Posts by moggy lover

32

Comments that made feel pity at last Sundays WT study

by drew sagan in

i believe it was paragraph 17, the one that spoke about the faithful slave and how there are those who wish to be "independent" and that this is wrong.

two comments came, both from elders.

elder 1: so what the paragraph is telling us is that instead of developing an independent spirit we actually want to be developing a spirit of dependece upon god's organization and the spiritual food they provide.

moggy lover

The lamentable fact about mind control - for this is what the WTS is practicing on its membership - is that it does not discriminate between differences of human intellect. No matter how brilliant a mind - and there are many such in the Org - no matter how capable a mind is of soaring above the horizon of human thought, it is still finite, and thus subject to the same subtle pressure points that afflict us all. Others, in whose wake we now tred, have observed this incredible phenomenon, and have commented on it.

The trick is to ensure that the mind, especially that of the elder, is not made aware of this process. In fact the most sucessful technique is to confront the issue yet simultanaeously to deny it!!

In the WT of Feb 15 of 1994, this statement is found:"Were there any attempts made to brainwash you?" Having posed the question, the WT article then inveigles the thought control programme into the waiting mind by answering the question - thus ensuring that the pre-packaged information is correctly interpreted. The WT-conditioned response is: "No! Would doubtless be your response" [I am grateful to the book "Answering Jehovah's Witnesses" pg 163 by David Reed, a former JW Elder, for this WTS quote] So now, the receptive Elder is convinced beyond any measure, that in fact he is NOT being brainwashed, and that his mind is free of outside encumbrances.

Then comes the "Jehovah Syndrome" This is where this tri-syllabic word is invoked, endorsing the illusion of divine sanction, and thus making any defiance a sign of rebellion against God. Of course "God" is an amorphous concept to the Elder, the only tangible grid he is trained to relate to is the existence of those who pose as the True Representatives of "God" - the very ones who are controlling his mind! Thus the circle is complete, and his dependance on the FDS ensured, and as long as the Elder continues to "feed" on this information, provided in a stream of an endless duplication of words, he will remain thus under control

The questions I have often pondered are: How the hell did we ourselves get involved in this criminal endeavour, and more importantly, how the hell did we get out???

Cheers

5

Do-it-yourself theological constructs!

by bebu in

now we can all sound like leolaia and narkissos.

bebu

do-it-yourself theological construct .

moggy lover

Dear Bebu, I had this serious disagreement with Moggy here. I felt that a liturgical perspective based upon interdisciplinary considerations adds considerable urgency to an emphasis of dogmatics and a soteriological point of view.

Whiskers bristling at such idiocy, she insisted that any attempt to introduce historical analysis calls into question the eschatological structure from an exegitical point of view and imposes smothering constraints upon the clarity of the sociological dimensions.

She would have put me right on other socio-theological points as well, but she had more pressing matters to attend, namely it was time for din-dins

Cheers

10

Welcome Babs! Newbie Post!

by Sparkplug in

hi ladies and gentlemen, i've been reading your comments, i am not a jw, my daughter is dating a boy at school who is a jw and he always talks about not celebrating holidays, and what they believe and don't believe because of their jw faith.

i wanted to find a website that i could see (for myself) the jw beliefs, i thought is this for real?

my family enjoys celebrating valentines day, because it is a day we go out a buy the children a rose, and a big heart box of candy, i remember as a kid it was a special treat to get a big heart, then we would save the box for special mementos and notes.

moggy lover

Hi, Babs and welcome.

Hmmm dating a jaydubya? I hope he's a nice bloke. If he is anything like I was when I was a 'teen [gawd - when was that? the 60s?] I'd have to think again. I was the only member of my family to become a jaydubya and I was an arrogant little shit. My mum was constantly embarrased at my antics before family friends at gatherings such as birthdays, Christmas etc. It is only now, with the hindsight afforded by age and experience, that I realise how offensive I truly was. I wish that I could apologise to all those long-suffering people to whom I was so impertinent.

By all means keep us posted and remember that you're among friends here.

Cheers

7

Does the Bible contain all the truth?

by greendawn in

does the bible contain the whole religious truth or just a part of it that just happened to get recorded, and came to us?

i think only a small part of the truth is in the bible, eg jesus says to the apostles "i call you my friends because i revealed to you everything that i heard from my father" but i am sure he told them a lot more in those three years than what is in the gospels.

much of the truth that was said or written before or after john's revelation never came to us.

moggy lover

That's a tricky philosophical question and will not be resolved here. Neither will it be resolved by us alone. As an evangelical Christian [Baptist, actually but don't let that scare ya - Moggy's been with me some thirteen years and has found me to be quite harmless - she gets her din-dins on time and she's spoilt rotten] I will have to say : Yes of course it does.

However that does not mean that there is no other truth elsewhere. Truth is an infinite resource whose meaning and sustenance will never be plumbed in the entire lifetime of the human species. The quest for truth began with the first human being who conceived the first finite thought and we have progressed on from there. The only way we can find "truth" is to think, and an essential ingredient of thought is belief.

Augustine once said: "To believe is nothing other than to think with assent. Not all who think believe, yet all who believe think" Belief therefore becomes an act of will, the voluntary acceptance of a proposition as true. A person may know or even understand a certain proposition, yet not believe it.

This brings us to the Christian proposition. Christian belief uses reason to arrive at the truth of Christ, for the alternative, credulity, reduces us to automatons. But, reason alone cannot produce belief in Christ. Reason accompanies belief but does not cause it, because belief does not come about simply as a result of investigation. Rather, the Bible tells us, it is anchored by God Himself.

Somehow, sometime, under whatever circumstance, we are confronted with the idea of God, and whether He plays any part in our lives. Col 2:3 tells us that the totality of all wisdom and knowledge is tied up in the Person of Christ. There is a sense in which Christ is the answer to every question, and the ultimate result of every thought. Even a question as banal as "What's two plus two" must, in Christian belief produce the answer :"Jesus Christ!" because without Him there would NOT be a two-plus-two system of logic. However when I said there are other truths, I allowed for other answers to that question. Of course you would not be wrong if you said "four" - only that you would not be aware of the Endowment that undergirded that proposition.

The role of Christ in "Truth" is illustrated in an old Gypsy proverb:"To make an omelette, you first have to create the universe"

Of course, embracing truth sets us free, it does not enslave us. We are accountable ultimately to God, and not to any self-serving arrogant and domineering "organisation" that claims exclusive rights to "truth" and which insists on its own prerogatives in our lives. No man, or group of men, can, or ought, to impose such a degree of theological servitude on anyone.

Cheers

3

1 Peter 3:15 - Why doesn't the WTS address it.?

by Gregor in

1 peter 3: 14-15-16. read all three verses to frame the context of vs. 15 " ...be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear.

hey, i'm no fred franz but this scripture seems pretty easy to understand.

peter starts this letter by reminding everyone of all the fantastic things that this new born faith was promising, the return of christ, redemption for all, etc.

moggy lover

The trick, I think lies in word-meanings.The jay-dubyas are trained to convert the word "listen'' into ''ignore'' and the word ''discuss'' is made to mean ''dogmatically assert'' and ''what the Bible says'' is changed into ''what the Watchtower Society says the Bible says''

So, in plain English, the greeting at the door which should be: "Good morning, I am here to listen to your thoughts and to discuss the Scriptures with you and to show you what it says" is by some linguistic alchemy converted into: "Good morning I am here to ignore your thoughts [because you are obviously wrong] and to dogmatically assert what the Watchtower Society says the Bible says [and you can go get stuffed if you dont want to hear my meaasge]"

Cheers

9

Why witnesses of Jehovah?

by greendawn in

the jws will right away turn to isaiah 43:10 and say there is the explanation: .

"but you are my witnesses, o israel!

" says the lord.

moggy lover

I think Super Becka is on the right track here, a perception, by the way, that I feel is so charming in one so young, when she describes the WTS as a Jewish offshoot - because this has been my observation as well - having studied, and followed, their pattern of beliefs for many years. In fact I feel pretty certain that we can trace a Jewish origin to this group all the way back to the 1 cent of the Church

I am reminded of the Council of Jerusalem and the issue of circumcision that had arisen at that time. Acts 15:5 identifies a group who were in attendance at that gathering [they were, it seems the main trouble makers] Luke describes these as being "Of the sect of the Pharisees who believed" Evidently this group, who may have been among the first converts to Christianity ever since the day of Pentecost some 20 years previously, had their "headquaters" in Jerusalem and thus were not far from the Apostles who were also located at that city. By describing these people as "Pharisees" even after being Christian for at least 20years, I feel certain that Luke is telling us that the baleful influence of the original group had not been blunted by conversion and the more moderating freedom that came from accepting the Holy Spirit's guidance. The quivering self-rigteousness that characterized these ones, their almost total preoccupation with the minutiae of legalism, and their total fascination with the mechanics of belief rather than its results, were the well-spring of their piety. The supreme arrogance of their belief was their uncompromising exclusivism, the rationale that they, and they Alone,were the Only Right Ones around.

It appears that they, rather than yeild up all the impedimenta of their Legalistic Judaism, merely grafted the belief in Jesus being the Jewish Messiah onto their existing pattern and carried on from there.

The current WTS has obviously been influenced by this ancient pattern. However it must also be said that there were other influences that modified this - I can cite other ancient formulas such as Gnosticism and Greek Rationalism etc that als have played their part in influencing WTS thought, but the original premise remains.

The lamentable result of all this is that the followers of the WTS cause continue to popagate, with a zeal worthy of a greater cause, their thoroughly unbiblical doctrines, and to disseminate a deadly hatred against all other Christians and what they stand for.

Cheers

23

The WT is again reminding women of their "proper role"

by mjarka911 in

the 3/1/06 wt questions from readers is discussing 1 cor 14:33,34 and explains the phrase "keep silent".

after the usual claptrap and disclaimers (like how sometimes women have to substitute for baptized men in a congregation setting) - it concluded by saying women keep silent by "not raising argumentative questions that could challenge the authority of those who teach.

" how do the women swallow this stuff and still feel grateful for "rich spiritual food"?

moggy lover

Coming to think of it, I vaguely remember this assembly I attended. It might have been in ' 84 which would have been my last since that was the year I left the WTS [Was it the Divine Loyalty DA?] Anyway, I distinctly recall being astonished at hearing the speaker, a man who I had known for several years, since we were elders in ajoining congregations saying that women ought not to be critical of any "spiritual food" provided by the GB, even to the extent of not frowning or assuming any facial attitude that could be construed as being adversely judgemental. THAT, he assured the women in the audience, was what Paul meant by being "silent"

At first I thought he had to be joking. Surely the GB would'nt be that crass. So I casually asked if I may read his outline, which was provided by the society. Sure 'nuff there it was in black-and white and large as life. Crikey! I thought - does that mean that a person with a penus CAN have those facial expressions?

Cheers

21

JW's at your door

by kls in

last saturday my brother in law answered his door to a man that asked " are you worried about the environment and pollution"?

my brother in law said" yes i am " .

as they chatted for a few moments ,the man at the door reached into his briefcase case and pulled out his bible.

moggy lover

I recall an incident that was relayed to me when I was witnessing back in the 60s. It was the height of the UFO craze with articles and news reports being bandied about all over the place. Anyway, there was this rather over zealous dub who told the lady at the door that he had a message for her which was of vital importance because.... wait for it.....wait for it...... It was a message from outer space!!!

The lady evidently slammed the door in his face muttering something about needing his inner space examined!!

Cheers

7

Watchtower Knowledge

by Honesty in

how accurate is it?

moggy lover

It is neither accurate nor absolute.

It is: Flexible, fickle, dissolute, truculent, perfidious, trivial, fraudulent, insidious, attenuated, equivocal, myopic, dangerous, hypocritical, vengeful, blood-guilty, criminal, corrupt, debased, putrescent, contradictory, profane, deleterious, odious, impious, arrogant, perfunctory, torpid, evasive, callous, aberant, and did I say avaricious?

Like most cats, my moggy reads the words of the WT from right to left [must have some Hebrew in her] and gets more sense out of it than most JWs reading the words correctly!

Cheers

10

The Watchtower and John 10:16

by Honesty in

one only has to be aware of the relationship between a shepherd and his sheep to understand that the jw doctrine of 2 classes of christians, one with a heavenly destiny and the other an earthly one is terribly flawed.

i lay down my life for the sheep.

then there will be one flock, one shepherd.

moggy lover

I am reminded of a conversation I had with a couple of JWs awhile back relating to this subject. It concerned the text at Eph 4:4, where Paul tells his readers about the ONE hope that is held out for those who are "in Christ" I asked them to explain to me how, in the light of this verse the WTS actually teaches TWO hopes as being held out. One heavenly, and the other earthly.The bloke became quite agitated at the suggestion that "God's Org" might be teaching something not in Scripture. "You see," he said there is only ONE hope. There is ONE hope - for the "anointed" - and ONE hope for the Other Sheep!!"

"Oh come on" I gently chided - using the patois of the Trinity - One plus One is TWO not one!! Crikey! The poor bugger almost burst a blood vessel when he realised he was sounding illogical, even to himself!!

Oddly enough, though, his wife seemed a trifle more intelligent. She gave me an explanation, which to a novice JW would have been wholly satisfying. She pointed out to me, as if to a mental retard, that Paul was not adressing the OS of today, since he was only referring to the one group, called the "anointed" She made a big score of the fact that Paul used the term "YOU" in Eph 4:4, not "US". If Paul had said "us" then, she conceded, there was a likelihood that the WTS could be wrong.

This raised another problem. If the "YOU" at verse 4 only applied to the "anointed" then the same word, "You" which is used at verse 31, and which is part of the same context, does not apply to the OS. This of course means that the OS are no longer under an obligation to put away unsavoury social attitudes like abusive speech etc. The lady muttered something about vs 31 applying to the OS "In principle"

Which raised another problem.What "Principle" is to be applied at verse 4? Evidently, the word "You" can be applied in principle to the OS at one place, but not another!!!

As IPSEC [Yes it took about 5 mins] and Narkissos have pointed out, it is only by a deliberate manipulation of the text of Scripture, and an emptying of any meaning inherent in particular verses, that the WTS doctrinal position can be maintained. It must be remembered that the WTS has never actually "Taught" its two-hope theory - it has dictated it, with no optional grid supplied. The teaching is simply not open to discussion, or debate. Take it or leave it. To paraphrase an aphorism of the 70s, "Authority means never having to say you're sorry"

Cheers