Posts by yaddayadda

85

Is Faith Dangerous? A Question for Believers...

by AllTimeJeff in

i hope this will be as respectful a debate as possible.

here is the premise: many of us (most) seem to be ex jw's on this board.

that means, whatever your motivation, for a time you bought into the theology of jw to one degree or another.

yaddayadda

Posting this from another recent thread, as it is relevant to this topic:

"Whatever labels you want to put on it, it takes just as much faith (more in fact) to believe that all life in the universe is the result of blind chance than to believe in a great mind behind it all. Atheists are keen to argue that there is no evidence for God's existence (using simplistic analogies with unicorns and fairies) but equally, there is not the slightest shred of evidence to support the crazy notion that everything came from nothing.

To hold to the belief that chance, through a process of random shuffling, brought about our world, is just as much in the realm of 'metaphysics' than objective science. The problem is particularly acute in respect to the beginnings of life itself.

Belief in a personal God or belief in impersonal forces of blind chance: they're both articles of faith. You choose based on the available evidence. I personally believe, based on the evidence, it is only a small step to believe in a creator, not a giant leap. It takes a much bigger leap of faith, across a giant chasm of improbability, to put your faith in the astronomically odds associated with blind chance as an explanation for everything.

It is mindlessness, more aking to rank credulity rather than faith even, to assert that amino acids just randomly strung themselves together to form the protein chain, to take just one example. Our tightly-knit and intelligible universe is simply not sufficiently explained by a random chance process. Whatever the alternatives are, that simply doesn't cut it.

I recommend you read "The Quantum World" by Theoretical physicist John Polkinghorne to learn more about alternatives to the unsatisfactory explanations of naturalistic atheism . Polkinghorne is a colleague of Stephen Hawking and the former president of Queen's College, Cambridge, and has been at the forefront of high energy physics for over thirty years. Interestingly, even Stephen Hawking, at the end of his book "A Brief History of Time" humbly acknowledges that science can only describe the "what" of human observations and that only God can answer the "why." "

19

Why I must be Agnostic and not Atheist.

by OnTheWayOut in

jw
friends

the wts has this nice little explanation for everything.

how can man be .

only six thousand years old, how could a global flood have actually taken.

yaddayadda

Whatever labels you want to put on it, it takes just as much faith (more in fact) to believe that all life in the universe is the result of blind chance than to believe in a great mind behind it all. Atheists are keen to argue that there is no evidence for God's existence (using simplistic analogies with unicorns and fairies) but equally, there is not the slightest shred of evidence to support the crazy notion that everything came from nothing.

To hold to the belief that chance, through a process of random shuffling, brought about our world, is just as much in the realm of 'metaphysics' than objective science. The problem is particularly acute in respect to the beginnings of life itself.

Belief in a personal God or belief in impersonal forces of blind chance: they're both articles of faith. You choose based on the available evidence. I personally believe, based on the evidence, it is only a small step to believe in a creator, not a giant leap. It takes a much bigger leap of faith, across a giant chasm of improbability, to put your faith in the astronomically odds associated with blind chance as an explanation for everything.

It is mindlessness, more aking to rank credulity rather than faith even, to assert that amino acids just randomly strung themselves together to form the protein chain, to take just one example. Our tightly-knit and intelligible universe is simply not sufficiently explained by a random chance process. Whatever the alternatives are, that simply doesn't cut it.

I recommend you read "The Quantum World" by Theoretical physicist John Polkinghorne to learn more about alternatives to the unsatisfactory explanations of naturalistic atheism . Polkinghorne is a colleague of Stephen Hawking and the former president of Queen's College, Cambridge, and has been at the forefront of high energy physics for over thirty years. Interestingly, even Stephen Hawking, at the end of his book "A Brief History of Time" humbly acknowledges that science can only describe the "what" of human observations and that only God can answer the "why."

13

Is the "Kingdom" a "government"?

by Doug Mason in

my understanding is that the wts says the "kingdom of god/heavens" is a "government".

where do they get that idea from in scripture?

i presume that by "government" they mean "a system of exercising authority through an executive policy making body".

yaddayadda

This is a very good question and a very important one that deserves much more attention.

I think the WBTS is right to identify a 'heavenly governmental rulership' in relation to the Kingdom; however, where they go wrong is by restricting the meaning of the kingdom to this.

It is apparent in scripture that the kingdom is much more than just a 'governmental rulership' in heaven made up of supposedly 144,000 only.

The Kingdom is basically: God's entire dominion (rule), both in heaven and on earth.

According to scripture Satan rules the world, so the world is not presently a part of God's dominion, ie, is not included in God's kingdom. But individuals in the world who have been reconciled to Christ enter into God's kingdom, ie, they come under God's rule or dominion.

Matthew 25:34 is just one scripture that gives the lie to the Society's very narrow interpretation. There the 'sheep' (who the Society says are an earthly class) are said to 'inherit the kingdom'.

5

The Scholors who have approved the NWT.....

by A-Team in

i wonder how the faces of the gb and the pioneers will look like once they see this......

http://www.forananswer.org/top_jw/scholars%20and%20nwt.htm

yaddayadda

There are a fair number of scholars on that list who offer comments that tend to support the NWT rendering of John 1:1 just as much as oppose it. But the author of that webpage tries to shape or mitigate the scholars words in just as much a biased way as the WBTS is accused of.

I think the comment below sums up the equally biased attitude of the author:

"Dr. Danker is certainly a recognized scholar and he has been quoted accurately. It will be noted that his lukewarm comments about the NWT are with regard to the Old Testament. Few scholars have complained about the Watchtower inserting its dogma into the Hebrew Scriptures. Indeed, since the OT contains far fewer explicit Scriptures teaching the orthodox doctrines that the Watchtower denies - Christ's deity; the existence of the soul; and hellfire - it is not surprising that the NWT Hebrew Scriptures are relatively bias-free."

It's hard to respect the opinion of someone who says that the WBTS denies 'the existence of the soul', and who upholds the 'hellfire' doctrine.

12

NOTICE TO TED JARACZ: "We're coming out, guns a blazin'!"

by sf in

jw
friends

"the gig is up, the news is out...".

"lyin', cheatin', hurtin', that's all you seem to do....your time is gonna come".

"when the walls, come tumbling down...".

yaddayadda

cut down on the coffee sf.

22

The Watchtower Official Page of Hypocrisy

by Vinny in

this link is directly from the "official" watchtower website.

it's a short reading.

now, imagine somebody trying to apply this very same advice to their own jehovah's witness faith.

yaddayadda

Wow. The points in that article (and the gross hypocrisy of the WBTS in relation to it) are pretty much exactly why I can no longer remain a JW in good conscience.

17

Will the WTS. disolve and fade a way in time... ( Your perspective )

by thetrueone in

hi, just wanted to know your thoughts on what you think the future holds for the wts.

what for an example what do you think they will be writing on the cover of the w & a magazines 50 or 100 hundred years form now ?.

will the age of information and techology finally catch up to them (eg.

yaddayadda

The only thing that will truly affect the organisation is if there is some radical change of one or more of their fundamental/core teachings and this creates a marked polarisation in the congregations to the effect that the organisation fractures into two or more groups. For example, if the 1914 teaching was dropped or drastically re-jigged, it might cause a large 'stumbling' and those who left might form new groups of their own. But if the Society decided to accept, say, the trinity teaching, it would basically be the death knell of the organisation known as JW's.

Information Technology is already catching up with the Society in a profound way. Logic dictates that the more JW's have access to the www information highway, the more JW's are discovering the flaws and dirty laundry of their religion.

14

Angel Christology

by POSTMAN in

new to this list so i am not aware what has been discussed perhaps i am requesting for repete answers forgive me if this is the case.

i am very interested in the christ michael argument.

could i be directed to all watchtower arguments where this belief is set out.

yaddayadda

I would also recommend Larry Hurtado's books 'At the Origins of Christian Worship' and 'How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God?' (both of which I own), although they deal more on issues surrounding the development of devotion to Christ and 'worship' of him and do not directly address the Michael/archangel question.

78

Watchtower 2007 3/15 -- Is 1914 dropped?

by observer in

watchtower 2007 3/15 is very unusual.

it is titled (when freely translated) "how coming of the christ affects you?".

in the first article there is not speaking about 1914 or invisible presence.

yaddayadda

Although the article is focused on Rev 1:7, which the WBTS has always applied to the future, it does seem very odd that they do not at least mention 1914 just once.

A person who knew nothing about the JWs who casually attended a meeting where this article was studied would be left with the distinct idea that Jesus' rulership doesn't begin until the future. Look at this paragraph:

"Jesus taught his followers to pray for God's Kingdom to come and for God's will to take place, 'as in heaven, also upon earth.' (Matt 6:9,10) This Kingdom is a government with Christ Jesus as its God-appointed King. It will solve all of mankind's problems. for God's Kingdom to bring about changes on the earth, however, there has to be a change from human rulership to the rulership of Christ. This is exactly what Christ's coming will accomplish."

What other conclusion would an independent observer take from such a paragraph other than that Jesus rule and the kingdom are not yet realities!

All it would've taken was for a couple of sentences to be inserted in the article stating something along the lines of, "...The evidence clearly indicates that God's kingdom has been ruling since 1914 and that Jesus presence (parousia) began then. Since then we have been in the 'short period of time' described at Revelation 12....".

We've seen the Society include statements like the above time and time again in it's material. Why not do it in this article, and all the more so, since it is an article discussing matters pertaining to the timing of God's Kingdom/Jesus acting, etc!

Thus I agree that the lack of any mention of 1914 in this article, a date once so proudly flaunted by the Society, is pretty strange. It could easily indicate a policy of deliberately de-emphasizing the date. It could well be that 1914 is becoming somewhat of an embarrassment to the Society(except perhaps to the likes of old boys like Jack Barr, who stressed the date at the latest Gilead graduate talks) and, as someone insightfully mentioned earlier in this thread, any mention of the date just tends to remind JW's of the lengthening elapse of time since 1914; this only serves to reinforce growing disquiet in the ranks about how long this system is taking to come to an end.

It's hard to deny that this trend of de-emphasising 1914 will likely continue until, many years from now, 1914 will be nothing more than a creedal footnote similar to how the SDA's now treat 1844, if not abandoned altogether.

15

Do JW's flout Romans 14:1?

by yaddayadda in

romans 14:1 .

nwt welcome the [man] having weaknesses in [his] faith, but not to make decisions on inward questionings.

niv accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters.

yaddayadda

Actually, that comment is not a footnote, but forms part of the entire article. Here it is in full (it's loaded with faulty lines of reasoning, some of which I've commented on in bold and parentheses):

*** w86 4/1 30-1 Questions From Readers ***

Q Why have Jehovah’s Witnesses disfellowshipped (excommunicated) for apostasy some who still profess belief in God, the Bible, and Jesus Christ?

A Those who voice such an objection point out that many religious organizations claiming to be Christian allow dissident views. Even some clergymen disagree with basic teachings of their church, yet they remain in good standing. In nearly all the denominations of Christendom, there are modernists and fundamentalists who greatly disagree with one another as to the inspiration of the Scriptures.

[THE ARTICLE STARTS OFF WITH A 'SLIPPERY SLOPE' ARGUMENT. IT IMPLIES THAT IF THE WBTS STARTED LETTING PEOPLE HAVE DIVERGENT VIEWS ON SOME THINGS THEN THE ORGANISATION WILL END UP WITH PEOPLE ADOPTING ALL KINDS OF EXTREME VIEWS SUCH AS ARE SOMETIMES FOUND IN BROADER CHRISTENDOM. BUT THOSE WHO SEEK MORE FREEDOM OF INTERPRETATION IN THE ORGANISATION ARE HARDLY TRYING TO QUESTION 'BASIC TEACHINGS' SUCH AS THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. THUS THE ARTICLE IS SUBTLY SUGGESTING THAT THOSE WHO WANT FREEDOM TO HAVE 'DISSIDENT' VIEWS ARE FAITHLESS.]

However, such examples provide no grounds for our doing the same. Why not? Many of such denominations allow widely divergent views among the clergy and the laity because they feel they cannot be certain as to just what is Bible truth. They are like the scribes and Pharisees of Jesus’ day who were unable to speak as persons having authority, which is how Jesus taught. (Matthew 7:29) Moreover, to the extent that religionists believe in interfaith, they are obligated not to take divergent beliefs too seriously.

[BUT IS IT REALLY POSSIBLE TO HAVE TOTAL CERTAINTY ABOUT BIBLE TRUTH? THE SOCIETY'S TRACK RECORD OF FLIP-FLOPS AND CHANGING CREEDS ITSELF GIVES THE LIE TO THIS. THERE IS EVEN A TEACHING ENUMERATED IN THIS VERY ARTICLE THAT HAS SINCE BEEN CHANGED BY THE SOCIETY? CAN YOU SPOT IT? THERE ARE DEBATEABLE AREAS OF BIBLE TEACHING, WHERE THERE ARE CONVINCING ARGUMENTS BOTH FOR AND AGAINST. WHAT RIGHT DO A FEW MEN HAVE TO IMPOSE THEIR OWN INTERPRETATION OF SUCH GRAY AREAS ON THE CONSCIENCES OF OTHERS AND CLAIM THAT IT IS A 'CERTAIN' TRUTH? NOTICE ALSO HOW THE SOCIETY ARROGANT LABELS OTHER DENOMINATIONS AS LIKE THE 'SCRIBES AND PHARISEES' AND COMPARE THEMSELVES TO JESUS AS ALONE TEACHING WITH 'AUTHORITY'. WHAT DID JESUS SAY ABOUT THOSE WHO PROUDLY BOAST THAT THEY ARE NOT LIKE ALL THE OTHER SINNERS?]

But taking such a view of matters has no basis in the Scriptures. Jesus did not make common cause with any of the sects of Judaism. Jews of those sects professed to believe in the God of creation and in the Hebrew Scriptures, particularly the Law of Moses. Still, Jesus told his disciples to “watch out . . . for the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” (Matthew 16:11, 12; 23:15) Note also how strongly the apostle Paul stated matters: “Even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond what we declared to you as good news, let him be accursed.” Paul then repeated that statement for emphasis.—Galatians 1:8, 9.

[THE ANALOGY USED HERE BETWEEN JESUS AND THE JEWISH SECTS IS NOT APPROPRIATE. THE JEWISH RELIGIOUS LEADERS WERE AT FAULT ESSENTIALLY BECAUSE THEY DID NOT ACCEPT JESUS AS THEIR MESSIAH AND SAVIOUR. ON THE OTHER HAND, ALL CHRISTIANS ACCEPT JESUS AND BY AND LARGE DO THEIR BEST TO FOLLOW HIM AND WORSHIP GOD IN TRUTH. THERE ARE DIFFERENT SHADES OF INTERPRETATIONS BUT THEY ALL CONSISTENTLY FOCUS ON CHRIST AND OBEDIENCE TO HIM AND GOD AS THE ONLY HOPE FOR SALVATION. AS FOR GALATIANS 1:8,9, EVEN A BASIC EXAMINATION OF THE WATCHTOWER SOCIETY'S 'GOOD NEWS' REVEALS HOW DIFFERENT IT IS TO THE 'GOOD NEWS' PREACHED BY THE FIRST CENTURY CHRISTIANS. THE JW'S 'GOOD NEWS' IS MAINLY ALL ABOUT A GOVERNMENT IN HEAVEN RULING OVER A FUTURE PARADISE EARTH THAT IS INITIALLY INHABITED ONLY BY JW'S AFTER JESUS AND THE ANGELS HAVE SLAUGHTERED MOST OF HUMANKIND. WHERE IS THIS EXPLICITLY TAUGHT IN THE NEW TESTAMENT? RATHER, THE 'GOOD NEWS' TAUGHT BY THE EARLY CHURCH WAS ALL ABOUT JESUS CHRIST AS A PERSONAL SAVIOUR AND THE WAY BACK TO GOD THE FATHER, YET HOW OFTEN DO JW'S COME TO YOUR DOOR AND START OFF BY TALKING ABOUT THAT?]

Teaching dissident or divergent views is not compatible with true Christianity, as Paul makes clear at 1 Corinthians 1:10: “I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.” (New International Version) At Ephesians 4:3-6 he further stated that Christians should be “earnestly endeavoring to observe the oneness of the spirit in the uniting bond of peace. One body there is, and one spirit, even as you were called in the one hope to which you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all persons.”

[YES IT IS TRUE THAT CHRISTIANS SHOULD BE UNITED IN MIND AND THOUGHT, BUT THIS IS AN IDEAL STANDARD THAT CAN NEVER BE ENTIRELY ACHIEVED BY SINFUL, IMPERFECT HUMANS UNTIL CHRIST'S RETURN. IT IS APPARENT THAT PAUL WAS NOT SUGGESTING CONFORMITY TO EVERY TINY CREED TAUGHT BY SOME FUTURE DENOMINATION. WHAT HE WAS SAYING IS THAT THEY SHOULD BE 'PERFECTLY UNITED' IN THE FUNDAMENTALS, THE ESSENTIAL TEACHINGS, IN OTHER WORDS, NOT TO DEPART FROM THE APOSTOLIC BODY OF CORE TRUTH THAT WAS HANDED ON TO THEM. THAT BODY OF APOSTOLIC TEACHING IS QUITE SIMPLE, AND DOESN'T COMPRISE NUMEROUS RULES, REGULATIONS AND DUBIOUS CREEDS AND POLICIES SUCH AS THE SOCIETY EXPECTS JW's TO CONFORM TO. THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF SOME FACTIONS IN THE EARLY CONGREGATIONS WHO WERE BECOMING INFLUENCED BY GNOSTIC IDEAS THAT WERE TEACHING QUITE A DIFFERENT VERSION OF JESUS AND THE ORIGINAL GOOD NEWS. HENCE WHY PAUL SAID TO ALLOW NO TOLERANCE FOR SUCH WIDELY DIVERGENT TEACHINGS. BUT THAT WAS IN RELATION TO THE BASIC, ORIGINAL TEACHINGS.]

Was this unity to be achieved and maintained by each one’s independently searching the Scriptures, coming to his own conclusions, and then teaching these? Not at all! Through Jesus Christ, Jehovah God provided for this purpose “some as apostles, . . . some as evangelizers, some as shepherds and teachers . . . until we all attain to the oneness in the faith and in the accurate knowledge of the Son of God, to a full-grown man.” Yes, with the help of such ministers, congregational unity—oneness in teaching and activity—could be and would be possible.—Ephesians 4:11-13.

[ACTUALLY, SEARCHING THE SCRIPTURES AND MAKING UP THEIR OWN MIND IS EXACTLY WHAT THE ANCIENT BOREANS WERE COMMENDED FOR DOING. ISN'T THAT EXACTLY WHAT CHARLES TAZE RUSSELL ORIGINALLY DID? HE INDEPENDENTLY SEARCHED THE SCRIPTURES, CAME TO HIS OWN CONCLUSIONS, AND THEN TAUGHT THEM!! THE SOCIETY ITSELF DOES THIS AND CHANGES ITS OWN INTERPRETATIONS FROM TIME TO TIME. OBVIOUSLY, THEREFORE, THE ISSUE IS NOT WHETHER IT IS CORRECT TO SEARCH THE SCRIPTURES FOR YOURSELF AND FORM YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS AND SHARE THESE WITH OTHERS. NO, THE ISSUE HERE IS ALL ABOUT THE SOCIETY ARROGANTLY WANTING THE POWER TO DO THIS TO THE EXCLUSION OF EVERYONE ELSE. THE SOCIETY ASSERTS THAT IT ALONE HAS THE DIVINE RIGHT TO TEACH OTHERS ONLY WHAT THEY CLAIM IS 'CERTAIN' TRUTH. TO MAINTAIN THIS FICTION THE SOCIETY MUST CONSTANTLY APPEAL TO ITS ERRONEOUS INTERPRETATION OF MATT 24: 45-47.]

Obviously, a basis for approved fellowship with Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot rest merely on a belief in God, in the Bible, in Jesus Christ, and so forth. The Roman Catholic pope, as well as the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, professes such beliefs, yet their church memberships are exclusive of each other. Likewise, simply professing to have such beliefs would not authorize one to be known as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

[WHAT DO THE EXCLUSIVITY OF THE POPE AND ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY HAVE TO DO WITH TOLERANCE FOR SOME DIVERGENCE OF OPINION IN A DENOMINATION, WHICH IS THE SUBJECT UNDER DISCUSSION? AS THE SOCIETY NOTED EARLIER, "many religious organizations claiming to be Christian allow dissident views". SO THE ISSUE IS NOT EXCLUSIVITY BETWEEN DENOMINATIONS, WHICH IS THE SMOKESCREEN THEY USE HERE, BUT WHAT IS THE DEGREE OF FREEDOM THAT SHOULD BE PERMITTED WITHIN THE JW ORGANISATION FOR HOLDING TO DIVERGENT INTERPRETATIONS.]

Approved association with Jehovah’s Witnesses requires accepting the entire range of the true teachings of the Bible, including those Scriptural beliefs that are unique to Jehovah’s Witnesses. What do such beliefs include?

That the great issue before humankind is the rightfulness of Jehovah’s sovereignty, which is why he has allowed wickedness so long. (Ezekiel 25:17) That Jesus Christ had a prehuman existence and is subordinate to his heavenly Father. (John 14:28) That there is a “faithful and discreet slave” upon earth today ‘entrusted with all of Jesus’ earthly interests,’ which slave is associated with the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses. (Matthew 24:45-47) That 1914 marked the end of the Gentile Times and the establishment of the Kingdom of God in the heavens, as well as the time for Christ’s foretold presence. (Luke 21:7-24; Revelation 11:15–12:10) That only 144,000 Christians will receive the heavenly reward. (Revelation 14:1, 3) That Armageddon, referring to the battle of the great day of God the Almighty, is near. (Revelation 16:14, 16; 19:11-21) That it will be followed by Christ’s Millennial Reign, which will restore an earth-wide paradise. That the first to enjoy it will be the present “great crowd” of Jesus’ “other sheep.”—John 10:16; Revelation 7:9-17; 21:3, 4.

[A NUMBER OF THE ABOVE TEACHINGS CAN EASILY BE ATTACKED AND SHOWN TO HAVE OTHER, EQUALLY, VALID POSSIBLE INTERPRETATIONS. IT IS RATHER DISGRACEFUL THAT THE 1914 TEACHING IN PARTICULAR IS LISTED HERE AS SOME KIND OF 'CERTAIN' TRUE TEACHING OF THE BIBLE. ANYONE JW NOT TOTALLY IN FEAR OF RESEARCHING THINGS FOR THEMSELF (WHICH MOST JWS ARE) WILL SOON SEE JUST HOW SPECULATIVE AND TENOUS THE FOUNDATIONS OF THIS MANMADE CREED ARE. NO WHERE IS IT AN EXPLICIT, CLEAR, 'BASIC' TEACHING OF THE BIBLE. EVEN WORSE, THE TEACHING THAT THE 'GREAT CROWD' IS NOW PRESENT WAS DISCARDED BY THE SOCIETY IN THE MID 1990'S. THIS GIVES THE LIE TO THE SOCIETY POMPOUSLY DICTATING WHAT INTERPRETATIONS ARE AND ARE NOT THE 'the entire range of the true teachings of the Bible'.]

Do we have Scriptural precedent for taking such a strict position? Indeed we do! Paul wrote about some in his day: “Their word will spread like gangrene. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of that number. These very men have deviated from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already occurred; and they are subverting the faith of some.” (2 Timothy 2:17, 18; see also Matthew 18:6.) There is nothing to indicate that these men did not believe in God, in the Bible, in Jesus’ sacrifice. Yet, on this one basic point, what they were teaching as to the time of the resurrection, Paul rightly branded them as apostates, with whom faithful Christians would not fellowship.

Similarly, the apostle John termed as antichrists those who did not believe that Jesus had come in the flesh. They may well have believed in God, in the Hebrew Scriptures, in Jesus as God’s Son, and so on. But on this point, that Jesus had actually come in the flesh, they disagreed and thus were termed “antichrist.” John goes on to say regarding those holding such variant views: “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. For he that says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works.”—2 John 7, 10, 11.

[ANTICHRISTS ARE THOSE PERSONS WHO ESPOUSE DIFFERENT TEACHINGS TO THAT WHICH ARE EXPLICITY TAUGHT IN SCRIPTURE - SUCH AS THAT JESUS CAME IN THE FLESH. ANTICHRISTS ARE NOT THOSE WHO SUSPEND BELIEF IN CERTAIN SPECULATIVE AND DEBATEABLE CREEDS AND INTERPRETATIONS. HOW IRONIC THAT THEY REFER TO PERSONS BEING LABELLED ON 'THIS ONE BASIC POINT, WHAT THEY WERE TEACHING AS TO THE TIMING OF THE RESURRECTION.' THE SOCIETY CAN EQUALLY BE REGARDED AS APOSTATES IF THEY HAVE THE 'TIMING' ALL WRONG ON WHEN JESUS IS ENTHRONED AS KING IN HEAVEN AND WHEN THE HEAVENLY RESURRECTION OCCURS. AND ITS PRETTY CLEAR THAT THEY INDEED HAVE THE TIMING ALL WRONG ON THIS.]

Following such Scriptural patterns, if a Christian (who claims belief in God, the Bible, and Jesus) unrepentantly promotes false teachings, it may be necessary for him to be expelled from the congregation. (See Titus 3:10, 11.) Of course, if a person just has doubts or is uninformed on a point, qualified ministers will lovingly assist him. This accords with the counsel: “Continue showing mercy to some that have doubts; save them by snatching them out of the fire.” (Jude 22, 23) Hence, the true Christian congregation cannot rightly be accused of being harshly dogmatic, but it does highly value and work toward the unity encouraged in God’s Word

[THE WBTS'S POSITION IS INDEED TOTALLY DOGMATIC AND HARSH. IT IS ALL ABOUT PUSHING ASIDE LOVE, MERCY, AND REASONABLENESS IN FAVOUR OF STRICT LEGALISTIC CONFORMANCE TO IT'S OWN PECULIAR BRAND OF TEACHINGS BORNE FROM ITS OWN DESIRE FOR CONTROL. WHERE A PARTICULAR INTERPRETATION CAN BE FORCEFULLY ARGUED AGAINST, THE CORRECT STANCE FOR ANY CHRISTIAN LEADER IS TO AVOID BEING DOGMATIC AND INSTEAD TO HAVE RESPECT FOR AN INDIVIDUALS CONSCIENCE BY PERMITTING THEM TO HOLD TO THEIR FAVOURED INTERPRETATION AND REMAIN IN GOOD STANDING IN THE CONGREGATION. (IT IS A DIFFERENT MATTER IF THAT PERSON IS BOMBASTICALLY PREACHING HIS VIEW WITH THE RESULT OF TRYING TO BRING DISCIPLES TO HIMSELF AND THUS CAUSING 'DIVISIONS AND SECTS' IN THE CONGREGATION). SADLY, THE WBTS INSTEAD CHOOSES TO TOTALLY 'LORD' IT OVER THE FLOCK - 1 PET 5:3 AND AS A RESULT JW'S HAVE GIVEN THEIR MINDS OVER TO THE WBTS, THUS BECOMING SLAVES OF MEN RATHER THAN CHRIST - 1 COR 7:23.]