i title this part this way because i was, over the course of the next couple of years, involved with so many committees (one way or another) that, even though i wasn't an elder, i almost felt like one...as subsequent parts will show.. in any case, it was inevitable that my smoking would be found out.
to his credit, the brother that approached me did as the bible says he should do: he approached me privately, inviting me to voluntarily broach my error with an elder.
of course, as much as i respected, and still have no reason to disrespect, this friend, there was the clearly implicit threat that "if you don't, i will have to.".
Craig, this is great for me, right now. I noticed the same lack of Scriptures at the meetings I have recently had with elders. I am constantly turning to Scripture after Scripture and they don't turn. When they cite a "Scripture bite" at me, I turn to it and read it aloud in context. It makes them look like asses, which I hate becase my dad is PO, but it is also the only honest way to interact with them on anything remotely like an equal level.
In anxious expectation of things to come...
this may have discussed on a previous thread.
a few years ago, a watchtower article discussed the issue of jws who are employed in the health care domain and who, during the course of their legitimate employment duties, have access to private and potentially incriminating information on other jws.
i think the article used as an example confidential information on an unmarried witness's file that documents she has had an abortion.
In the article they say that reporting is a personal decision, but attempt to place a huge burden of guilt if a person chooses not to. The net effect would be that the one who acted on their personal decision is the ONLY one who could be sued, because the article plainly leaves the decision to the individual.
"Do what we tell you to do, but don't hold us accountable for telling you to do it!"
AGGHHH!!!!
AuldSoul
it seems that when a person leaves jw's, there's just no telling where he'll end up spiritually.
christian, jew, pagan, jamesthomasism -- i dare say every faith is represented among us.. but there are those that reject faith altogether.
they are often accused of letting the watchtower steal god from them, or throwing the baby out with the bath.. are you one those that rejected faith altogether after your exit?
I say that God is subjective, like the other things listed. I am not attempting to prove the existence of "God" any more than I am attempting to prove the existence of "love." I was drawing attention to the distinction between objective and subjective, that was the only distinction I was drawing.
I was combining like things under one accurate descriptor, "subjective." Doing so is not offering a "red herring." Would anyone like to show me in what way God is objective. People are simply unused to thinking of God in terms of which primary category of reality God would fit into.
I am glad that you see why I categorize reality into the two primary groups that science categorizes reality into, FunkyDerek. It seems reasonable to me to do so. I was a little stymied by your attempt to objectify what science places in the subjective realm.
AuldSoul
this is upsetting, thought i should pass it along.. .
check your drivers license.... now you can see anyone's driver's license on the internet, including your own!
i just searched for mine and there it was...picture and all!.
WAS THAT upside/down????
todaythings have really come to a head and i have a massive decusion to make by 7pm tonight!.
basically i have been dfed since march tryed to get reinstated two weeks ago but they said no, thing is i only did it for my family esp my dad he is not well and i love him to pieces.
but when i got dfed i had a boyfriend and things have been up and down (hes put up with alot) but he is sticking by my side and i love him and want to be open about him and not lie anymore, .
(((Cordelia))), sweety if you aren't true to yourself you will play false to everyone. Reassure your dad of your unconditional love for him. Express freely how much pain you are experiencing from knowing that his love for you is conditional on whether you are approved by Jehovah's Witnesses. Let him know that your door and heart is always open to him no matter what choices he makes with his life.
Tell him that whether his door and heart are always open to you has to be his decision to make, and if he wants to use an organization's rules as his guide when it comes to who he can associate with that can't really be your fault and you can't carry guilt over his decision. Cry with him. Say goodbye, if he makes you.
But whatever you do, you can't afford to carry guilt that isn't yours. It sounds like you have yet to make sure that the responsibility for strain on the relationship is placed where it belongs, on Organizational policy.
AuldSoul
beards!
in my congregation it is frowned apon.
a male can have one but he wouldnt get any privilidges and would probably be labeled the black sheep.
So what I would do Is research the WT library, look up the scriptures and the reasoning and I would pray to God and then I would make my decision.
defd, I am impressed. If you keep doing this, and you consider whether the context of the Scriptures used actually supports the point drawn from a specific verse, I believe you will eventually come to have serious doubts about whether the FDS speaks for Jehovah. I bet you would agree that whatyou describe is not what most Witnesses do.
I think it is interesting that no one knows who the FDS is. We know who the Governing Body is. We know who the partakers are. But we don't know how many of the partakers are actually legitimate so we can't actually identify the FDS, i.e. Christ's brothers (according to the JW teachings), as a group for ourselves. The First Century Christians had no touble identifying each other.
Not raising the point for debate or to waylay the thread, it is just interesteing.
AuldSoul
for those of you familiar with wikipedia, you can get the answer to almost any question.
it's the greatest online encyclopedia and reference.. for curiosity sake, i looked up "jehovah's witnesses" and came up with this link.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/jehovas_witnesses.
not only does it do a pretty good job of outlining what jws are about, it also mentions they are suffering from a decline in numbers in developed lands.
ithinkisee, the criticisms are well founded. However, I don't think it makes one whit of difference. Wikipedia will continue gain popularity and will work its kinks out as it goes. Or not. Either way, I believe it is here to stay and will become a repository of a greater breadth of knowledge than anyone could hope to gain by perusing an ink encyclopedia. It is already beginning the process of self-correcting.
I like the idea, as many encyclopedias I have seen have incorrect or grossly inadequate entries on subjects that I know thoroughly. As an example of self-correction, consider the following.
On this page: Organizational structure of Jehovah's Witnesses
Under "Servants" I added:
, and to fulfill certain directorial roles. This appointment creates a distinction between the overseers and the overseen.
Under The Elders, I added:
When one of Jehovah's Witnesses commits or is accused of committing a sin, an investigation by two elders may lead to the formation of a Judicial Committee made up of three elders. Judicial Committees are responsible judging the wrongdoer and sentencing according to their judgment. When an elder is accused of sin there is a requirement of "two or three witnesses" before the accusation will be judged. (1 Timothy 5:19, 20)
I think these are small but very important refinements in public understanding of this religion. This is not possible with World Book or Brittanica. I have been invited onto the Jehovah's Witnesses project team! I am so psyched!
AuldSoul
i added an item to the wikipedia jehovah's witness article which was removed as an "erroneous belief.
" i believe it is correct, but i need some help.
i added using info from the quotes site, as well as from reasoning from the scripures: .
In practice, it is the "Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses", jstalin. A relatively new Organization.
But, in reality, Jehovah's Witnesses don't state anywhere what the true Organization is, I have scoured their publications. It raises an interesting question regarding apostasy and baptism, though. If you don't even know what the Organization is, how can you reasonably be expected to affirm association to it, and how can you reasonably be expected not to draw away from it?
Also, you need to be aware that this particular wiki is moderated, as are the others in the Jehovah's Witnesses project.
AuldSoul
it seems that when a person leaves jw's, there's just no telling where he'll end up spiritually.
christian, jew, pagan, jamesthomasism -- i dare say every faith is represented among us.. but there are those that reject faith altogether.
they are often accused of letting the watchtower steal god from them, or throwing the baby out with the bath.. are you one those that rejected faith altogether after your exit?
skinnyboy, and that wouldn't even be a delusion if the one experiencing it realizes that their belief cannot be proven.
I think it is important to point out that faith is based on subjective experiences. Faith in God is likewise based on experiences. These experiences are subjective. It is entirely possible for someone to believe in something they have never had any experience with. For instance there are many people who have never experienced love and believe it exists, anyway.
On the other hand (you have five fingers...ba-dump--pshh!) it is also true that many who have experienced love question its existence at later points in their lives, question whether they ever really experienced it.
AuldSoul
it seems that when a person leaves jw's, there's just no telling where he'll end up spiritually.
christian, jew, pagan, jamesthomasism -- i dare say every faith is represented among us.. but there are those that reject faith altogether.
they are often accused of letting the watchtower steal god from them, or throwing the baby out with the bath.. are you one those that rejected faith altogether after your exit?
FunkyDerek, thank for the "concession." That was big of you, especially since we are dealing with a fact of reality. "Subjective" is the antonym of "objective" therefore it is impossible to confer properties relating to objectivity onto the subjective merely by describing the subjective. A subjective experience (such as love) is not objective in nature, any definition that arises is perforce also a subjective definition, that is, a definition entirely open to the discretion of the one experiencing the thing described.
Merriam-Webster Online
Main Entry: sub·jec·tive
Pronunciation: (")s&b-'jek-tiv
Function: adjective
1 : of, relating to, or constituting a subject : as a obsolete : of, relating to, or characteristic of one that is a subject especially in lack of freedom of action or in submissiveness b : being or relating to a grammatical subject; especially : NOMINATIVE
2 : of or relating to the essential being of that which has substance, qualities, attributes, or relations
3 a : characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind : PHENOMENAL -- compare OBJECTIVE 1b b : relating to or being experience or knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristics or states
4 a (1) : peculiar to a particular individual : PERSONAL <subjective judgments> (2) : modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background <a subjective account of the incident> b : arising from conditions within the brain or sense organs and not directly caused by external stimuli <subjective sensations> c : arising out of or identified by means of one's perception of one's own states and processes <a subjective symptom of disease> -- compare OBJECTIVE 1c
5 : lacking in reality or substance : ILLUSORY
Main Entry: ob·jec·tive
Pronunciation: &b-'jek-tiv, äb-
Function: adjective
1 a : relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence -- used chiefly in medieval philosophy b : of, relating to, or being an object , phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind <objective reality> <our reveries... are significantly and repeatedly shaped by our transactions with the objective world -- Marvin Reznikoff> -- compare SUBJECTIVE 3a c of a symptom of disease : perceptible to persons other than the affected individual -- compare SUBJECTIVE 4c d : involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects , conditions, or phenomena <objective awareness> <objective data>
2 : relating to, characteristic of, or constituting the case of words that follow prepositions or transitive verbs
3 a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations <objective art> <an objective history of the war> <an objective judgment> b of a test : limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum
synonym see MATERIAL, FAIR
- ob·jec·tive·ly adverb
- ob·jec·tive·ness noun
- ob·jec·tiv·i·ty /"äb-"jek-'ti-v&-tE, &b-/ noun
The fact that a thing is subjective (such as faith, love, God, respect, humility, pride, etc.) doesn't prevent these things from being believed in.
