Dozy said,
I suppose if you have a few old(ish) men without any business experience trying to run a large organisation you are going to have problems.
I thought for a second there he was changing this subject to a discussion about John McCain.
zugzwang
JoinedPosts by zugzwang
-
14
Proof the GB don't know what the hell they are doing
by slimboyfat inanother poster (dozy) mentioned this briefly on another thread, but i don't think anyone picked up on it and it deserves its own thread i think.
you know how there was a special announcement a few weeks ago saying that book study groups are stopping from january 2009?
well take a look at these comments in the new book ("keep yourselves in god's love") released at this year's conventions, under the heading "be obedient to those who are taking the lead" on page 48:.
-
-
zugzwang
-
16
What The Future Holds- Gerrit Losch
by betweenworlds inhttp://www.sendspace.com/file/6zn7bf.
bw.
-
-
zugzwang
Did you notice how the person introducing him kept calling him brother "Lush"? I thought that was hilarious.
-
17
McLellan book & the GOP reaction...chance to wake up JWs?
by sir82 indon't want this thread to turn political, but.... have you noticed that just about every administration response to scott mclellan's new book attacks the messenger?
"he's disgruntled"..."it's not like him"..."we're disappointed he chose to do this"....etc.
not one word (that i have seen or heard) disputing the actual contents of the book.. sound familiar?
-
-
zugzwang
So much for this thread not turning political.
It is ironic that, just like the mind of a Witness completely closes when you say something that is damaging to his world view, the mind of a conservative (or a liberal, or any other political persuasion) will also completely close when presented with facts that contradict one's view of the world. I think most of us see the parallel between the response of the Bush administration to McClellen's book and the way the Watchtower responds to attacks. Yet, Carlos_Helms felt the need to defend the Bush administration. I find that fascinating. It is similar to how liberals defended Clinton throughout the Lewinski affair. Their world view was that Clinton was a savior and could do no wrong. Even though the evidence was abundant that Clinton was not the greatest thing since sliced bread. Similarly, some defend Bush regardless of how obvious his failings are to most of us. As a former Witness who used to defend the Watchtower Society I try to be very careful not to fall into the trap of accepting one world view and believing that all others are wrong. I can see problems with both a liberal and a conservative world view. I don't think one philosophy works in all situations.
I'm sure that both of you, Carlos and Gopher, are very intelligent individuals. But I think sometimes each of you, and myself, and really all of us, we fall back into that trap of defending a world view that we believe to be the truth and we become completely blind to reality (or the possibility that there is another way to look at reality). The fact is the Bush administration did attack the messenger. Which isn't surprising. Every administration gets defensive about their record and tries their best to shape the way history will record their time in office. Defending the administration or questioning the motives of the messenger doesn't change the facts. And that applies whether it is a Republican in office or a Democrat.
Sir82, good topic, I have observed how similar the Bush administration is to the Watchtower Society for quite some time. This is the first administration that has been in office since I started really paying attention to politics. I was still a Witness during the Clinton administration. So I didn't pay that close attention to how he behaved in office. (As a Witness I pretty much assumed that Clinton, like all politicians, was evil.) So it will be interesting for me to observe the next president to see whether the next administration is like the Bush administration and also like the Watchtower Society in the way they try to control the flow of information and how they try to quash dissent and demonize anyone who disagrees with them and how they try to create an "us versus them" mentality. I hope that won't be the case. Otherwise I may have to write off politics as well.
zugz
-
35
Keep Yourselves In God's Love: Why Birthdays are from the Devil
by truthseeker inyes folks, if you thought the watchtower would lighten up on birthdays think again.... .
.
-
-
zugzwang
"Therefore, let no one judge you because of what you eat or drink or about the observance of annual holy days, New Moon Festivals, or weekly worship days." (Colossians 2:16 God's Word Translation)
Don't you love it when the Watchtower Society directly contradicts the Bible?
Sorry Watchtower, but God says you can't judge me "about the observance of annual holy days."
So as usual, when I have to choose between listening to the Watchtower Society or listening to the Bible, I think I'll choose the Bible.
-
16
I had a chance to mention to my mom that I heard the bookstudy was no more
by sosad inand she told me that was absolutly not the case.
she laughed and said that would never happen - that they needed it and that where ever i had gotten my infomation from was absolutly wrong and that i could tell them so.
she then told me that the public talk had been shortened - and i said that i had heard that it was 15 minutes shorter - the fact that i knew that kinda threw her.. but the book study would never go.
-
-
zugzwang
Sadly, I think my mom has no idea. I think she really believes it is the truth. If she is anything like me, (and she is, she's my mom after all) if she ever entertained the idea in her head that the Society wasn't "the truth" and then found some evidence that reinforced that idea, I think she would have a nervous breakdown, just like I did when the cognitive dissonance first started fading away. But I don't think she has ever even considered the possibility. For her it isn't even an option.
-
16
I had a chance to mention to my mom that I heard the bookstudy was no more
by sosad inand she told me that was absolutly not the case.
she laughed and said that would never happen - that they needed it and that where ever i had gotten my infomation from was absolutly wrong and that i could tell them so.
she then told me that the public talk had been shortened - and i said that i had heard that it was 15 minutes shorter - the fact that i knew that kinda threw her.. but the book study would never go.
-
-
zugzwang
I also mentioned this to my mom today as well. (So it had better be true or else all of us "apostates" are gonna look like we don't know what we are talking about.) She asked me how I could know this before it was announced. I told her that we "apostates" know more about what the organization is doing than most Witnesses do. I also said that there will be more major changes coming up in the future. Almost immediately she went into lockdown mode. She said she didn't want to know anything more and started in on the "the end is so close, you need to come back. . . " I really don't try anymore to reach her with the truth about "the truth." She's been in since she was 18 and is now in here late 60's. And her husband, my father, died as a result of the blood ban, so in her mind there is no way the "truth" can't be true. Makes me sad. Although, she refuses to stop speaking to her children. My sister has been disfellowshipped for years and she still speaks with her. I'm not yet df'd nor da'd but it's only a matter of time. So maybe there is hope for her someday. zugz
-
65
Feb 15th Watchtower Study Edition - NEW LIGHT - Article in PDF
by AlphaOmega inthe generation seeing the sign .
' previously, this journal has explained that in the first century, "this generation" mentioned at matthew 24:34 meant "the contemporaneous generation of unbelieving jews.
not the whole magazine, but this is the new light article.. .
-
-
zugzwang
Actually, the new understanding is even more ridiculous than some have suggested. Paragraph 11 of the article states: "the apostles would no doubt have understood that they and their fellow disciples were to be part of the 'generation' that would not pass away 'until all these things [would] occur.'"
So the Society is saying that ALL of the "anointed" are the "generation" that Jesus was talking about. Starting basically from Pentecost till Armageddon. In other words the Society is saying that Jesus was referring to the entire Christian church as the "generation" that would not pass away. Which begs the question, why didn't Jesus simply say that his followers would not pass away or that his church or his bride would not pass away? The new understanding makes no sense at all if that is who they say Jesus is referring to here.
-
10
Is the NEW LIGHT an apostate teaching until Feb 2008?
by outofthebox indear wt,.
i am confused.
i received a feb15, 2008 wt magazine (don't ask how).
-
-
zugzwang
Reverend Warhawk wrote:
How long did the last generation meaning last? I think that made a new world record for the shortest-lasting Bible interpretation ever!
Not quite a world record, consider the following:
"In the parable, the 'man' that sowed the mustard grain pictures the 'wicked one', Satan the Devil."- 1975, Man's Salvation out of World Distress at Hand p. 208
"Jesus Christ
, with his prophetic foresight, could foreknow the outcome for the symbolic mustard grain that he planted in the first century."- WT October 1, 1975 p. 600Here is another one:
"While both homo
sexuality and bestiality are disgusting perversions, in the case of neither one is the marriage tie broken. It is broken only by acts that make an individual 'one flesh' with a person of the opposite sex other than his or her legal marriage mate." (WT January 1, 1972 p. 32)This teaching was reversed in the December 15, 1972 Watchtower.
-
65
Feb 15th Watchtower Study Edition - NEW LIGHT - Article in PDF
by AlphaOmega inthe generation seeing the sign .
' previously, this journal has explained that in the first century, "this generation" mentioned at matthew 24:34 meant "the contemporaneous generation of unbelieving jews.
not the whole magazine, but this is the new light article.. .
-
-
zugzwang
Okay, this doesn't make sense.
So the new teaching is that "this generation" refers to the "anointed" as a group. From the first apostles clear down to those who profess to be "anointed" today. If that is the case why didn't Jesus simply say, " Truly I say to YOU that m y church (or "my people", or "my bride", or "my followers") will by no means pass away until all these things occur. "
Wouldn't that make more sense. Why not just say, "You, followers of mine, will by no means pass away until all these things occur."
I mean seriously, each interpretation gets more rediculous than the one before.
The generation that Jesus was talking about is obvious, just read the context. In verses 37 thru 39 Jesus describes the "generation" as being just like the people in Noah's day-
" For just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be. For as they were in those days before the flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark; and they took no note until the flood came and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be."
That is the "generation" that Jesus was referring to, in my opinion. That is why the 1995 interpretation was at least plausible. (Although the reason for the 1995 change had to do with 1914 + 80 = 1994, thus the even older interpretation had failed and thus they had to roll out the "new light".) When I say plausible I mean that, that interpretation recognized the "generation" as being individuals that could be described as behaving like those mentioned in verses 37 thru 39. People just living their lives, wrapped up in their own little worlds, paying no attention to what is going on in the world around them. That sounds like the world today. So, while the reasons for adopting that 1995 interpretation were not presented honestly by the WTS at least, contextually speaking, that interpretation fit.
But this new interpretation just completely ignores the context. Not only does it ignore the context but it calls upon the reader to accept the notion that Jesus was saying that "this generation" would span a period of time that is coming up on 2,000 years of human history. Completely ridiculous!
-
18
Illegal Immigration is not a Crime!
by sammielee24 inaccording to rudy .....so now i'm confused.
i thought it was a federal issue.... "it's not a crime," giuliani said friday.
"i know that's very hard for people to understand, but it's not a federal crime.".
-
-
zugzwang
The whole issue of "illegal immigration" is ridiculous. We refer to these individuals as "illegal immigrants." Why? Because we, who were here before them, don't want them taking over everything. Kind of like the way the Native Americans didn't want the newcomers taking over everything hundreds of years ago. Did Christopher Columbus and his crew have the "legal" right to come here? Who determines who has the "legal" right to be here? People don't like change, never have, never will. But the notion that the "illegal immigrants" are doing some unheard of thing by entering territory that doesn't "belong" to them, is completely ridiculous. Since the beginning of time people have migrated from one place to another. It happens all the time. It's only because we American's are so arrogant that we think it is such a big deal that these "illegals" dare to defy the almighty U.S.