by proplog2 50 Replies latest jw friends
How dare you parade your credentials in front of people who have struggled their whole goddamned lives because they were told NOT to get a college education.
Yet you express yourself so much better than the so-called "credentialled".
Well done, proplog!
Cheers, Ozzie
He did not ask about himself, his future, or even the plight of mankind.
Implied message: and you shouldn't be concerned with that stuff either.
Secondary smarmy message/stupid JW belief: Moses asked god's name, but he really knew it already
This is so on target. The WT writers may use juvenile language to write their publications but don't mistake them for dummies. They know exactly what they are doing. They know people are going to start getting antsy because the end has not come yet.( Not to mention people wondering about the UN and child sexual abuse scandals ) They've already changed the generation doctrine: now they use subtle psychology to reinforce it.
He did not ask about himself, his future, or even the plight of mankind.
They've already got the average JW terrified that any wrong little infraction will bring God's eternal wrath upon them. So now here they have "scriptural proof" that if you dare start wondering about yourself, your future and the plight of mankind then you are committing the sin of thinking outside the WT guidelines. And afterall, the WT is the "faithful and discreet slave" and you cannot run ahead of, doubt or question them.
Armegeddon has not come. The "generation" are old and dying and their numbers dwindle. The WT have changed the generation doctrine for damage control. The above quote is just more damage control.
They will control people questioning the Gov Bod about themselves. One example: Hey, we don't have any retirement fund, who's going to take care of us now that we are too old to work and care for ourselves?
They will control people asking about their future. Example: if Armegeddon isn't coming anytime soon, why am I am wasting my time preaching that it is?? Couldn't my time be a lot better spent?
They will control people asking about the plight of mankind. Example: How can we continue to ask people to study and come into an organization that promises an almost instant solution to mankind's problems, but does not deliver? They have been preaching this for over a hundred years now. They said it would happen before that generation died out and now they changed that; so I am not even sure of it anymore. They say they are not prophets. Maybe they are just delusional old men who only think God guides them through holy spirit. I mean, they keep changing their teachings and "understandings". How can they EVER be certain ANYTHING they are teaching is correct and will not be changed? How can I be sure they are certain and will not change their teachings? What if this is all just man made drivel and God isn't going to rescue mankind at any minute?? Oh noooo, what if I am not in God's Organization but am in fact in just some other man made religion?? *PANIC* Where's the nearest exit????
Implied message: and you shouldn't be concerned with that stuff either.
Nope, they don't want the R&F concerned with that stuff because that would mean actually thinking for themselves. They can't have that. So, use Moses as an example to further brainwash JWs into being terrified to think for themselves and question anything fishy that is going on right now or in the future.
Flyin'
Edited to add:
The question he chose to ask God, though, might surprise you. He did not ask about himself, his future, or even the plight of mankind. Rather, he asked God?s name.See, to Jehovah, his name is more important than anything or anyone including you. And the Gov Bod wants you to realize that. Allll in the world you should care about is that God's name is Jehovah. Don't worry your pretty little heads with such nonsense as yourselves, your future ( or that of your spouse, kids, other family or friends ) or even the problems in the world (or the borg). Just worry that you are doin' exactly what Jah and his reps here on earth tell you to do. Don't you be askin' no questions other than: What the heck is God's name? Or else
NICE post, FlyingHighNow! I SO agree!!
hugs,
Annie
NICE post, FlyingHighNow! I SO agree!!
Thanks, Annie, I was afraid it was so late and me so sleepy that my post wouldn't make any sense. Glad you could understand it.
Flyin'
Hey True North,
This thread and Prop2's original post are really much ado about nothing is what I am saying. I think my point can be summed up in saying that a clear reading of the publication is that the Society sets out the following thoughts in the opening chapter of the Drawing Close publication.
1. What woudl you ask of God if you could have a conversation?
2. Well there was someone that did have a conversation with him, Moses, and you know what he asked, he asked about God's Name.
3. Gee isn't that interesting. Since he (should have) known the Divina Name already why would he ask such a question?
4. Let's consider the meaning of that, the Divina Name, yada yada yada ......
My original reply to Prop was that he has misread and misunderstood the passage and is taking it too literally and then going off on how Moses at the account of the burning bush asked about himself so far as how it would grant him the authority to be the Israelite deliverer and what aid he would have etc.
Actually what the Society has done is compressed all of Moses' dealings with God and is focusing on just the one quesiton concerning the Divine Name only to make the point and to springboard into the discussion. The Society is not establishing some sort of account of the literal order of questions, or exchange and in fact is ignoring a lot that occurred, including many occurrences when Moses is definitely concerned about his own future and welfare. The Society is not being disingenuous in doing this since the pointof the chapter is not about Moses and Yahweh and they are not trying to relate all of those dealings in detail. That is my basic point to Prop.
You stated something that is somewhat incorrect though when you said that Moses was not intimate. In fact the Bible clearly shows that among mankind (next only to Jesus we assume), Moses enjoyed the privilege of extremely intimate dialog with Yahweh. Even the High Priests only entered the Most Holy a few times a year and Abraham, called a friend of God, had limited dealings with Jah compared to Moses. Moses would frequently enter his small personal Tent of Meeting where the Cloud of the Divine Presence would descend upon among many other accounts in the Bible that indicate the remarkable amount of dialog and intimacy between God and himself. Moses was permitted to get a tiny glimpse of God's Glory and after one conversation with the Divine Presence (no doubt through angelic mediaries) the Bible even indicates that Moses face emitted rays and glowed from the encounter.
So no doubt during all of these times there were many many questions asked by Moses and many times no doubt he was very concerned with his own future, the Israelites, etc.
Again Prop in claiming that the Society has committed a Dumb error is just mistaken in his understanding of what the Society is DOING. This is just a failure in reading comprehension and rational reasoning and perhaps a bit of overzealousness in trying to find fault with the Organization no matter how petty.
-Eduardo
PS: I am not familiar with the work you reference. There are many ways to spell the Oroborus (this is my own version that is not common) and I adopted it rather innocently as my moniker and business name many years ago after learning that it was a symbol of eternity. Later I learned more about its un-Christian (Pagan) connections and associations with Alchemy and other unsavoury areas but I have never been one of those JWs that gets uptight about stuff like that. The "21" is added because it was my high-school football number (cheesey I know), it is my favourite number and it also stands for the 21st Century. I prefer my spelling as opposed to say "Uruborus," "Aurobourus" etc. and in the logos that I use I make the serpent, winged and swallowing its tail to form a perfect O, very similar to the Millennium logo used by Chris Carter of X-Files fame, however I have added a pair of wings ot form the "r" that comes next. I have used this as crude logo already but I need to perfect it.
Oroboring:
My original argument still stands without rebuttal. The actual event the Watchtower is quoting is opposite of the way they construct it. Your declaring it much ado about nothing is your oppinion. It IS important to me and others - and it IS significant to us. If it really is nothing to you than you ought to focus on some other issue.
Here is WHY it is important. The introduction to a book is extremely important. A lot of thought and care ought to go into it. There are practically an unlimited number of ways you can do an introduction. The writers in this case chose a very flawed introduction. I have been a JW publisher for 54 years and I know what they are talking about.
Would it have been impossible for them to make their point AND represent the facts without contradiction? Certainly! Instead of saying "The question he chose to ask God, though, might surprise you. He did not ask about himself, his future, or even the plight of mankind. Rather, he asked God’s name." they could have just as easily said. ONE OF the questionS he chose to ask God, though, might surprise you. He did not JUST ask about himself, his future, or even the plight of mankind. Rather, he asked God’s name" Amazing! You can actually do this without making a very DUMB contradictory statement. And all of that by just adding 10 letters. Go ahead count them.
So where were the editors? Editors are supposed to avoid this kind of crappy writing. And here is where my opinion comes in. I think they’ve gotten real sloppy.
Thanks Oro. You have stretched this unimportant topic over the 1000 viewer bar.
WT treats the members like they are nothing but stupid mindless idiots who are uable to speak and think for themselves. That is the way they want the rank and file to be. As for the name of God, why do they believe his name should be used and he should be adressed by his name. Logically it is disrespecful. God is his title and i am more comfortable using it. Jus like any other respected person with a title, like judge, king, president, you wouldn't call them by thier first name would you.? You would no disrespect you parens calling hm by thier first name. We are taught to use the title out of respect.
Oroboring:
"Hopefully next time you will put a little more thought into your reasoning and spare yourself some embarassment."
The above quotation was Oro's admonishment to me.
The writers don't turn their brains on and think as they believe they are guided by holey spirt.
This leads to the sloppy research that results in their constant cockups, and apologists constantly having to bail them out with the silly kinds of logic we have seen on this thread.
My original reply to Prop was that he has misread and misunderstood the passage and is taking it too literally and then going off on how Moses at the account of the burning bush asked about himself so far as how it would grant him the authority to be the Israelite deliverer and what aid he would have etc.
What?? Just how literal has that reading been? Or, you mean the writer(s) of the book expect JWs to read more into their rendering and interpretation of events other than what was written in the book? Did you attend the meeting for this book study, Oroborus? If you did, what sort of comments did you hear in reply (by others) to the questions in the opening paragraphs? Which did the conductor say were correct? If you were the conductor, did you attempt to give your clear understanding of the meaning of what the Writer(s) supposedly meant?
Actually what the Society has done is compressed all of Moses' dealings with God and is focusing on just the one quesiton concerning the Divine Name only to make the point and to springboard into the discussion. The Society is not establishing some sort of account of the literal order of questions, or exchange and in fact is ignoring a lot that occurred, including many occurrences when Moses is definitely concerned about his own future and welfare. The Society is not being disingenuous in doing this since the pointof the chapter is not about Moses and Yahweh and they are not trying to relate all of those dealings in detail.
I disagree. The WT Society was in fact attempting to distill events in the account; this part of the book assumes an in-depth look at Moses' encounter with God, what Moses focussed (and didn't) on, and why that is important for us. If you woulnd't agree that the presentation was at best misleading (to anyone not reading with close-enough attention) would you submit that someone at Writing had done something like sloppy research and/or presentation?
