar, does this member of the GB lack faith?
Best regards - HS
-
Dansk
Dimples got it in one:
One word....FEAR!!!
Dansk -
mcsemike50
I'm new at this so please forgive me if this ends up in the wrong place. Someone called Scholar was claiming that he was an independent thinker since 1964 and had a BA and MA in religion. You may be an independent thinker, so am I. I've read almost every book the WTS has published since the Studies in the Scriptures and have an IQ of 150 and am majoring in psychology, heading for my doctorate. I'm just saying this so you know I've also had some "deep thoughts". But if you verbalize any of your independent thinking in front of most JW's, you will pay for it. I was nearly DF'd for just reading Ray Franz's books. The elders just reproved me but I didn't care. NO ONE will ever tell me what I can read, think or say. But if you do it in front of the brothers, believe me, you will hear about it. My own wife reported me. We are now separated and will be divorced. I won't stay married to an idiot robot. I've asked them every question from quantum physics, where did God get the space from to put the universe in, who made God, etc. They can't find anyone in the circuit who can answer my questions, so they gave up. I'm now debating leaving. The only reason I'm hesitating is that my 18 year old daughter will not speak to me again. She is having mental problems due to something that happened to her years ago and I love her so much and don't want to lose her. So I don't attend or go out in field service. They now just leave me alone. If you have spoken out freely and disagreed with their major beliefs in front of elders, I'd love to be a fly on the wall to see it. I'm not putting you down, I'm proud of you. I just can't believe you can get away with it.
-
scholar
hilary_STEP
You talk about so called 'evidence' for the Jonson hypothesis but I have a reason for not trusting Jonsson's presentation of that evidence of which I may elaborate further. At rany rate The WT chronology is based on 'biblical evidence' primari;ly and seular evidence which does not destroy faith in God's Word as the chronology of higher critics represented by the Jonsson hypothesis does.
The GB member who had doubts about 607 could not have understood chronology or is weak-minded. It is not faith in the organization that is destroyed by the speculations of higher critics but that faith is destroyed in the Bible, its teachings and prophecies.
scholar
-
hillary_step
Scholar,
Thank you for your reply.
Once again your thinking is muddled. You have admitted that the WTS chronology is 'tentative'. You then make this comment :
The GB member who had doubts about 607 could not have understood chronology or is weak-minded.
Is a chronological vehicle that is 'tentative' by your own admission, not by definition open to doubt?
It is not faith in the organization that is destroyed by the speculations of higher critics but that faith is destroyed in the Bible, its teachings and prophecies.
Are you suggesting that Carl Jonsson is not a believer in the Bible? You may have noticed that his book was actually dedicated to God and Christ. Let me remind you of what he says:
"First of all however, my thanks go to the God of the Bible, who in the Old Testament from the time of Moses onwards carries the personal name Yahweh or Jehovah, but whom we in the New Testament meet and can approach as our heavenly Father, as this research has been done under constant prayer for his help and understanding". Carl Olof Jonsson - Gentile Times Revisited pp22.
How would you suggest that Carl Jonsson collation of universally accepted history and theology destroys faith in ‘the Bible its teachings and prophecies’ when he most eloquently pays homage to it and its Author? Could you perhaps mean that he destroys the faith of Jehovah's Witnesses in the WTS and its self-proclaimed Faithful Slave? If so, perhaps he does God a service.
You talk about so called 'evidence' for the Jonson hypothesis but I have a reason for not trusting Jonsson's presentation of that evidence of which I may elaborate further.
I would be interested to read what you have to say. Of course a person would need evidence rather than innuendo before drawing any conclusions. Innuendo is not something that we are strangers to as XJW's and we recognize both its purpose and its style....
At rany rate The WT chronology is based on 'biblical evidence' primari;ly and seular evidence which does not destroy faith in God's Word as the chronology of higher critics represented by the Jonsson hypothesis does.
So, we must become the arbiter of what is acceptable or what is not as the correct chronology for the date of Jerusalem’s first fall based on what is perceived as not ‘destroy(ing) faith in Gods Word’ but not neccessarily the evidence? This is of course a nonsensical standard by which to verify history, theology or anything else for that matter.
Best regards - HS
-
ozziepost
Well, Neil (scholar), I'd been wondering about this topic overnight and now that I'm back, I see!!
I'm not into calling people names (well, not much anyway!) but to say this is not worthy of a scholar, being full of generalisation:
You state that other postersbut have degrees in religion or theological studies but I have seen no evidence of that being the case.
You haven't taken any notice of what I wrote on this thread. Let me repeat:
Do you know that there are posters here who have religious studies backgrounds, even theological degrees? I know of some ministers of religion who have posted here. They haven't felt the need to boast.
Knwing at least one of them as a very close friend, I have to tell you that he/she has credentials par excellence in the realm of Bible history and theology and is well-known in Australia as such. How about you?
I won't bandy with you along the lines of "show me your degree and I'll show you mine" but a degree or two or three etc that I have doesn't make any difference to me as a poster. Can you see what I mean?
As HS has so aptly expressed it:
I can think of nothing more egotistical than a group of semi-educated men in Brooklyn pontificating on matters of which they are not qualified to discuss and then insisting that six million people believe what they do on pains of shunning. Your ‘Faithfull Slave’ it seems are the manifestation of ego.
And isn't this the point? The R&F are not allowed to express themselves, nor even to ask 'innocent' questions. Don't deny that, for I was very much involved from the inside responding to them!Ozzie
-
ozziepost
G'day HS,
Who has a UK degree ( the only real ones... )
I like it! I think I know what you mean!!!
Cheers, Ozzie
