Posts by Terry

67

How do you feel about religion as a whole?

by FatherFirst in

it just seems to me religion in general primarily makes truly bad people worse, not genuinly good people better; and in many cases has even made good people do bad things in the name of their religion.

just curious, a personal poll if you will.

what are you guys' current views on religion as a whole?

Terry

A rabbit's foot is a lot less problematic and just as effective.

145

Why attack?

by newqatarjob in

as someone brought up as a jw and been an elder and been disfellowshipped (twice!!!

) i find it difficult to understand why ex jws have to attack the religion, yes religion, not cult or sect.

i am no longer disfellowshipped just do not want to practice anymore.

Terry

Don't read the 'attack' posts.

Read the informative and upbeat, friendly posts.

There! All fixed!

Discussion groups are a microcosm of the world at large.

Life is what you make of it.

Choose your pathway carefully and you won't wander into bad smells, yapping beasts, or quicksand. :)

6

TESTING Watchtower claims of "progressive truth" against actual history

by Terry in

proving watchtower malfeasance.

to catch the governing body in a big, fat lie, we must compare the excuse given for changing previous teachings against actual watchtower history and publications.

are changes in doctrine progressive by adding to understandingorare they regressive, merely repeating exactly what was previously taught?.

Terry

Catching the GB in the crosshairs of outright misrepresentation is gratifying. How can they wriggle about like that and hope to escape the consequences of their deliberate fraud?

Two popular tries:

1. Claim to be imperfect men who make mistakes.

2. Claim apostates lie about the past

This is refuted by:

1: Ask HOW those 'mistakes' were made. Clearly, Jehovah is channeling factual understanding or they are distorting the source of their errors. If something is 'true'--why change it? Why is New Light changed back to Old Light?

2. Point out it is the Watchtower's own publications which demonstrate the misrepresentation. Truth does not contradict itself.

6

TESTING Watchtower claims of "progressive truth" against actual history

by Terry in

proving watchtower malfeasance.

to catch the governing body in a big, fat lie, we must compare the excuse given for changing previous teachings against actual watchtower history and publications.

are changes in doctrine progressive by adding to understandingorare they regressive, merely repeating exactly what was previously taught?.

Terry

PROVING WATCHTOWER MALFEASANCE

To catch the Governing Body in a big, fat lie, we must compare the excuse given for changing previous teachings against actual Watchtower history and publications. Are changes in doctrine “progressive” by adding to understanding—or—are they regressive, merely repeating exactly what was previously taught?

Romans 13:1, 2 and what it means is our central focus.

Just in case this is not clear, let’s review.

Why? Because we must understand three things before we can honestly accuse the governing body of lying, duplicity, and altering history to escape the charge of False Prophet.

1. Charles Russell, in both his Studies in the Scriptures (normative doctrine for Bible Students movement) and Watchtower publications, taught the meaning of Romans 13:1, 2 as relative subjection of Christians to worldly governments.

2. J.F. Rutherford, (Watchtower President) reinterpreted ‘worldly governments’ identity to that of Jehovah and Jesus rather than secular powers. The obligation to obey world leaders disappeared. Even relative subjection ceased to be a command of God from 1929 forward.

3. Nathan H. Knorr (Watchtower President) changed BACK AGAIN to view #1, pretending (and dissembling) progressive Light motivated the reversal.

Romans 13:1 King James Version (KJV)

13 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

QUESTION: Is it true that Russell taught ‘unqualified obedience’ to secular governments?

LET’S READ WHAT PASTOR RUSSELL TAUGHT:

In The Watch Tower, July 15, 1916, three months before he died, Charles T. Russell wrote the following in the article, "Militarism and Conscience":

“While Christians are enjoined to be subject to the "Powers that be"—the kings, governors, magistrates, etc. - nevertheless this is not to be understood as meaning the renouncement of our fidelity to the King of kings and Lord of lords. He is our Over-Lord. Our allegiance to earthly lords and powers and their commands is merely to the extent that they do not conflict with the commands of our Over-Lord. The Jews in renouncing Jesus cried, "We have no king but Caesar"! The Christian's position is, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's but unto God the things that are God's." Whenever Caesar and his laws conflict with the divine requirements, all true soldiers of the cross are left no alternative.”

QUESTION: Did the Watchtower later lie about this?

The Watchtower, November 1, 1972. p. 644 sought to argue a reasonable explanation for the change in teaching in 1929 from what Russell taught.

Romans 13:1 had been construed to mean that the governments of the world must be given unqualified obedience, the witnesses interpreted the "higher powers" or "superior authorities" there mentioned as applying to earthly government. (Rutherford changed this to Jehovah God and Christ Jesus.) However, a closer examination of the context revealed that Romans 13:1,2 does indeed refer to political governments of this world But by comparing this scripture with others, such as Acts 5:29, which states, "We must obey God as ruler rather than men," it was seen that the "subjection" mentioned at Romans 13:1 must be a relative subjection, not an unqualified one. That is, Christians are to be in subjection to the governments of this world so long as these do not ask Christians to go contrary to God's laws.

WHAT CHANGED IN 1929?

"The Higher Powers," The Watch Tower, June 1, 1929, pp. 163-69 end "The Higher Powers" (Part 2), The Watch Tower, June 15, 1929, pp. 179-85.

The official historic interpretation of Romans 13: 1-2 was destroyed by the President of the Watchtower, J.F. Rutherford. Rutherford reversed the historic teaching. Who were superior authorities? Jehovah and Jesus, NOT secular governments.

Another attempt at explanation for changing in 1929 and yet—BACK to Russell's previous interpretation appeared in December 1, 1981 issue of the Watchtower.

“Happily, in the year 1962, Jehovah led his people to an understanding of the principle of relative subjection. It was seen that dedicated Christians must obey secular rulers as the "superior authorities," gladly recognizing these as "god's ministers," or servant for their good. ((Rom. 13:4) However, if these "authorities" ask them to violate God's laws, what then? Up to that point Christians have obeyed the command at Romans 13:1: "Let every soul be in subjection to the superior authorities." But this is qualified by Jesus' words, as recorded at Matthew 22:21: "Pay back, therefore, Caesar's things to Caesar, but God's things to God." So whenever "Caesar" asks Christians to do things contrary to God's will, they must place Jehovah's law ahead of "Caesar's."

Does the following sound like unqualified obedience?

In SCRIPTURE STUDIES, Vol VI., we have set forth a suggestion that the followers of Christ seek every proper means to avoid participation in war. We there suggested the possibility, but that in the event of conscription the Lord's followers should use all their influence toward obtaining positions in the Hospital Corps or in the Provision Department of the army, rather than in actual warfare. We suggested further that if it were impossible to avoid going into the trenches, it would still not be necessary to violate the divine requirement, "Thou shalt do no murder."

We have been wondering since, if the course we have suggested is the best one. We wonder if such a course would not mean compromise. We reflect that to become a member of the army and to put on a military uniform implies the duties and obligations of a soldier as recognized and accepted. A protest made to an officer would be insignificant - the public in general would not know of it. Would not the Christian be really out of his place under such conditions?

"But," someone replies, "If one were to refuse the uniform and the military service he would be shot."
We reply that if the presentation were properly made there might be some sort of exoneration; but if not, would it be any worse to be shot because of loyalty to the Prince of Peace and refusal to disobey his order than to be shot while under the banner of these earthly kings and apparently giving them support and, in appearance at least, compromising the teachings of our heavenly King? Of the two deaths we would prefer the former - prefer to die because of faithfulness to our heavenly King.

The Watch Tower 1915, reprints p. 5755

____________________

The understanding of Bible Students guided by Pastor Russell was quite adequate and needed no change. The real reasons for the un-called-for change in 1929 have never been explained by the Society.

By trying to turn lemons into lemonade, the Watchtower leaders have misrepresented their own past. They have distorted what they know to be facts. Rather than admit to errors, this is the tactic required to avoid confession of false teaching.

How many faithful believers died, were imprisoned, or persecuted because of wrong-headed dedication to Watchtower teaching?

The Governing Body doesn’t really give a damn as long as it escapes culpability.

10

Was Jesus king before 1914? and something he said you did not expect!

by Crazyguy in

as jesus was entering the city his followers were declaring him king, luke 19:.

38 blessed is the king who comes in the name of the lord!

peace in heaven and glory in the highest!.

Terry

I finally adopted the attitude regarding the Bible that, as a source of Divine communication, it's a non-starter. Historically, it is an artifice, contrivance, and anomaly. Nobody at the time seemed to have noticed how cut and paste it was--at least to the point they challenged the presupposition it was the foundation of all future 'truthiness.'

The Catholic institution of 'church' dominated the thinking and habits of Christian mankind for fifteen hundred years WITHOUT having to resort to Bible worship.

I would assert it was an emergency stop-gap measure created by the Protestant Reformation which substituted Bible for Magisterium.

Thus began the explosion of opinions passed off as 'holy-spirit-delivered-revelation' which gave us the 40 thousand denominations of today.

32

CO kept mispronouncing "debt"

by Red Piller in

so, this happened a while ago - but i never posted on it.

during a co visit, he gave a talk relating to jesus ransom (i think) and the "debt" that was owed by sin, etc.... he kept saying "debt" and he kept pronouncing the "b".

so it sounded like "deb-t".

Terry

I was listening to a JW read a scripture the other day about

joint heirs and he pronounced it hairs.

114

What is truth?

by Heisenberg in

jw
friends

well, i have been lurking on this site for several months and i recently decided to join as a member.

i have made several observations and would like to make a few comments.. first, i am perplexed by the attitude of many on this site that are either former or active (but apostate) jws.

they seem to have a strong hatred for the wts and also for rank and file jws.

Terry

T-shirt:

Change horse to 'arse.'

75

New forum 'parousia' is upon us! (software version)

by Simon in

the time has nearly come to switch over to the new forum software.

of course it's not completely finished yet (and never will be) but i think it's good enough to go live with and probably already better than the current one.

i'll give you a quick overview of what to expect and post more detail about the changeover process later.. cloud platform.

Terry

I'd like to second Terry's request for the ability to subscribe to threads, and email notification of PMs would be great too.

I can't remember where I read it (maybe codinghorror) but I recall an article reasoning why email subscriptions were the best way to kill a forum / community and I tend to agree.

I'm not opposed to a digest summary but the forum is meant to be a forum and not a mailing list. I think email subs encourage the post-and-run more than a true community discussion.

________________________________

Oh, I agree.

What I'm looking for is a mere notice:

"SIMON has posted on your Topic, "Werewolves in the Arctic."

A hyperlink directly to the topic speeds things considerably.

22

UNDERSTANDING WHY THE ORGANIZATION is a false idol and a BLASPHEMY

by Terry in

do we understand these three words: worship, idolatry, and blasphemy?.

most christians have a vague notion of worship, idolatry, and blasphemy already, but.

a clear definition is necessary.. we must take care to differentiate, however.. how the words appear in original language and how they are defined today might be at odds.. ____________________.

Terry

GOD IS WITH US

19

The best book on biblical archaeology I've ever read

by marmot in

i'm referring to "the bible unearthed : archaeology's new vision of ancient isreal and the origin of its sacred texts" by israel finkelstein and neil asher silberman.

i think it should be required reading for anyone who deigns to defend the historicity and literal interpretation of the bible.

(i'm looking at you singlecell).

Terry

OnTheWayOut:

Terry, I didn't read it all, but I don't see any criticism of THE BIBLE UNEARTHED (TBU) in the controversy you refer to.

Finkelstein blasts Dershowitz in a book about Israel, not about the content of TBU.

________________________

Thanks for bringing that up, Phizzy and OTWO!

Finklestein attacked Dershowitz first and leveled many accusations about him and the book, Case for Israel.

In so doing, Finklestein hurt himself and the gravitas of his own book.

So, when I brought up Finklestein's archeological findings in a debate, I was horrified to have the evidence DISMISSED

by my opponent. The topic switched to defamation and bias rapidly! (The unusual name of Finklestein allowed the confusion, I suppose.)

This is what happens.

Richard Wagner's music becomes synonymous with Anti-Semitism in the minds of certain people.

The baby goes out with the bathwater.

That's what I intended to express in the above paragraphs, but I clogged the drain with too much chatter.

Thanks.

In confusing the two authors and further confusing the topic--more harm than good was done:)