Posts by Fisherman

41

what are your thoughts on this quote from the elders book?

by aboveusonlysky in

'in order to extend mercy, the committee must be convinced that the wrongdoer has a changed heart condition and that he has a zeal to right the wrong and is absolutely determined to avoid it in the future.'.

shepherd the flock page 91. i remember this is one of the first things that concerned me as an elder because it seemed to sound like a person is guilty until proven innocent rather than 'love believes all things', especially given the word 'convinced' appears in bold.. then in a training video one elder said something like 'unless we are convinced of repentance the shepherd the flock book says we must disfellowship'.

that was the begining of the end for me as i thought surely true christians would reason the other way round and show mercy wherever possible.. any thoughts?.

Fisherman

Imagine a court of law where they chose judges from window cleaners and painters

and jurors too who decide guilt or innocence.

14

Appealing a DF decision

by HereIgo in

i always found it interesting that one could appeal a disfellowshipping....if jehovah doesn't make mistakes, then there wouldnt be a need to "appeal" anything to begin with right?.

Fisherman

mengano already pointed out that many cases of df are rejected by ac.

41

what are your thoughts on this quote from the elders book?

by aboveusonlysky in

'in order to extend mercy, the committee must be convinced that the wrongdoer has a changed heart condition and that he has a zeal to right the wrong and is absolutely determined to avoid it in the future.'.

shepherd the flock page 91. i remember this is one of the first things that concerned me as an elder because it seemed to sound like a person is guilty until proven innocent rather than 'love believes all things', especially given the word 'convinced' appears in bold.. then in a training video one elder said something like 'unless we are convinced of repentance the shepherd the flock book says we must disfellowship'.

that was the begining of the end for me as i thought surely true christians would reason the other way round and show mercy wherever possible.. any thoughts?.

Fisherman

Noting like personal opinions about what constitutes repentance. Only someone who has an simplistic knowledge of human behaviour could write let alone believe such judgemental nonsense. This is the very reason uneducated men should not be put in positions of assessment and judgement of fellow humans.

You may not like this but in the JW org, sins are defined by the Bible as interpreted by the wt. The WT(governing body) governs the JW. When a JW member commits a sin categorized by wt as serious, such sinner is subject to a JC. The JC, like it or not, has power and authority over JW members granted to them by the wt to adjudicate cases involving wrongdoing by jw members. It does not make any difference how you feel about that. In a criminal case, a jury is given power and authority to decide guilt or innocence based on guidelines -not your feelings about juror's qualifications. Since, elders cannot read hearts, they have no way of knowing if a person in fact meets the requirements of biblical repentance but they also have guidelines from wt that they must follow. A judicial decision of a JC is not the personal opinion of an individual, there are 3 or more elders adjudicating the case and an appeals provision that will rehear and review the case if the decision is challenged. It is axiomatic -you don't have to be an elder judging a case- that if a person commits a wrong and confesses right away, it is an indication that the person has a desire to right the wrong, simple, and that is what repentance is all about. Also, this post asks for an opinion and mine is a s good as yours.

41

what are your thoughts on this quote from the elders book?

by aboveusonlysky in

'in order to extend mercy, the committee must be convinced that the wrongdoer has a changed heart condition and that he has a zeal to right the wrong and is absolutely determined to avoid it in the future.'.

shepherd the flock page 91. i remember this is one of the first things that concerned me as an elder because it seemed to sound like a person is guilty until proven innocent rather than 'love believes all things', especially given the word 'convinced' appears in bold.. then in a training video one elder said something like 'unless we are convinced of repentance the shepherd the flock book says we must disfellowship'.

that was the begining of the end for me as i thought surely true christians would reason the other way round and show mercy wherever possible.. any thoughts?.

Fisherman

One of the old-style elders in our cong was Jerry Decker

L&JD were very nice people and I agree with your views about JD -very compassionate and caring. He was in BB for a while and came back to do temp work but the man's character and temperament was as you describe. Fluent speaker too. Think he was in writing back in the 70's

41

what are your thoughts on this quote from the elders book?

by aboveusonlysky in

'in order to extend mercy, the committee must be convinced that the wrongdoer has a changed heart condition and that he has a zeal to right the wrong and is absolutely determined to avoid it in the future.'.

shepherd the flock page 91. i remember this is one of the first things that concerned me as an elder because it seemed to sound like a person is guilty until proven innocent rather than 'love believes all things', especially given the word 'convinced' appears in bold.. then in a training video one elder said something like 'unless we are convinced of repentance the shepherd the flock book says we must disfellowship'.

that was the begining of the end for me as i thought surely true christians would reason the other way round and show mercy wherever possible.. any thoughts?.

Fisherman

'In order to extend mercy, the committee must be convinced that the wrongdoer has a changed heart condition and that he has a zeal to right the wrong and is absolutely determined to avoid it in the future.'

Merrcy only means not to df but discipline is still given in the form of an announcement, etc.

Each case has to be heard but what would convince me is if the person came forward right away and confessed (given that the motive for his confession was good). If the person practiced sin for a period of time, that has to be adjudicated considering if the person was snagged or confessed; and the motive for his confession has to be decided; also to be considered is sadly regret vs repentance because of hating the wrong done, applied to the case. But bottom line, the sinner receives some form of discipline once guilt is established.

13

New Dead Sea Scrolls revealed -never before seen Nehemiah - 586 BCE Destruction of Jerusalem

by RetiredLE in

25 new dead sea scrolls revealed including never before seen nehemiah - 586 b.c.e.

destruction of jerusalem... oops.... http://www.foxnews.com/science/2016/10/11/25-new-dead-sea-scrolls-revealed.html.

nehemiah.

Fisherman

(607 BCE) disagrees with the evidence-based date (586 BCE).

Great Post about the dead sea fragments! Appreciated.

It is a historical fact that Babylon fell (resulting in the freeing of Jewish captives) in October 539 BCE + 70 years Jewish captivity =609 BCE*

*609 -Gedaliah's rule - the time it took for the Jews to return to Jerusalem =607 BCE approximately.

Since it is given that the Bible is the infallible word of God, Bible extrapolated dates trump until proven different, which is not the case with 586 and other non 607 BCE dates.

19

Who has the authority to decern what the bible really teaches?

by TTWSYF in

so i ask because of all the books, mags and testimonies that the wts promotes.

not only the wts, but many other christians attempt to speak about the bible with authority.

how do we measure who is an authority if we don't know that much?.

Fisherman

I think my punt on scripture is as good as any of the Brooklyn seven.

And anyone is free to believe what they like (what the Bible teaches in this case). But if you want to know, you must ask the author or someone else authorized by the author -like him or not.

19

Who has the authority to decern what the bible really teaches?

by TTWSYF in

so i ask because of all the books, mags and testimonies that the wts promotes.

not only the wts, but many other christians attempt to speak about the bible with authority.

how do we measure who is an authority if we don't know that much?.

Fisherman

Anyone with reading skills can try to figure out for himself what the author of a book is saying. But, because of the "limits of language" -TD, if one really wants to know for sure, only the author knows exactly what he means and only the author can explain what he means. When it comes to legislation, Courts are authorized to interpret the law and to apply cases to the law because Courts (Judges, juries, etc.) are authorized to do so by the authors of such laws and by other authorities that govern and decide how written laws should be interpreted and by whom.

Given that the Bible is "God's Word," one can only know what the Bible teaches by asking God. Surely, if the Bible is in fact a book authored by God, it is logical that if He would want it understood, HE would somehow communicate with anyone that truly wanted to understand it. Any claim of authority to interpret the BIble must be verified by its author and only with such evidence could one really know and personally conclude who is authorized to interpret the Bible. The problem with conclusions is that when they are based upon false logic or erroneous thinking ;or the delusion of confusing evidence with a derivative from the evidence (something that cofty does a lot) such conclusions are not right. MY advice to you is not to trust the conclusions and assertions of others as truth. Investigate for yourself. IT ain't easy, but only you can detemine for yourself what is real or what is a sham.

37

Just curious - is apostasy grounds for divorce?

by LifesNotOver in

i know only adultery is supposed to be grounds for "scriptural" divorce.

i'm a wicked apostate in their eyes, but my believing husband and i still can't get a divorce that would allow him to remarry.

we currently are separated - i have left him.

Fisherman

Fisherman you talk as if the Watchtower has authority over people. --HB

WT has church authority over JW members. They do not have authority over non JW members. The way I talk has no effect on that.

37

Just curious - is apostasy grounds for divorce?

by LifesNotOver in

i know only adultery is supposed to be grounds for "scriptural" divorce.

i'm a wicked apostate in their eyes, but my believing husband and i still can't get a divorce that would allow him to remarry.

we currently are separated - i have left him.

Fisherman

...in other words, the only way for an innocent JW mate is allowed to remarry is if the guilty spouse committed porneia. An "apostate" is believed to put a spouse's spiritual health in danger and thus separation or divorce is not challenged by the congregation but for JW remarrying again (which is what divorce is all about) is only allowed when your spouse commits porneia. The guilty spouse is not allowed to remarry unless the innocent spouse remarries or commits porneia. But if an innocent spouse does not resume sex with guilty spouse after some time, say 60 days for instance, the JC may deem that the innocent spouse does not forgive and remarriage for the guilty spouse might be considerable by the JC, but it depends.