Comments You Will Not Hear at the 3-20-05 WT Study (complete article) (page 5)

stillajwexelder

I attended and it was not too bad - the WTSC speeded up due to the announcement letter and release of the New Organized to do Jehovahs Will book

Great commentary Blondie. I especially found interesting the direct link in the hidden but obvious meaning of Jehovah and the fds\wts. The true implication of the word "Jehovah", which to a JW is as you stated the fds\wts, and the added spin on speculation becomes incredibly apparent. Its mind boggling to me how all thoese years I swallowed these articles without picking up on the parallelism they create with themselves and God, and how much is pure speculation rather then factual. Thanks Blondie.

Ticker

Room 215

Nice work, Blondie -- (you too, Alan F) ... With these two of the lamest rationalizations I've ever seen from them, the WTBTS really outdid itself. Re the Ark: how was it that the Philistines that captured the ark (1 Sam. 3) survived the experience?

Mind-numbingly stupid.

jgnat

Honesty:

Blondie, you have evidently (dubtalk) acheived a pinnacle in your career as the ultimate WT study article reviewer.

I would agree, except I think there are greater heights yet to be reached. Blondie makes study fun. Who woulda thunkit?

AlanF and Blondie:

Our assembly speaker honored your contributions in their opening talk this last weekend. ?Intellectuals? along with ?Strangers? were soundly dismissed. Only Jehovah?s motives (our life-giver) are pure when dishing out bible advice. According to the speaker, you are obviously in it for the money, you keep people in the dark, because strangers ?love the darkness?.

How can they say that with a straight face while firmly instructing their followers to listen only to them? Who is throwing wide the curtains and letting the light in? It ain't them.

AnnOMaly

Confusedjw

The *real* message - DON'T QUESTION GOD / DON'T QUESTION US.

I was thinking the same!

tijkmo

And all the reasoning goes out the window when you compare the genesis account with...judges 19 :22 -

I raised that with one of the elders - especially about v.24 where the host's intent was clear: it was better that his virgin daughter and his guest's concubine were raped than the guest. In this case, the mob - not pagans, btw, but Benjaminites under the Law Covenant - took the concubine and abused her to death. So Lot's intentions in offering his daughters to the mob could very well have been the same (instead of the sugar-coated alternatives - I didn't say that last part to him). The elder made some vague remarks and changed the subject.

Pistoff

Great review blondie; rarely is the WT as dangerous to a person's mental health as this piece of offal.

Where to begin? Defending a man who offers his virgin daughters to a mob, instead of telling them to piss off? Rationalizing on his behalf behavior in a way that any JC would immediately pounce on and punish as unrepentant? MOST OF ALL, trying to defend the indefensible: stupid, cowardly behavior.

The need for this article is simple: DON'T YOU DARE QUESTION THE SOCIETY. Period. If Lot could offer his daughters to a raping mob and not be in the wrong, then the GB can certainly justify criminal sex abuse policy.

In the WT world, all in the Bible must be harmonious and pious; never are we allowed to say that Lot was WRONG, that subsequent bible writers saw him as righteous because they also were culturally biased; we can't say that David was certainly a pig who merited death under the Law and would have died, if not for being a popular king. [Find some other lineage for Jesus; why throw this loser in the mix??] Why is David's misbehavior better than Ananias and Sapphira?? Or Uzzah?

The reality is that the Bible is a record of people who were searching for God, and were mistaken in a great many things; it can actually enrich the discussion to acknowledge this, but of course then the magical ability of the GB to interpret the Bible simply goes away.

This article, and the sunday meeting I attended where it was discussed, was sick, and sickening. All in attendance came away from it more mentally dysfunctional than when they walked in.

PS: I went to lunch after the meeting; someone brought up the Sodomites, and I asked if they would be resurrected; he said NO, that since it was a judgement period, they were goners. Hehe.........I thought of the Quotes page showing the flip flops on it. Too funny; he was so definite about it too!!

heathen

that's riddiculous, pistoff , the bible clearly says there will be a resurrection for the righteous and the unrighteous . That being said the righteous get life but the unrighteous get eternal damnation . Who are we to say , jesus said it would go better for the city of sodom and gomorah than for the city of jerusalem on judgement day . Jesus also said that there was only one unforgivable sin during his rulership and that was speaking against the spirit . Many believe you must first have spirit to actually speak against it .

Pistoff

Heathen: I have no opinion on whether the Sodomites get a 2nd chance; I just laugh at the ridiculous attempts by the WT at "knowing" their future chances, LOL!

itsallgoodnow

Confusedjw

The *real* message - DON'T QUESTION GOD / DON'T QUESTION US.

Yeah, I thought so, too.

I was thinking I can't wait until today to see this stuff ripped to shreds out here... what struck me as odd was they go in-depth on Lot, but they fail to mention the getting-the-daughters-prego incident (Lot was determined to get those girls laid!), and correct me if I'm wrong, but, didn't the angry mob rape and kill the slave girl Lot sent out? They didn't mention that either. So how does that jive with the "the homosexual men wouldn't be interested in girls" explanation?

I couldn't help but think they carefully selected these "questions" to have the opportunity to make their real point, DON'T QUESTION US. Of course, nobody sees it. It just makes me sad.

itsallgoodnow

The article argued that God: "holds to his righteous standards even at great personal cost. Consider an example. In giving his Son as a ransom for delivering obedient mankind from sin and death, Jehovah satisfied his just and righteous standards. (Romans 5:18,19) Yet, seeing his beloved Son suffer and die on a torture stake must have caused Jehovah the greatest possible pain. What does this tell us about God?"

What I don't understand about the "ransom" is, what did God really lose? He supposedly resurrected him right back to where he was before. He lost nothing. It. Makes. No. Sense.

Comments You Will Not Hear at the 3-20-05 WT Study (complete article)

Share this