Posts by atypical

135

My Dad died this evening

by Mulan in

jw
friends

i thought i would let you know that my dad, passed away a little while ago, tonight, january 23. they called me at 6pm to tell me.

he had been failing rapidly for the past month, and had completely lost his hearing and was totally blind.

the dementia was extreme too, and he still knew me on thursday, but didn't wake up to know me in the following days.

The Wild Beast has both a Name & Number. Do you know what the NAME is?

by Schizm in

as shown by the text below, the 7-headed wild beast has a name.. 16 and it puts under compulsion all persons, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free and the slaves, that they should give these a mark in their right hand or upon their forehead, 17 and that nobody might be able to buy or sell except a person having the mark, the name of the wild beast or the number of its name.

18 here is where wisdom comes in: let the one that has intelligence calculate the number of the wild beast, for it is a mans number; and its number is six hundred and sixty-six.

of course the beast's "number" is "666" -- but that's not it's "name".

atypical

evil martha......grrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Schizm, I was merely commenting on your arrogant attitude, which only takes one sentence to do.

17

the term 'removed my privileges'...

by jaffacake in

jw
friends

.

and what other measures can be taken against a jw who does something the elders dissapprove of, short of disfellowshipping?.

(this may sound like a dumb question but i was never a jw)

atypical

Here you go, from the 85 watchtower:

Questions

From Readers

·

If a Christian feels that someone in the congregation is not the best of association because of that person’s conduct or attitude, should he personally ‘mark’ that individual in accord with 2 Thessalonians 3:14, 15?

Those who become part of the Christian congregation do so because they love Jehovah and sincerely want to live by his principles. It is better to fellowship with these than with worldly people. We may be more comfortable with certain Christians, as Jesus ‘especially loved’ the apostle John and was particularly close to 3 of the 12. Still, he chose, was interested in, and loved all of them. (John 13:1, 23; 19:26; Mark 5:37; 9:2; 14:33) Though all brothers have failings of which we must be understanding and forgiving, we know that for the most part fellow believers are wholesome companions. (1 Peter 4:8; Matthew 7:1-5) Love for one another is an identifying mark of the Christian congregation. —John 13:34, 35; Colossians 3:14.

On occasion, however, someone may have an attitude or way of life of which we personally do not approve. The apostle Paul wrote about some in Corinth whose personal views about the resurrection were not right and who may have had an ‘eat, drink, and be merry’ attitude. Mature Christians in the congregation needed to be cautious about such ones, for Paul advised: "Do not be misled. Bad associations spoil useful habits."—1 Corinthians 15:12, 32, 33.

This general counsel is also valid today. For example, a Christian couple may find that their children are adversely affected when they spend time with certain other youngsters, who may not yet take the truth seriously or may be worldly minded. These other children may yet benefit from godly training. But until there is evidence of that, the couple might restrict their children as to playing with and visiting those youngsters. This would not be a ‘marking’ such as spoken of in 2 Thessalonians chapter 3. The parents simply are applying Paul’s advice to avoid "bad associations."

Situations that call for ‘marking’ are more serious than the above example involving children. Occasionally a person in a congregation pursues an unscriptural course that is very disturbing, though it does not yet justify the disfellowshipping action mentioned at 1 Corinthians 5:11-13. Such conduct occurred in the congregation of ancient Thessalonica, so Paul wrote: "We hear certain ones are walking disorderly among you, not working at all but meddling with what does not concern them."—2 Thessalonians 3:11.

What were other Christians in Thessalonica to do? Paul wrote: "We are giving you orders, brothers, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, to withdraw from every brother walking disorderly and not according to the tradition you received from us. For your part, brothers, do not give up in doing right. But if anyone is not obedient to our word through this letter, keep this one marked, stop associating with him, that he may become ashamed. And yet do not be considering him as an enemy, but continue admonishing him as a brother."—2 Thessalonians 3:6, 13-15.

Thus, without naming the lazy meddlers, Paul exposed to the congregation their serious course. All Christians who were aware of the identity of the disorderly ones would then treat them as "marked." The counsel, "keep this one marked," used a Greek word meaning "be you putting sign on," that is, ‘taking special notice of someone.’ (New World Translation Reference Bible, footnote) Paul said, "Stop associating with" the marked one "that he may become ashamed." Brothers would not completely shun him, for Paul advised them to "continue admonishing him as a brother." Yet by their limiting social fellowship with him, they might lead him to become ashamed and perhaps awaken him to the need to conform to Bible principles. Meanwhile the brothers and sisters would be protected from his unwholesome influence.—2 Timothy 2:20, 21.

The Christian congregation today also applies this counsel. The Watchtower of February 1, 1982, page 31, stressed that marking is not to be done over mere private opinions or when a Christian personally chooses to avoid close association with someone. As shown by the case in Thessalonica, marking involves serious violations of Bible principles. First the elders try repeatedly to help the violator by admonishing him. If the problem persists, they may, without naming the person, give a warning talk to the congregation concerning the disorderly conduct involved, even as Paul warned the Thessalonians. After that, individual Christians would keep the erring person "marked."

Good judgment is needed rather than predetermined rules about every aspect of marking. Paul did not give detailed rules regarding that problem in Thessalonica, such as stipulating how long someone had to have been refusing to work before he could be marked. Similarly, the elders are in touch with the flock and can use reasonableness and discernment in determining whether a particular situation is sufficiently serious and disturbing so as to require a warning talk to the congregation.

One purpose of marking is to move a disorderly Christian to feel ashamed and stop his unscriptural course. Individuals who had marked him, particularly the elders, will continue to encourage him and note his attitude as they have contact with him at meetings and in field service. When they see that the problem and attitude necessitating the marking have changed for the better, they can end their limitation as to socializing with him.

Consequently, marking should not be confused with a personal or family application of God’s advice to avoid bad association. While marking is not something that is needed often, it should be plain that marking is a Scriptural step that is taken when it is warranted, which step our Thessalonian brothers took.

[Footnotes]

See The Watchtower, May 15, 1973, pages 318-20.

For example, elders should exercise discernment in dealing with a Christian who is dating a person not "in the Lord."—See The Watchtower of March 15, 1982, page 31.

I don't think there is any way you could be marked and still allowed to have privieges in the hall. After all, as I know personally, you can lose your privileges over just having less hours than the congregation average.

22

Does anyone know the Circuit Overseer, Randy Letcher?

by PaNiCAtTaCk in

jw
friends

we had him in our circuit around a year ago.

he was a very arrogant pianist/circuit overseer.

he came along when i was starting to have strong doubts and after his visits i had no choice but to pursue my doubts.

atypical

Yep, we have Insellman here in Phoenix now.

TD, that is funny and true. Randy was fun to be around when he was here, but nobody who ever knew him would accuse him of being a hard worker, even in service. I'm sure you know what I mean.

368

The Wild Beast has both a Name & Number. Do you know what the NAME is?

by Schizm in

as shown by the text below, the 7-headed wild beast has a name.. 16 and it puts under compulsion all persons, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free and the slaves, that they should give these a mark in their right hand or upon their forehead, 17 and that nobody might be able to buy or sell except a person having the mark, the name of the wild beast or the number of its name.

18 here is where wisdom comes in: let the one that has intelligence calculate the number of the wild beast, for it is a mans number; and its number is six hundred and sixty-six.

of course the beast's "number" is "666" -- but that's not it's "name".

atypical

So condescending...........when you have a good argument you do not need arrogance, Schizm.

17

the term 'removed my privileges'...

by jaffacake in

jw
friends

.

and what other measures can be taken against a jw who does something the elders dissapprove of, short of disfellowshipping?.

(this may sound like a dumb question but i was never a jw)

atypical

The most inevitable part of judicial action, the elders can reveal your confidential info to their wives, who then hash and rehash it over coffee and then make sure everyone hears about it. (no offense to any women here; it's just a part of jw culture that I have seen over and over)

62

607BCE or 587/586BCE explained

by truth about the last days in

hello all to all my brothers of the faith.

i have some information in relation to the dates 607bce and 587/586bce, with the simple explanation of the 70years exile.

the wt still sticks with the 607bce due to the fact that the governing bodys explains that the jews returned back at about 537bce, assuming that they were finished with their bondage.

atypical

I wholeheartedly agree with that scripture, especially this: "nor in the son of earthling man". Would you say this includes the writing team at bethel?

62

607BCE or 587/586BCE explained

by truth about the last days in

hello all to all my brothers of the faith.

i have some information in relation to the dates 607bce and 587/586bce, with the simple explanation of the 70years exile.

the wt still sticks with the 607bce due to the fact that the governing bodys explains that the jews returned back at about 537bce, assuming that they were finished with their bondage.

atypical

PMJ, I was trying to be polite, but it is obvious you cut and pasted it. Anybody who has seen your regular posts can vouch that that was not one of them. I was just trying to make the subtle point that maybe you are arguing a side you only support because of who wrote it. If it is not from a watchtower publication, then I as one with an open mind would be interested to know where you got the info, and I would be happy to explore it further. Fair enough?

62

607BCE or 587/586BCE explained

by truth about the last days in

hello all to all my brothers of the faith.

i have some information in relation to the dates 607bce and 587/586bce, with the simple explanation of the 70years exile.

the wt still sticks with the 607bce due to the fact that the governing bodys explains that the jews returned back at about 537bce, assuming that they were finished with their bondage.

atypical

PMJ, it appears you cut and pasted that information. Do you truly understand it, or do you believe it because it says so in a publication? No offense meant, I just ask because I spent most of my life believing things just because I saw them printed by the society. It wasn't until recently that I started breaking things down and deciding for myself what makes sense.

31

JWs knock on my door three times in one week

by Sirona in

my husband is off work at the moment recovering from a double hernia operation.

the jws knocked one day and our friend, who was here doing a bit of painting for us, answered the door and simply told them he wasn't the householder.. then at the weekend, early on a saturday morning, they knocked again.

i was in my nightclothes and had only just gotten up, or i would have answered.

atypical

I would just keep avoiding them. It's working for me. It can be nerve wrecking, but on the other hand you have the satisfaction of knowing how hard you are making them work. If they get lazy they may give up.