Posts by yaddayadda

13

1935 and the Insight of the Anointed

by AlphaOmega in

remember this from the may 1st qfr ???.

however, genuine anointed christians do not demand special attention.

they do not believe that their being of the anointed gives them special "insights," beyond what even some experienced members of the great crowd may have.

yaddayadda

Great research!

Watchtower man speak with forked tongue!

37

How much JW doctrine is in harmony with the Bible?

by OnTheWayOut in

some have stated that the jw's go too far with their doctrine, but that much of the basic.

beliefs of the religion are correct.

i don't want to debate whether the bible is correct.. i just want opinions on how much of the jw doctrine agrees with the actual teachings of .

Onthewayout, although I have not be a JW for quite some time, I believe that the JW's have got the five things you listed scripturally spot on. Any fool can see that the trinity and immortal soul doctrines in particular are blatant deviations from scripture. They are more to do with pagan and platonic religious concepts than anything else. Of course there is the odd scripture that appears to support these false dogmas but the great majority of scriptural testimony clearly testifies to their falsehood (contrary to what Leolaia asserts). The correct test for scriptural truth is where the greatest weight of evidence lies; unfortunately some have the mistaken idea that a few ambiguous scriptures here and there must somehow 'unprove' something that is otherwise clear.

The churches of Christendom are clearly not teaching the truth on these basic things. Sadly, however, the JW's, despite seeing Christendom's false dogmas for the lies they are, have fouled up their own waters through having so many clearly false, unscriptural creeds (1914, 'other sheep', JW's are 'the truth', etc) and fanatical, harmful policies (shunning, blood policy, two-witness rule, no birthdays, etc). Thus JW's are hardly the one 'true' religion on earth, despite teaching many true things.

The 5th doctrine you listed is believed by all Christian religions and is hardly unique to JW's, so not quite sure why you listed that one. Many Christian religions also teach a time when earth will be restored somehow. The teaching that God torments the wicked in a burning hell forever is just such an insult to one's intelligence that it's hardly worth going into. Surely, presumably as an ex-JW, you are familiar with the clearly scriptural arguments against such a heinous teaching.

Unfortunately most of the answers you have been provided on this thread have come from persons who have renounced all faith in the bible as God's inspired word. You said that you did not want to discuss the reliability of the bible, but that is exactly what the thread immediately degenerated into. These posters have resorted to an argument that since the bible is a plagiarised mess then we cannot trust anything it says and everything in it is open to interpretation. So your question is redundant. You wont get very far by putting a lot of stock on the views of atheists and other persons on this forum who can only respond to questions on bible doctrine from the point of reference that that the bible is nothing more than a human work, an ensemble of fictitious writings.

Assuming that you still believe in God and have satisfied yourself that the bible is overall reliable and trustworthy as God's word, then your best bet is to do some research into websites that try to scripturally refute the JW's core doctrines on the trinity, hell, etc. Some of them present quite good arguments, but in my opinion they fail because they rely on a small handful of dubious scriptures to assert the correctness of broader Christendom's dogmas (trinity, etc). They fail to take into account and treat the great majority of scriptural testimony on these subjects, from Genesis to Revelation.

As for the restoration of Gods original purpose, contrary to what one poster said, it is absolutely obvious that the first few chapters of Genesis give us that purpose loud and clear. Death came upon mankind in the garden of Eden but through Christ and his Kingdom death as the last enemy will be no more. Eternal life on earth lost and eternal life on earth regained is practically the entire theme of the bible. Jesus Christ and the Kingdom of God are vehicles/mechanisms for the accomplishment of this orginal purpose, ie, the human family enjoying eternal life on earth in peace. The JW's have all this right. The restoration of all things/reconciliation with God, both in heaven AND on earth, is what it's all about. If you want me to provide you with scriptures to outline that I'm happy to do so (although of course its all just open to interpretation isn't it).

6

What IS the "Worldwide Order"?

by Doug Mason in

the more i uncover, the more i realize how little i really know.. after putting my org chart together, i have a question: who or what is this worldwide order?.

if this is the formal name of the full-time members within the overall organization, what is the name of the overall organization?

could it be something like new world society?.

yaddayadda

Wow, I was a JW for 30 years and never once heard of this special 'order' of full-time JW's. Thanks.

47

Why can't I just get over it and move on?

by Crumpet in

months have passed now since mr c and i officially separated.

so why can't i get over it?

why am i still jealous?

yaddayadda

Forget about the last one, get yourself another. Being alone is not the answer.

15

Daniel 4:1-37, "Seven times"

by Son of John in

daniel 4:1-37, "seven times".

what was the tree like, before it was cut down?

the situation is described in daniel 4:11, 12:.

yaddayadda

Welcome. Unfortunately your theory is just as speculative as the Watchtower Society's, and as mentioned, it fails to properly take into account the context of Daniel.

The 'tree' in Daniel 4 simply stands for world rulership given by God. It is not God's kingly rule on earth as exemplified by Jerusalem, as the Watchtower Society believes. At the time the tree pictured world rulership that God had given to Nebuchadnezzar, ie, the Babylonian world empire. It is a parallel vision to that of Daniel 2 of the immense image (the head of gold was Nebuchadnezzar, likewise the immense tree was Nebuchadnezzar's world empire at that time).

That 'tree' was chopped down when the 'holy watcher' - an angel - came down and wrote the writing on the wall in Beltashazzar's royal court on the very night the Medes and Persians sacked Babylon. So the tree did not fall in 607 BCE (nor at Jerusalem's destruction in 586 BCE). It was chopped down in 539 BCE.

Nebuchadnezzar is spoken of in scripture as Jehovah's 'servant' and had a rather special relationship with Jehovah that no other gentile ruler has had since. He acknowledged Jehovah's sovereignty after regaining his madness and he received his rulership directly by Jehovah's authority.

The tree (world rulership given by God) was chopped down and the stump branded until Jesus Christ, the one with the legal right, is crowned as earth's new king. At the time the seven times will have passed and the tree will grow and flourish again. It will be world rulership by Christ and the holy ones (Daniel 7).

The 'seven times' is simply a symbolic statement indicating the passing of a long period until the fullness of time is reached for the completion of God's plan in relation to world rulership. It is not 2520 years and cannot be predicted in advance as if it was some mystical, hidden bible code. (Jesus said explicitly that these things are reserved for the Father only and no one knows the day or the hour except the Father.) The 'seven times' began when the Babylonian world empire was 'cut down' in 539 BCE and will end at an unknown future time when Jesus is crowned as earth's new ruling king (not 1914).

34

Anyone find any decent pro-Witness sites?

by IsaacJS2 in

as i've mentioned a few times before, i'm working on a round of articles for austin cline's site.

the final "big daddy" article is an evaluation: is the wts a controlling, harmful cult?

but i don't plan on doing an attack article.

yaddayadda

Wikipaedia usually lists some pro and anti sites. I think Freeminds does too. Greg Stafford offers some fairly rational defences on some things. Depends on what you're trying to refute I guess.

Websites that expose Watchtower Society errors and rotten policies, including ones that present the JW's version of things, are a dime a dozen on the internet now. The problem with most of them is that they then try and convince JW's that the should belive the trinity, that they are all going to heaven, and other teachings that are totally anathema to JW's. Despite the prevalence of ex-JW's to declare all JW doctrines as erroneous, the fact is they are not, but anti-JW websites never acknowledge this. The real issue is that the JW's do have core teachings that are impossible to refute - in fact, they appear to be scripturally correct on a number of important things (only the Father is truly God, no immortal soul, no hellfire, restoration of God's original purpose for earth, etc). This is an enigma and is what keeps JW's in servitude to the Watchtower taskmasters. The Watchtower can get away with anything as long as they adhere to Russell's old teachings on these matters. The great majority of JW's will always rationalise in favour of staying with the org because they have got many major things doctrinally correct, no matter how many other things they have got wrong. Their thinking is "Ok, maybe we are not perfect but we've got the BIG things right, whereas Christendom has the BIG things all wrong. We are the CLOSEST TO THE TRUTH." This 'closest to the truth' concept is the real concept that they are captive to. If your new website can get around this concept then you may be able to reach some of them.

Good luck.

38

Are Jehovah's Witnesses a Dangerous Cult?

by UnDisfellowshipped in

" (quote from the watchtower, august 1st, 2001, page 14).

(quote from the watchtower, december 1st, 1981 issue, page 27).

(quote from the watchtower, december 1st, 1990 issue, page 19).

yaddayadda

Is this a thread to prove JW's are a cult, or to expose the evil of their shunning policy? Presumably the latter judging by all the quotes you've superbly unearthed and since we have had umpteen threads lately on whether or not JW's are a 'cult'.

There is no doubt that the congregation is quite within their right to distance themselves from a brother or sister who is wilfully practicing gross sin. That's what 1 Cor 5 is all about. However, the Watchtower Society's policy of disfellowshipping for relatively trivial things, such as smoking or respectfully disagreeing with certain Watchtower interpretations, goes far beyond the scriptural grounds outlined in 1 Cor 5. The Watchtower leaders are accountable to God for having stumbled so many persons through their extreme tand pharasaical application of 1 Cor 5.

Even if a person is 'disfellowshipped' scripturally under 1 Cor 5, that still does not justify total shunning. The Society's policy is flawed scripturally: the Greek word 'sunanamignumi' at 1 Cor 5: 9-13 which the NWT translates as 'quit mixing in company with' has the meaning of 'intimate association' and 'close association, as with a friend' (according to Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the NT, p 601). This is in contrast with the Greek word 'mita' which Strong's Exhaustive Concordance says denotes "accompaniment; amid (local or casual) - general association". So what Paul was stating was that the congregation should not have intimate, close association with the evildoer, as indicated by not 'eating with them' in a social setting. Paul was NOT forbidding general, casual association. Saying a greeting and a few friendly, encouraging words to a disfellowshipped person is hardly 'intimate..close' association.

To really drive this point home, notice that at 2 Thessalonians 3:14, 15 the counsel is given to 'stop associating' (sunanamignumi) with anyone not obedient to the word. These scriptures are the basis of the Society's 'marking' policy - ie, the person is to be kept somewhat at arms length but is to be encouraged, not shunned. Note that Paul explicitly states "And yet do not be considering him as an enemy, but continue admonishing him as a brother". Yet it is the exact same Greek word used in 1 Cor 5! So the Society is being grossly inconsistent with its treatment of sunanamignumi. Quite simply, both the 'marked' person and the 'disfellowshipped' person should be treated exactly the same way! The correct practice in both cases should be as per the April 15, 1985 Watchtower, p.31 (on 'marking'), which says:

"Brothers would not completely shun him, for Paul advised them 'to continue admonishing him as a brother.' Yet, by limiting their fellowship with him, they might lead him to become ashamed and perhaps awaken him to the need to conform to Bible principles".

No wonder some on the GB reportedly want a change in the shunning policy. The current extreme position is not only scripturally flawed but flouts God's law of love. It is in stark contrast to Jesus command to love our enemies and that God expects us to practice the higher qualities at the expense of rigid conformity to nitpicking. The Watchtower leaders certainly are gulping down the camel on this policy and we know what Jesus had to say about pompous religious leaders who prize legalism more than love, justice, mercy.

45

2007 District Convention to hammer apostates?

by yaddayadda in

jw
friends

this years "follow the christ" dc looks like it is going to be focused on avoiding all those evil apostates and their falsehoods, judging by some of the dc talks listed on the back of the june 2007 awake!

do not follow false teachers .

do not follow false stories .

yaddayadda

This years "Follow the Christ" DC looks like it is going to be focused on avoiding all those evil apostates and their falsehoods, judging by some of the DC talks listed on the back of the June 2007 Awake!:

Do Not Follow False Teachers
Do Not Follow False Stories
Keep Following The Lamb Wherever He Goes
My Sheep Listen To My Voice ... and They Follow Me
Help Them Return To The Flock

Can't wait.

22

What "Common Denominator" do most JW's have?

by JH in

jw
friends

do you think that there is a common denominator, or are they all different people who found what they call "the truth"?.

.

yaddayadda

They all believe their eternal future and happiness depends entirely on their loyalty to the organisation.

25

Shunning Policy

by sweet pea in

a little bird told me that some members of the governing body are unhappy with the shunning policy and want it changed (presumably due to the bad press from sites like these).

apparently they were overruled.

is this yet another policy that will start to be diluted and eventually dropped altogether or what and can anyone back up the rumour?

yaddayadda

Mary, the GB doesn't just change things because of pressure from the Courts. And they are not totally motivated by dollars and cents. Your uber-cynicism isn't totally realistic. They are not Microsoft's Corporate Board, they are a body of men who believe that they are a 'slave class' that Jesus has entrusted his spiritual talents to and that they have a responsibility to increase those talents, come hell or high water. Money is a way of doing that - it is not the be all and end all of their existence.

In the past we have seen fairly substantial tweakings of doctrine without any of these 'Corporate' factors being apparent. If everything they do hinges on the Courts or money then why on earth do some GB members apparently want a change right now, assuming the rumour is true?

Where did you hear this rumour from Sweatpea? (where has she gone?). How many GB members wanted the change? What was the final vote? Anyway you can find this out?

I'm rather surprised this rumour has received such little attention from the board.