There must be an "organization" (page 3)

Pole

Ask them to show you the word "organization" in the bible. That might be fun. The article they published in the "Questions from Readers" from this Watchtower: *** w81 5/1 pp. 30-31 *** is the most fallacious example of pseudo-linguistic reasoning I have ever seen in my life.

Pole

sir82

can you give me a reference? I want one of these

I post from work (naughty!) so don't have any reference works here.

There are actually several "don't harm the anointed of Jehovah" passages in 1 or 2 Samuel. It was emphasized quite a bit every time the weekly Bible reading touched on one of those passages.

Check_Your_Premises

I think witness often confuse the subject of "organized" or "order" with human concepts of these words. For instance a forest might look highly random in it's placement of trees. On the other hand, the trees are placed according to very hard and certain rules that decide where a tree can receive enough water, light, and nutrients to survive. Or what of clouds?

The point is that what looks like disorder to a limited human mind, is actually perfectly ordered to a omnipotent being.

Complexity does not equal disorder.

Their textbook example of organized is their preaching work. Everyone walking around, knocking on doors, saying the same thing appears to be ordered. But is it adequate? Is it sufficiently complex? Does it handle the case of the 12 year old girl who has been sold into sexual slavery in the slums of Mumbai. That girl does not need a friggin pamphlet and a study. She needs someone to get her the hell out of there before she is going to be able to take stories of hope and forgiveness seriously. Christ often addressed the physical needs of people without EVER mentioning the spiritual needs. See Matthew 8. There are folks doing that sort of work. They are not witnesses.

So you see a complex job like spreading the word does not require a distant, spiritual politburo to direct all those mindless drones as to how to conduct such an endeavor. Rather it is a grass roots effort that requires the local knowledge, freedom, and perfect guidance that can only come from an all knowing Holy Spirit.

The wt efforts look silly in comparison.

Confession

Old Hippie, thanks for your comment. I'm certain you're right about the JW response to my post. If and when one of them were to use that with me, I would ask them to read all of the surrounding verses. It is clear that Jesus' words contain principles that were meant to endure.

-Do JWs believe Jesus' words about the greatest being the most humble were only meaningful for a short time?

-Do they believe what it says about "stumbling" only had application to this limited time window?

-Do they suggest that the next scripture stating, "...if your eye makes you stumble, throw it away; it is finer for you to enter one-eyed into the kingdom of God than with two eyes to be pitched into Ge·hen´na..."--would not be applicable after the "official" Christian congregation was established?

They definitely teach all of those principles as being correct and important for our day--EXCEPT the one that states, "He that is not against us is for us." Further, what about the very next scripture that states...

40 "...for he that is not against us is for us. 41 For whoever gives YOU a cup of water to drink on the ground that YOU belong to Christ, I truly tell YOU , he will by no means lose his reward..."

Did this principle (spoken in the very next breath) only have application to that brief time period? If so, Jesus was saying that anyone who did an act of kindness on the ground that someone belonged to the Christ would by no means lose his reward--BUT after a couple of years when (supposedly) that congregation was officially established, this principle would become null and void.

funkyderek

Celia:

Yes, absolutely ! But won't they say that Christianity went wayward after the first century, and Charles T. Russel rediscovered true worship ???

Yes. But they also simultaneously believe that there has always been a "Faithful and Discreet Slave" class. Ask them who it was immediately before Russell. Then ask them why Russell didn't stick with this slave class instead of starting his own (apostate) religion.

cyberguy

You have to realize that the Society’s use of the expression "Organization," means much more than merely being organized! They of course, discredit "defamers" that say, "there is no need for an Organization or to be organized!" (their words!) However, this is a very deceptive ploy to dismiss/deflate logical argumentation and logical thought.

Their use of the expression "Organization" means much more than merely being organized! Rutherford began the expression I believe, because he needed some way to explain why the leaders of a publishing company needed to be in charge! If the Biblical expression "Congregation" was sufficient, then why this extraneous expression? My 2-cents!

Dansk

Russell himself was against organised religion and yet he was considered the faithful and discreet slave. Were he around today he'd be disfellowshipped. I only wish the internet had been around a lot sooner. I could have saved myself a million pains.

Alas, one must look forward not back. Organised religion is exactly that, organised by men. We've all had a taste of what that means.

Ian

There must be an "organization"