The topic was ment to be:
JW catches "smear pedo catholic priests"-bandwagon.
Atreyu
JoinedPosts by Atreyu
-
14
JW catches "smear pedo catholic priests&qu...
by Atreyu ini'm in need of advice:.
today a jw wrote an article in a norwegain newspaper about the pedofile catholic priests scandal in the us these days.
obviously, he enjoyed smearing them and argumented that the institution of celibacy was the root to the evil doings.. but, this jw is not personally very active - and he didn't mention anything jw-related in his article at all.
-
-
Atreyu
-
14
JW catches "smear pedo catholic priests&qu...
by Atreyu ini'm in need of advice:.
today a jw wrote an article in a norwegain newspaper about the pedofile catholic priests scandal in the us these days.
obviously, he enjoyed smearing them and argumented that the institution of celibacy was the root to the evil doings.. but, this jw is not personally very active - and he didn't mention anything jw-related in his article at all.
-
-
Atreyu
I'm in need of advice:
Today a JW wrote an article in a Norwegain newspaper about the pedofile catholic priests scandal in the US these days. Obviously, he enjoyed smearing them and argumented that the institution of celibacy was the root to the evil doings.
But, this JW is not personally very active - and he didn't mention anything JW-related in his article at all. His agenda is just to echo the critisism of christendom that originates from the WTS. Nothing more.
Should I write an article that addresses the prescence of pedofile scandals and cover-ups in other churces, including JW? Should I argue against his "celibacy is the root to the evil"-theory? (It must be wrong, at least not the whole truth, since child molestation is frequent even in non-celibacy churces.)
-
22
What is the most unBiblical teaching of the JWs?
by jerome init has been said that the jws hold to many beliefs that are unnsupported scripturally and inforce many 'unwritten' rules which they refer to as 'principles'.. i would like to start off the thread with what i think is the most important unbiblical teaching that they need to promote inorder to exist.. the watchtower teaches that "a prophet is able to make mistakes while he is speaking for god and still be considered as true.
mind you that these are not slips of the tounge but doctrines and predictions that have been promoted for years and have only been modified only after the watchtower had no choice but to change them.. this in my opinion is the most unscriptural teaching that the watchtower promotes.
if it werent for this teaching then the watchtower would most definately have to be marked as a false prophet!
-
-
Atreyu
1. That the whole salvation teaching of the New Testament is only for the 144,000. And that Christ is only a mediator for these.
2. That blood is more holy than life itself - even when blood is only a symbol of life. The concequence maybe sacrificing lives in order to respect the symbol of life. (How about respecting life itself?)
3. The shunning policy.
-
1
New light on Israel's role in Great Tribulation?
by Atreyu inrumours from norway says that there's a new understanding coming up:.
when the beast (un) is standing on holy ground (israel) the great tribulation will start.. this is only unconfirmed rumours right now, but has anyone heard this already?.
this is very actual now since un is discussing to send peace enforcement troops to israel/palestine - if not george w. sets his foot down in the un security council.
-
-
Atreyu
Rumours from Norway says that there's a new understanding coming up:
When The Beast (UN) is standing on Holy Ground (Israel) the Great Tribulation will start.
This is only unconfirmed rumours right now, but has anyone heard this already?
This is very actual now since UN is discussing to send peace enforcement troops to Israel/Palestine - if not George W. sets his foot down in the UN Security Council.
-
5
Do you believe in Hank?
by Atreyu inwho's hank, and why would i want to kiss his ass?".
me: "do you kiss hank's ass often?".
john: "well no, you don't actually get the money until you leave town.".
-
-
Atreyu
An imaginative story that rocks:
This morning there was a knock at my door. When I answered the door I found a well groomed, nicely dressed couple. The man spoke first:
"Hi! I'm John, and this is Mary."
Mary: "Hi! We're here to invite you to come kiss Hank's ass with us."
Me: "Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who's Hank, and why would I want to kiss his ass?"
John: "If you kiss Hank's ass, he'll give you a million dollars; and if you don't, he'll kick the shit out of you."
Me: "What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shake-down?"
John: "Hank is a billionaire philanthropist. Hank built this town. Hank owns this town. He can do what ever he wants, and what he wants is to give you a million dollars, but he can't until you kiss his ass."
Me: "That doesn't make any sense. Why..."
Mary: "Who are you to question Hank's gift? Don't you want a million
dollars? Isn't it worth a little kiss on the ass?"
Me: "Well maybe, if it's legit, but..."
John: "Then come kiss Hank's ass with us."
Me: "Do you kiss Hank's ass often?"
Mary: "Oh yes, all the time..."
Me: "And has he given you a million dollars?"
John: "Well no, you don't actually get the money until you leave town."
Me: "So why don't you just leave town now?"
Mary: "You can't leave until Hank tells you to, or you don't get the money, and he kicks the shit out of you."
Me: "Do you know anyone who kissed Hank's ass, left town, and got the
million dollars?"
John: "My mother kissed Hank's ass for years. She left town last year, and I'm sure she got the money."
Me: "Haven't you talked to her since then?"
John: "Of course not, Hank doesn't allow it."
Me: "So what makes you think he'll actually give you the money if you've never talked to anyone who got the money?"
Mary: "Well, he gives you a little bit before you leave. Maybe you'll get a raise, maybe you'll win a small lotto, maybe you'll just find a twenty dollar bill on the street."
Me: "What's that got to do with Hank?
John: "Hank has certain 'connections.'"
Me: "I'm sorry, but this sounds like some sort of bizarre con game."
John: "But it's a million dollars, can you really take the chance? And remember, if you don't kiss Hank's ass he'll kick the shit of you."
Me: "Maybe if I could see Hank, talk to him, get the details straight from him..."
Mary: "No one sees Hank, no one talks to Hank."
Me: "Then how do you kiss his ass?"
John: "Sometimes we just blow him a kiss, and think of his ass. Other times we kiss Karl's ass, and he passes it on."
Me: "Who's Karl?"
Mary: "A friend of ours. He's the one who taught us all about kissing Hank's ass. All we had to do was take him out to dinner a few times."
Me: "And you just took his word for it when he said there was a Hank, that Hank wanted you to kiss his ass, and that Hank would reward you?"
John: "Oh no! Karl's got a letter Hank sent him years ago explaining the whole thing. Here's a copy; see for yourself."
John handed me a photocopy of a handwritten memo on From the desk of Karl letterhead. There were eleven items listed:
1. Kiss Hank's ass and he'll give you a million dollars when
you leave town.
2. Use alcohol in moderation.
3. Kick the shit out of people who aren't like you.
4. Eat right.
5. Hank dictated this list himself.
6. The moon is made of green cheese.
7. Everything Hank says is right.
8. Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.
9. Don't drink.
10. Eat your wieners on buns, no condiments.
11. Kiss Hank's ass or he'll kick the shit out of you.
Me: "This would appear to be written on Karl's letterhead."
Mary: "Hank didn't have any paper."
Me: "I have a hunch that if we checked we'd find this is Karl's
handwriting."
John: "Of course, Hank dictated it."
Me: "I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?"
Mary: "Not now, but years ago he would talk to some people."
Me: "I thought you said he was a philanthropist. What sort of philanthropist kicks the shit out of people just because they're different?"
Mary: "It's what Hank wants, and Hank's always right."
Me: "How do you figure that?"
Mary: "Item 7 says 'Everything Hanks says is right.' That's good enough for me!"
Me: "Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up."
John: "No way! Item 5 says 'Hank dictated this list himself.' Besides, item 2 says 'Use alcohol in moderation,' Item 4 says 'Eat right,' and item 8 says 'Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.' Everyone knows those things are right, so the rest must be true, too."
Me: "But 9 says 'Don't Drink,' which doesn't quite go with item 2, and 6 says 'The moon is made of green cheese,' which is just plain wrong."
John: "There's no contradiction between 9 and 2, 9 just clarifies 2. As far as 6 goes, you've never been to the moon, so you can't say for sure."
Me: "Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made of rock..."
Mary: "But they don't know if the rock came from the Earth, or from out of space, so it could just as easily be green cheese."
Me: "I'm not really an expert, but I think the theory that the Moon came from the Earth has been discounted. Besides, not knowing where the rock came from doesn't make it cheese."
John: "Aha! You just admitted that scientists make mistakes, but we know Hank is always right!"
Me: "We do?"
Mary: "Of course we do, Item 5 says so."
Me: "You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than saying 'Hank's right because he says he's right.'"
John: "Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come around to Hank's way of thinking."
Me: "But...oh, never mind. What's the deal with wieners?"
Mary blushes. John says:"Wieners, in buns, no condiments. It's Hank's way. Anything else is wrong."
Me: "What if I don't have a bun?"
John: "No bun, no wiener. A wiener without a bun is wrong."
Me: "No relish? No Mustard?"
Mary looks positively stricken. John shouts:"There's no need for such language! Condiments of any kind are wrong!"
Me: "So a big pile of sauerkraut with some wieners chopped up in it would be out of the question?"
Mary sticks her fingers in her ears:"I am not listening to this. La la la, la la, la la la."
John: "That's disgusting. Only some sort of evil deviant would eat that..."
Me: "It's good! I eat it all the time."
Mary faints. John catches her:"Well, if I'd known you where one of those I wouldn't have wasted my time. When Hank kicks the shit out of you I'll be there, counting my money and laughing. I'll kiss Hank's ass for you, you bunless cut-wienered kraut-eater."
With this, John dragged Mary to their waiting car, and sped off. -
24
WT 4-01-02 article
by DB inin the april 1, 2002 issue of the watchtower, an article appears entitled "keep on serving jehovah with a steadfast heart".
paragraph 14 of this article states: "if jehovah's organization knowingly endorsed false teachings, advice to read the bible would never be given to jehovah's witnesses and those to whom they preach.".
i am withholding comment on this statement, because i'd like to hear from any who would like to post a response.
-
-
Atreyu
[q]If Jehovah's organization knowingly endorsed false teachings, advice to read the Bible would never be given to Jehovah's Witnesses and those to whom they preach.[/q]
This is purely retorics. Please remember that the JW teachings are not brand new and designed by the table the way salesmen or advertisers do when they plan a new scoop.
JW has a nearly 130 old tradition of encouraging to (independent) Bible study, so they cannot skip that. Every new teaching is an adjustment of previous teachings, and new teachings often come to light out of circumstantial needs. (Example: The earthly class teaching of 1935 came beacuse of 1) more JWs than 144,000 and 2) a want to simplify the previous many-classes-teaching mess.)
Every time the FDS come up with "new light" they have to consider these points in addition to the objective of the new teaching: 1) Continuity (in line with their own tradition), 2) Biblical foundation and 3) how to market it to the rank and file.
-
9
Disturbing trend in WT magazines...
by TheApostleAK inthis may be obvious to some but has anybody noticed the lack of doctrinal based watchtower study articles in wts for the last 2 years?.
lately we've been just getting either "pep talk" articles or articles that are only based on subjects.. the only new light lately is mainly the daniel and isaiah books.
and any new light in wt's is mainly just clarification (usually in the q's from readers page).. from ak
-
-
Atreyu
I've made the same observation. There's not much doctrinal substance to the articles these days. If they tuch doctrinal issues, only small justifications or corrections are made. But sometimes I wonder if such a small-justification-article is a preparation for a future major doctrinal change. One example is the "Question from readers" about the Great Crowd in w02-5/1. Are they about to revise the whole doctrine of heavenly and earthly classes? Is this because the Remnant (and thereby the Faithfull and Discreet Slave) is about to vanish? Or is it just tactical to stop some of the critics?
Also see my post on this:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=25723&site=3 -
5
The Great Crowd on the move
by Atreyu inthe watchtower 5/1-02 presents a new understanding regarding where the great crowd is rendering sacred service.
this is most interesting since it concerns a very central teaching of jw but the inconsistencies are still there!.
why was the great crowd placed in the court of gentiles?.
-
-
Atreyu
The Watchtower 5/1-02 presents a ”new understanding” regarding where the Great Crowd is rendering sacred service. This is most interesting since it concerns a very central teaching of JW – but the inconsistencies are still there!
Why was the ”Great Crowd” placed in The Court of Gentiles?
After Rutherford’s new teachings about the “Great Crowd” as an earthly class in 1935, WTS wanted to separate the Crowd clearly from the heavenly class of 144.000.
Since Jehovah is residing in heaven, the Crowd couldn’t literally be “standing before the throne” (Rev 7:9), so they had to be placed in the “earthly courtyards” – in line with an idea that Jehovah’s spiritual temple is heavenly, but its courtyards are earthly. But which courtyard, referring to the temple of the 1st century?
The Courtyard of the Priests was occupied by the anointed remnant, when still on earth. The Courtyard of Israel couldn’t be used either, since only the 144.00 were named “the spiritual Israelites”, and not the Crowd. And finally, the Courtyard of Women didn’t fit either, of obvious reasons. The only courtyard left was the Courtyard of Gentiles – and this made some sense since the Crowd was “spiritual gentiles or proselytes”.
Watchtower 8/15-1980 argues in detail for this conclusion. It is also interesting to look up the word “Temple” in “Insight on the Scriptures”. Here we can se a picture of a stone with a warning text the visitors to Herod’s temple would see if they tried to pass beyond the Court of Gentiles. The text made it clear that foreigners would be punished by death if they proceeded. Why does “Insight” make a point of this? Obviously to state that the Great Crowd shouldn’t even think about being among the anointed ones in the inner courtyards of the spiritual temple!
The critic - Naos
For many years, critics have argued against the teaching that the Great Crowd is placed in the Court of Gentiles. A central point was the meaning of the greek word ‘naos’.
Watchtower 8/15-1980 argues that ‘naos’, which is crucial in Rev 7:9,10,15, describes the whole temple complex. It can easily be demonstrated that this is not true, but that ‘naos’ refers only to the central sacred build or area of the temple complex. And since the Watchtower 5/1-02 admits this, there is not much point in discussing this any further.
The new understanding
Now, the Great Crowd is admitted closer to the sanctuary, the spiritual temple. How close? They don’t tell exactly. The Watchtower 5/1-02 states that the Crowd can (still) not be in the inner (priestly) courtyard, since this is reserved for the anointed remnant. Still, the Watchtower says that the Crowd “is really in the temple” and not in “a spiritual courtyard of gentiles”. So, where are they? The article indicates that we should not think too much about the temple build by Herod, but rather the temple of Solomon or Serubbabel, or even the temple of Ezekiel’s vision. So, the only reasonable conclusion must be that the Crowd now officially is placed in the more unspecified outer courtyard (for Israelites) of the temple.
The critic – again
This is odd. First, the Watchtower admits that ‘naos’ refers to the central sanctuary, and it admits that ‘naos’ is the actual word used when the Great Crowd is described in Rev 7:9.10,15. Then it argues that the priestly inner courtyard is occupied by the remnant when still on earth. And finally it states that the Crowd is “really in the temple”.
It appears to me that the writer wanted to come at ease with the critics and correct the obvious inconsistencies in placing the Crowd in the Courtyard of Gentiles, but he hasn’t been able to make a crisp clear new understanding that can stand the critic.
Think about this: Rev 7:9,10,15 describes the Great Crowd as “rendering him sacred service day and night in his temple”. The greek word for “rendering sacred service” is ‘latreuo’. This verb is always related to priestly activities. And priestly activites were of course performed inside the temple sanctuary and in the priestly courtyard. Another greek verb, ‘proskuneo’, is used to describe religious activities performed by laymen, other Israelites, outside the priestly courtyard or at any other place. ‘Proskuneo’ can best be translated as “to worship”.
So, it is a perversion of the whole idea of “sacred service” when the Watchtower says that the Great Crowd is “rendering sacred service” outside the temple sanctuary and even outside the priestly courtyard. Sacred service is an activity rendered in a sacred place! “… they are before the throne of God; and they are rendering him sacred service day and night in his temple.” (Rev 7:15) Can it be any clearer?
The Watchtower has for many years related the visions of John to the temple of Jesus, namely the temple built by Herod. As the Watchtower 5/1-02 describes, only this temple had a courtyard for gentiles. In order to make us forget the unholy idea of a Great Crowd rendering sacred service in a courtyard open to any unclean person, they want us to rather place this vision in earlier temples.
But then a new problem arises: Rev 11:1,2 shows clearly that a temple with a gentile courtyard was the temple of John’s visions. The Watchtower tries to blur this by focusing on previous temples. (These verses also demonstrate clearly that the Court of Gentiles was both outside ‘naos’ and also a most unholy place. The NWT tries to cover this up by translating the greek word for gentiles as “nations”, but check other translations.)
Finally, a few small teasers
1. Compare Rev 7:9,10 to Rev 19:1 and ask yourself
where the Great Crowd really is, inside or outside
the temple sanctuary, in heaven or on earth?
2. Read Rev chapters 7, 21 and 22 and think about
where the temple of the vision really is, heaven
or earth? -
4
Memorial Supper - A child's perspective
by Atreyu inat the memorial supper, i took along my little daughter, nearly 6. she's not familiar with kingdom halls and what's going on there.
to make her comfortable, i let her bring a favourite "teddy bear", actuallay a cow.. she found it very peculiar that the bread and wine was passed from hand to hand without anyone eating or drinking.
she asked a lot and i tried to explain.
-
-
Atreyu
At the Memorial Supper, I took along my little daughter, nearly 6. She's not familiar with Kingdom Halls and what's going on there. To make her comfortable, I let her bring a favourite "teddy bear", actuallay a cow.
She found it very peculiar that the bread and wine was passed from hand to hand without anyone eating or drinking. She asked a lot and I tried to explain.
- What are they going to pass around now?, she asked.
- Nothing, I replied.
- Nothing? Really?
- No, nothing.
- How about passing around this cow?, she suggested, referring to her teddy.At least three of us hearing her broke into laughter when we were supposed to be very quit.
-
84
Is homosexuality wrong?
by forgetmenot ini know that the dub's view is that it is totally wrong.
i live in an area where the majority of people think it is wrong.
i don't think it is wrong (but i am not a homosexual).
-
-
Atreyu
Is lefthandedness wrong?
This not a jest. Being lefthanded is a major problem in some muslim countries. According to muslim tradition, they consider the right hand as "pure" and the left hand as "unclean". As a consequence they use their right hand only when eating. The left hand is used for personal affairs when visiting the bathroom. If you, as a guest in such a country, accidentaly use your left hand when eating together with other people, this is as rude as picking one's nose or farting in the same situation.
My point is: Lefthanded people did not chose to be the way they are, but they can decide to supress their tendency to use their left hand in certain situations. But it is not natural for them and it will give them a handicap. The source to this problem is not themselves, but the expectations of others.