Is it the Organisation or is it the people in It?

by link 15 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  link

  Like all non-JW’s with JW families I have to endure constant pressure to "accept the truth" and their latest effort comes from "ammunition" contained in two articles in the Awake of 22 January 2004.

  The article starting on page 3 "God Has a Name" is supposed to present evidence that Gods name is Jehovah but I can see no evidence of this in the article. In fact the article is quite balanced and clearly says on page 4 that "…..the name Jehovah is widely accepted as the vernacular equivalent of the Tetragrammaton". This is the extent of the articles assertions.

  I find nothing wrong with this statement but it is an entirely different thing to saying that "Gods name is Jehovah", even though all of the language used in the article is steering the reader to accept this thought.

  I am also one of those poor unfortunate soles that do not accept the Societies chronology and an article starting on page 19 entitled "Why I believe the Bible" is expected to alter my thinking.The article is supposedly written by a Nuclear Scientist and if someone with brains can accept the chronology, why can’t I?

  On page 21 the writer says "….I was looking forward to doing a mathematical check on the Bible prophecy concerning the year 1914". And a few sentences further on he says " My mind was set on finding mathematical inconsistencies in the presentation, but I found none".

  Of course he will find none because there are none! The flaws are not in the numbers but in the faulty assumptions upon which the numbers are based. That Nuclear Scientist will have somewhat of a red face when somewhere down the line someone points out that a person in that profession and with that training always checks the assumptions.

  So my point is this; the organisation does not always actually put in writing, in an unequivocal and unambiguous way, exactly those things that the JW’s teach verbally and I have found this countless times. Does anyone agree?

  link
• 

  czarofmischief

  It's the insanity of one dead man

  Compounded by the authoritarian nature of a few old men

  and brought to fruition by the complacency of the rest

  CZAR
• 

  metatron

  It's sad isn't it

  They have chosen to intensify their propaganda - and avoid questions.

  Jesus avoided using 'God's name" - "Our Father, hallowed be thy name" - he avoided using it

  Paul avoided using 'God's name' - "one God, the Father" in Corinthians

  John never used 'God's name' in any of his 3 letters

  They won't tell you this.

  metatron ( they just keep lying)
• 

  Will Power

  very sad indeed

  Then YOU are the one labeled as the OPPOSER, the UNbeliever, the WORLDLY one, the BAD association.

  YOU are the one forced to endure this INVASION of the ORG & its pseudo philosophy theology into YOUR fracturing family unit or risk even worse name calling, SATAN'S helper, APOSTATE, CORPSE.

  God's name is also JEALOUS chapt x:y and what is JEALOUSY but one of the 7 deadly sins ???

  Will power
• 

  Will Power

  one other thought....

  What does every JW think of, respond, or believe the TRUTH TM is. Has anyone ever got a straight answer about an ADJECTIVE they constantly use to describe themselves, their teaching, their organization.

  They think things like this Chronology is the TRUTH, belonging to 5 meetings a week is the TRUTH, this NAME that was invented by a 13th cent monk is the TRUTH, (which Strong's Concordance translates hovah as MISCHIEF - the same book that uses obiescience instead of worship)

  In the book that the JWs say is their only guide it is quoted that JESUS says HE is the TRUTH.

  How do they get away with IMPERSONATING A God? - The bible also says MANY would come as FALSE Christs.

  An ORGANIZATION cannot survive without the PEOPLE - it could not exist without them.

  wp
• 

  czarofmischief

  which Strong's Concordance translates hovah as MISCHIEF - the same book that uses obiescience instead of worship)

  Wait, really? Suddenly I'm a key figure in the Bible... got a head rush... whoa, a little dizzy from the power. Here, let me go part the waters in the toilet.

  Czar of hovah

  CZAR
• 

  Will Power

  Czar - check it out

  word number 1943
• 

  jst2laws

  Link,

  Very good observations, excellent topic for discussion.

  I think the writers often take pride in producing a convincing arguement, knowing their main audience will NOT "check the assumptions". It is convincing if they succeed in directing the attention of the audience to the portion of the arguement that can be proven, leading the reader to believe the rest of the argument is a given, beyond question.

  The Chronology of 1914 is a good example, which I think your article may have been refering to. The math to arrive at 1914 by multiplying 7 times 360 days, then converting to 'day for year', subtracting 607 years from the 2520 to arrive at 1913 then adding one year for the zero year to arrive at 1914 is great fun and intriguing, but how many of us were convinced this was significant and for decades did not "check the assumption" that 607 was a valid date to start with. Now we find no historian or archeologist agrees with the WTs use of 607. The evidence the date is actually 586/587 is overwhelming.

  Another assumption we were lead to believe by misdirection was that they actually taught that the heavenly kindom was established in 1914. They did not start teaching that until 1943. Up until then they taught the kindom was established in 1874.

  Steve
• 

  link

  Many thanks for your responses. It seems that I am not alone in my thinking, or the treatment I receive. Some of you have mentioned the fact that questioning is not allowed and I can confirm this. Also that immediately you open your mouth to get some background on the assumptions you are branded an "opposer".

  It is these techniques that allow someone like a Nuclear Scientist to get brain-washed. Maybe he did question the assumptions but was side tracked into disregarding them. Who knows?

  link
• 

  peacefulpete

  There is a trend tward less and less being said and more and more implied. This is typical of cults. The initiated has a very different perspective than the neophyte because of years of exposure to subtle conforming to uspoken/printed direction. Doctines really are secondary. They merely serve to isolate the group from the surrounding society. The main work of a cult is to internalize the sense of uniqueness and specialness of the body. Then controlling behavior is easyily accomplished thru threats of exclusion from the group. This process of internalizing (fully assimilating and rooting it in the personal identity) is more gradual in some groups than others. The JWs are successful (as opposed to Jim Jones types which fizzle rather quickly and appeal to a minority) largely due to it's taking years for this to occur in their cult structure. During the early stages these new recruits are handled with kid gloves and rewarded with affection whenever approved behavior is observed until they are "mature" ( loaded language for someone who is initiated into the cult and full duty to conform is required). These then are by then aclimated to the process and become unwitting co-conspirators.