Posts by moggy lover

21

Why has the BAPTISM Q changed?

by artcritic in

"on the basis of this faith in god and in his provision for.

salvation, have you dedicated yourself unreservedly to do.

gods will henceforth as he reveals to you through.

moggy lover

In his book "In Search of Christian Freedom" [pgs 118-121] Ray Franz explores this very problem. In the April 15 1987 WT pg 12, the rationale for altering the baptismal questions was stated as a need to "simplify" matters with respect to the baptism procedure. "Simplify"? what could be simpler than the questions hitherto in use? How could you simplify a matter that was already simple enough even for a moron like me to understand and I took the plunge in ' 57.

The point was that in that WT article, the writers did not mention who the matter was simplified for, and there, my dear Brutus, is the rub. It was'nt simplified for the likes of me and thee, oh no, the WT had a more sinister agenda in mind.

As has been mentioned above, the WTS faced an increasing number of legal suits brought against them by disgruntled former members. They won some of these cases but lost a lot more. Something had to be done to reverse this adverse trend. Enter the Legal Eagles.

The legal brains behind the WTS, probably paid a lot of dough to come up with a solution, found a loophole they could exploit. The US Supreme Court defined the parameters from which a religion had the right to exercise its authority over its adherents. It said that every religion had the "right to create tribunals for the enacting of decisions concerning controversial questions" and that this religious function acted as an "ecclesiastical government for all individual members within the general association" and their adherence connoted an "implied consent to this government"

If, on entering this association, the convert was forced to acknowledge this "implied consent" then any future act of dissent could be viewed as rebellion against a "government" The religion then had the right to dispose of these ones just as any secular government dealt with traitors who had taken a pledge of alliegance to that government. The baptismal questions, since they did not make any reference to any religious authority left the matter open for a dissenter to voice an opposing opinion.

So, now, like a pledge of allegiance to an authority, that is subscribed to as being binding as an oath, the revised baptismal questions make it clear to the new convert that he vows allegiance, not just incidently to jehover and jezzzuz, but to the ORGANISATION. If he sues, or threatens to, the WTS attorneys mail the malefactor a bulky package in the form of a legal brief wherin they cite the above Supreme Court quote, which permits the WTS to act as a "government" and "ecclesiastical court" They then remind the potential dissenter of his "oath" in baptism. So rather than face a potentially damaging court procedure, they invite the person to formally disassociate themselves.

This has indeed stanched the hemorrhage of legal defeats and certaintly "simplified" matters for the legal dept !!!

Cheers

14

What's your favorite Watchtower Quotes?

by drew sagan in

i'm building up a collection of watchtower quotes that i'm going to be printing out in order to talk with my wifes family (sometime in the future but i don't know when).

just want to be prepared.

so what are some of you favorite jw quotes?

moggy lover

Hi, Drew, I'm not entirely certain that this is what you are looking for, but my favourite gem has always been this little gem first published in 1986 in the book : "Worldwide Security under the Prince of Peace"

In a clumsy attempt at rationalizing the embarrasing idea [for the WTS, that is] that Christ is termed the "Everlasting Father" at Isa 9:6, this is what they write: "In such a way the heavenly Father of Jesus Christ will become the heavenly Grandfather of the restored human family" [Pg 169, par 19]

So, evidently, in the New System, when all is said and done, and we are all perfect - living in unutterable bliss in a paradise earth - we will begin our prayers with: "Our Grandfather, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name......."

Cheers

23

What Christian religions do not believe in a burning hell?

by jwfacts in

i am interested in finding out if christianity still teaches a burning hell.

it is my understanding that they are starting to drop this teaching as just a figurative place.

is that true?.

moggy lover

From the scattered bits of information in the Bible the following facts can be gleaned about the place known as Sheol/Hades:

1 It is a place Eccl 9:10 [NWT] It therefore is a spatial unit located somewhere, in a dimension hiterto unknown to us [Most of us look down when making reference to it]

2 It has gates Isa 38:10 These are naturally as literal as Sheol itself, but are not physical. Hence the allusion to Christ as the One having the "keys" of Sheol

3 It is a place of darkness and gloom Job 10:21, 22; Ps 143:3 Evidently light which is a physical reality does not penetrate there

4 Nevertheless it is in some way also a place where the denizens can converse and hassle one another, even recognizing newcomers.They are able to make moral judgments on each other. Isa 14:9-20; 44:23; Ez 32:21;

5 Hence it is a place of concious existence but lacking in "spiritual" values Ps 6:5

6 There are evidently at least three levels in Sheol since we know of it having a "lowest part" Dt 32:22

7 The inhabitants are disembodied spirits called, in the Heb "Rephaim" Jewish Tanach: "Shades" Prot NKJV "the dead" Cath JB "ghosts" Isa 14:9

8 Somehow these disembodied spirits are capable of experiencing such senses as "pain" Job 26:5: and "torment" Lu 16:23 The Heb word used in Job, "chool" evidently means the physical pain experienced in childbirth. However the source of this pain, whether internal or externally generated is not described

9 While the Bible does make reference to those in Sheol/Hades as experiencing "humiliation" and "contempt"- Dan 12:2 - the reference is to a period future to their existence in Sheol/Hades

In none of these passages is any reference made to "fires" as a source of the sensient experiences felt by the dead

However fire is associated with a seperate and eternal existing location which is still in the future. The palce termed Gehenna in the NT. Evidently at the end of the Millennium, Sheol/Hades will be emptied of its non physical inhabitants who, as a result of adverse judgment, will then be clothed with physical bodies and if qualified to be associates of satan and his angelic hordes, be thrown into these literal and physical fires

Cheers

23

What Christian religions do not believe in a burning hell?

by jwfacts in

i am interested in finding out if christianity still teaches a burning hell.

it is my understanding that they are starting to drop this teaching as just a figurative place.

is that true?.

moggy lover

Narkissos: True, Hades is not regarded as a place of physical torment. Those who enter through its gates, [Isa 38:10] which are literal, though not necessarily physical, must be disembodied spirits, or "shades" Heb "Rephaim" a term that occurs 6 times in the OT. NASB has "spirits of the dead" while JB has "ghosts" To the best of my knowledge the WTS has never commented on this term as referring to the dead. [The item in the Insight book deals exclusively with an allied termthat has an ethnic application]

Whatever "torment" is suffered in Hades is not physical but applies in some way to the spirit part of the person which survives death. It evidently appears to reflect that which can be expressed and understood in physical terms. There is however a metaphysical dimension that does transcend a full literal physical explanation. In other words the pain suffered can be literal, though is not physical.

I simply cannot elaborate because of the paucity of information available from revelation.

Cheers

23

What Christian religions do not believe in a burning hell?

by jwfacts in

i am interested in finding out if christianity still teaches a burning hell.

it is my understanding that they are starting to drop this teaching as just a figurative place.

is that true?.

moggy lover

Unfortunately your question has an element of ambiguity in it. For instance do you mean now ?

There is no Evangelical church that advocates the existence of a burning hell at the present time. The reason is because there is no Scriptural revelation that actually advocates this.

Hell is a place that has been prepared for satan and his demons [Matt 25:41] Whatever else it is, [and the literal wording of scripture, whether one accepts it or not, makes it refer to a literal place with evidently a literal fire] it has been prepared for satan and his demons and will begin operating when he is thrown in it with his hordes. Knowing my God, I am sure that there will be a lot less there than many expect. This is clearly identified in time as after the millennium.

Most Evangelicals believe that when one who is not "in Christ" dies he/she goes to Hades/Sheol which evidently is a literal pace located is a spacial dimension unknown to us. This is NOT a place of physical torment.

Most Evangelicals also believe that those "in Christ" go to be with the Lord when they die.

The churches that advocate a metaphorical aplication to "hell" are the various Adventist bodies: The SDAs, JWs [And those who link their spiritual descent to Russell] The various Churches of God, The Christadelphians several Nazarene churches, among others

Cheers

35

on the trinity

by drew sagan in

i was just wondering what the opinions those on this board regarding this topic.

i know some have moved towards more orthodox theology, others have not.

curious as to what the opinions are of this.

moggy lover

Hey Nark !! Did I read right ???

It's your birthday??

Happy birthday you old sod

Cant remember when I was 45

Cheers

35

on the trinity

by drew sagan in

i was just wondering what the opinions those on this board regarding this topic.

i know some have moved towards more orthodox theology, others have not.

curious as to what the opinions are of this.

moggy lover

I believe that the doctrine developed along strictly theological lines over centuries, slowly at first but never rashly.

I believe that it is the most rational way to reconcile all the factors that the Bible reveals about The Father, Christ, and the Holy Spirit, without doing an injustice to the text by diminishing the substance of what it says in all its revelation.

The Father is God

Christ is revealed in Scripture as God

But He is not the Father

He is subordinate to the Father but not inferior to Him

Being fully God He was also in all respects human but sinless

The Holy Spirit is revealed in Scripture as God

There is only One God

All these statements are revealed truth, but not explicable truth. Because this not so easy to understand, or believe, I feel that that the Bible, and God, has left each one of us as responsible for the expression of our own faith. We will ultimately stand or fall on the basis of our belief.

We can quite easily say: "I don't understand it so stuff it"

Or, "I don't understand it so I'll make it understandable"

Or we can say: "I'm not required to understand, only believe. So I believe"

I will never say that, because I believe therefore you must. It is not my place to determine another individual's belief. It is important that each person embark on his/her own spiritual journey, walking in his/her own shoes. The goal may never be reached, but the quest is what life is about. It is what extends the very meaning of being part of the human species.

Cheers

6

Was anyone here at the Australia Melbourne convention this weekend?

by The Lone Ranger in

jw
friends

was anyone here at the australian melbourne convention this weekend?

i am just curious, if anyone that posts here was there, besides me.

attendance was fri approx 7,500. sat approx 9,500, sun 10,000.

moggy lover

Talking about recycling, I remember a poster on this forum making reference to a talk at this latest DA which alluded to the "snares of the birdcatcher" which snares included such items as pornography, entertainment and the internet.

Well, as far back as the late 70s I distictly recall being assigned to give a talk entitled the "Snares of the Birdcatcher" Here satan was depicted as again being the author of pornography, and entertainment. Neither he, nor the WTS had been able to foresee the internet.

All that is happening is a going around in circles. Verily hath it been said in the book of the profit$ :

"Blessed are they who go around in circles

For they shall be called BIG WHEELS"

Cheers

18

Is questioning at the bookstudy still allowed?

by yaddayadda in

i remember when i was a kid it wasn't unusual for someone to ask a question of the conductor during the bookstudy.

not that often but occasionally.

in my most recent years as a dub i can't recall anyone ever asking any questions.

moggy lover

WT patois, inculcated to the neophyte at the earliest possible moment in his/her indoctrination, indents a seperation of ideas in the thinking of the learner. For instance, "asking a question" is seen as different from "questioning". The first, if banal or trite enough can in fact often be encouraged. It is however, the latter which is somehow invested with a certain sinister motivation.

One whose questioning can infer a mutability to "God's Organisation" will be reminded that such a procedure seriously prejudices the monolithic integrity of such a system. The hackneyed, though inelegant phrase "Wait on jehover" is used with monotonous regularity, primarily to indicate to the questioner that his/her answers lie in some remote infinity, but more actively that such actions can determine his/her place in the WT system.

The WT society encourages neither scrutiny nor debate. And the sooner an accolyte understands this the better it is for all concerned, not the least of whom are the collective leadership

Cheers

4

Coming to a knowledge of the Truth, Progressive Disclosure?

by Fatfreek in

i found the following definition interesting: .

progressive disclosure, a technique for hiding the complexity of an interface by presenting the user with the primary or common options or choices at the topmost level, and then revealing more advanced or complex options ... .

does the wt use this technique as well when bringing new ones along?

moggy lover

I feel rather the WTS encourages, to a degree, the concept of selective disclosure - revealing to the over inquisitive only that which is considered to be necessary for him/her to know. Any contrary view being either summararily dismissed or discredited.

Remember that there is an inherent irony in the WT system. Wanting to be seen as a free and open society, they are in fact hermetically sealed to all but the most trusted accolytes. The WTS neither encourages nor cultivates close scrutiny, and those who probe beyond the tolerable limits of their standing in the movement are pressured, not too gently to back off. Vague niceties, and a demand for doctrinal cohesion, are employed too forestall any further inquiry.

If the soft approach, couched in such phrases like "wait on jehovah" does not appear to work, the newcomer will find that his stay in the movement is very temporal.

In other words he's out on his arse.

Cheers .