Posts by moggy lover

182

What's your all-time favorite Song by musician ? Name Song and Artist

by flipper in

jw
friends

flipper again.

personally my all time favorite song?

stairway to heaven by led zeppelin.one of my top favorite groups ,too.

World's Worst Inventions...

by Jim_TX in

jw
friends

what do you feel is the world's worst invention(s)?.

i think that those 'leaf blowers' are pretty useless.

all they do is move stuff around - making it someone elses' problem.. regards,.

moggy lover

Sliced bread!!

I usedta love cutting me own bloody slices, and thick too. I mean real thick...... So I like eating bread with these dollops of butter... OK?

Then along comes this jerk who invents "sliced bread" in fact this nameless gorm has gone into legend everytime we use the expression "this is the greatest thing since sliced bread".....gggrrr .....let me at 'im.... the sod.

Now....letmesee....all I gotta do is get the hang of these ring tops on the beer....

Cheers

4

emPHASis on the FAther - favored Witness fallacy

by jgnat in

as i complete my hubby's revelation study this evening, i came across a common witness fallacy.

the particular fallacy is called accent and is described here: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html.

a classic example of accent is the witness interpretation of john 13:35, excusing thereby their neglect of neighbour:.

moggy lover

I am not sure if this falls under the same category but here goes:

At Gen 2:23, the WTS Leadership always puts the emphasis on the expression "At LAST" in an implied attempt to suggest that rather than be created in the same calender year as Adam, Eve was created several years, possibly even decades later. The odd thing is that this Hebrew word: "payim" is translated by Freddy Franz the Wonder Oracle of "god" as "now" twice at Prov 7:21. Translating it as "now" at Gen 2:23, as several more intelligent translations do, makes Adam's word one of welcome, rather than relief, as the WT "translation" makes out.

Another example of flawed emphasis that I can think of is at Isa 42:8. Here Yahweh talks of two His qualities: Glory and Praise. With the former, the WT "translators" have added the word "own" which is not in the original text [oddly enough, they have not even acknowledged their insertion in the form of square brackets] the emphasis is thus placed on the uniqueness of Yahweh's glory, hence an attempt to deflect any unintended application to Jo 17:5. The odd thing is that the second noun, "praise" which either has no doctrinal relevance,or any particular entrenchment that the WT Leadership needs to protect, and which is exactly the same construction, has no "own" !!!

Go figure.

Cheers

15

Australian Publisher Statistics analysed -

by jwfacts in

i have just posted some graphs on australian publishers at http://jehovah.net.au/aust_statistics.html over the last 30 years.

there is a huge change in growth (or should i use the term shrinkage) over the last 10 years.

enjoy.. .

moggy lover

Great work, JWF. Statistics don"t lie and as Brinjen observed, not something that will be publicized by the WTS in the KMs.

I left in '83 when the WTS boasted a population of 43,000 in this country. With an average of 2,500 converts a year and as pointed out, a .86% attrition due to deaths, I reckon the WT population in OZ ought to be in the region of 105,000 at the least. I mean with 2,500 a year it means they have accumulated over 60,000 converts in the 14 year period of my leaving. That they are only about 80,000 in number means that they have dissipated some 20% of their membership in this same period, despite the growth. Such a rate of hemorrhaging simply cannot be sustained.

I think what must be most worrying is that white bar you inserted in the statistic. I notice a trend, first appearing in the mid-90s, where those defecting are more than those converting. If I were a member of the GB, I'd pull my finger out, and either scarper to the Bahamas with all the cash of the WTS, or else I'd bury my head in the sand and enjoy the remaining years of profitability by taking increasingly longer holidays in better climes.

Cheers

24

80 year old grandma (Mouthy) gets hit on at lunch!

by Bumble Bee in

jw
friends

so, today mary and i took mouthy out for lunch.

it was a buffet place.

i was walking behind mouthy and we walked by an older gentleman.

moggy lover

Hell, stuff the doorman, I'd like Mouthy's phone number!!

Cheers, mate

25

Which WT doctrines or belief is correct???

by vitty in

jw
friends

considering that most if not all of the wt beliefs are bs......................do you think any of them are right?.

i myself dont believe in hell fire, but foreverything else, the trinity imortality of the soul, the great apostacy or armageddon im still not 100 % sure.

so which ones do you think the wt are spot on with ?.

moggy lover

The answer is not easy to provide because when it comes to any theological position, it necessarily depends on ones perspective or personal inclination. For instance if one is charismatic in perspective one would say that their teaching on tongues was wrong. If one were Adventist in orientation, then one would admit that their teaching on the Afterlife was correct.

Probably the best view to take in research such as this is to test them according to their own beliefs.

1 They claim to believe in the inerrant nature of the Bible, yet they claim, at the same time that it is not inerrant because it had been tampered with. Hence their need to "restore" God's "name" into the NT. Either the Bible is inerrant and therefore untampered with or else it is in error, thus needing to be restored. In appearing to stand for an inerrant text of scripture, they actually are advocating a conveniently eclectic text. Thus making it capable of saying, like a pliant whore, whatever it is they want it to say

2 Most of what they believe on various doctrines is duplicated by other groups, but those which are unique to them have, at one time or other been either discarded, or revised in such a manner as to suggest that no revision has actually taken place. The 1984 teaching of Christ's "invisible" presence is a prime example. When it was dropped, and 1914 advocated, it was done under the subterfuge of "progressive revelation" That it was in fact a contradictory revelation was quietly and successfully ignored.

3 Not only have their own doctrines needed revision, but their words as well. Their own literature, established as authoritative when written with the imprimatur of the WTS, has often been found to be wanting. For instance, when the "Aid" book was written, back in 1971, it said on page 584, under the subject of "firstborn" that the word could mean "pre eminent". ""David, who was the youngest son of Jesse, was called the "firstborn" due to his elevation by jehoober to the Preeminent position" However, much to the chagrin of the WTS leadership, this would mean that Jesus was not the first created being by jehoober, but that He was Preeminent over all creation. Col 1:15. So those words concerning David had to be rewritten. The "Insight" book, published in 1988, in volume 1, pg 836 now says: "It seems that jeboober was referring prophetically to the one foreshadowed by David" Gone is the offending phrase that "firstborn" can mean "Preeminent" So, having been written in 1971, it took the WTS leadership seventeen years to realize that indeed, the "Aid" book was in fact not an aid to Bible understanding.

The average R&F member of the WT movement is encouraged to believe that these later publications are indeed examples of "advancing light" when in fact they are devious, and ultimately dishonest attempts at covering up theological embarrassments. It is only when, like all of us, a R&F member is moved by an impulse to research that the full extent of this deception is uncovered.

So, one can say, with a confidence borne from exacting investigation, that none of what the WTS has ever said has been found to be true. Like the master they serve, under the guise of using this hybrid word jehovah, there is no truth in them. [Jo 8:44]

Cheers

5

Is it proper for witnesses to use racial comments?

by NotaNess in

jw
friends

a few times, a couple of witnesses i work with have used a phrase about someone who's like a jew when it comes to their money, or saying a person likes to "jew" them down on pricing.. one time it was even applied to another witness.

"he's becoming like a jew with his money".

how do you view this?

moggy lover

It is improper or any human being who bears the name of Christ to insinuate any racial or nationalist or ethnic or gender slur against a fellow human for whom Christ died.

Not even in jest.

Cheers

33

We need a secret hand signal!

by Miss 8572 in

do you still go to the assembly just to laugh quietly inside?

wouldn't it be great for those of us that do still go to the assemblies and meetings,etc.

to have a secret signal that lets us know who we are?

moggy lover

Hmmmmmm......... I'm getting this real cool idea. But only us old'uns will remember.

Back in the dark days of WW2 when it seemed all was lost, Churchill invented this "V" for victory sign. You held your hand up and used your index and middle fingers to craft a V - for victory of course. Victory over the forces of darkness, victory over the cult of death, victory over oppression

Cheers

67

Sheep, other sheep, other other sheep, Three classes of sheep?

by garybuss in

i got this message from a forum member.. i think you may be confusing the wts' understanding of the "sheep" of matthew chapter 25 (who have not yet been separated from the "goats") and the "other sheep" of john chapter 10. the two groups are not (i.e.

no longer) considered synonymous.. .

what am i missing?

moggy lover

I don't know what's up with you guys. I mean geeez its so bloody simple even Ted Jaracz can understand it:

There's those sheep that exist now but won't then, then there's those who don't now but will then and there's those who aren't now but will be and those who were but maybe, then there's those who wannabe but who won't, and those who don't wannabe who won't either, then there's those who can be who can't, and those who, because they can't be won't, there's those who tried to be but won't be and then there's those who, having gone round in circles for so long don't know whether they are or will be or won't, then again you can't forget the ones who coulda been but because they crapped on Teddy's shoes won't be, there's those who climbed up his arse so far they've disappeared, of course you can't forget those sheep who are more goatish than sheepish, [couldn't help that one, forgive me Lord] then you've got those sheep who are really pigs, those who are cows, [waddaya mean who's them? haven't you heard of the antitypical mad cows?, I mean there's antitypical other things, why not them Hmmmn? Teddy hasn't had the vision yet, but he will, he will] f'instance you've got the nethinim sheep, the sons of the servants of Solomon sheep, the Jonadab sheep, the Gibeonite sheep, The Jael sheep, Job's children sheep, the Queen of Sheba sheep, and evidently on firmer theological grounds since they were identified by Franz himself, the Judaized Persian sheep.[Wt 1950, pg 191] I mean you've got lots of sheep. There's this lot here and that lot there. Then there's me.

No, not you, bugger orf.

Cheers

103

Jehovah's Witnesses turned Christian....Post Here

by R.F. in

i would like those of you former jws turned christian to post here.

specific denominations can be mentioned.

i'd just like to get an idea of how many of you there are.

moggy lover

I think that a fundamental difficulty that the WTS has, and which no True Christian is permitted to have, is that the concept of the word "Christian" or at least our contemporary understanding of the word, transcends the rigours of denoninationlism. "Christian" and "Denomination" are not necessarily synonymous terms.

To be a Baptist one needs to be a Christian, but it is equally true that to be a Christian one need not be a Baptist. To be a Christian, either as a formal communicant in a denomination, or as a result of a personal affirmation, one must enter into a mystical union of believers who have expressed the same conviction, all down through the living history of the faith.

The NT, the basis on which the faith rests, views "Christians" not in terms of a denomination, or an organization, [indeed the NT often portrays the early believers as horribly DISorganized] but as an assembly of "called out" ones, those whom God has called out of the world of sin, and into a condition called ''grace" This assembly of the "elect" is neither geographical nor restricted to any time element. As long as the NT stands, Christians will, as their forebears have done, take that one step forward in a conscious affirmation of their belief in Him who gives substance to their faith.

Augustine called them a "mixed body" not necessarily made up of the best elements of human society. But it is a holy body, and despite the admixture of those "unholy" elements within it, it must in this time as in times past, affirm its commitment to its Head.

Despite the varieties of belief that characterize it, the universal Christian Community of believers is bound by four threads.

1 It is one. Though fragmented by denominations, True Christians are united in confessing ONE Lord, ONE hope, One faith, ONE baptism.

2 It is holy. This is because it is sanctified by God and indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

3 It is catholic. Its membership in both space and time has always been universal [catholic means universal] in that its membership extends across the globe in a framework that encompasses peoples of every nation, culture, ethnicity and, yes, denomination.

4 It is apostolic. The teaching of the apostles, entrenched forever in the words of the NT form the framework of belief, and the authority from which such belief derives. A Christian takes his/her authority from the Word, and bows the knee to no man or collection of men who claim to "speak" for Deity.

The Christian believes that the Holy Spirit speaks directly to the believer, but the problem, openly acknowledged, is our imperfect hearing. Hence the varieties of Christian belief. These differences are not evidence of disunity, just that Christianity today eschews conformity. Those who compel the expression of unity in terms of conformity are intruding their own postulates onto the universal Christian community. Although Christians dwell in separate tents, they live together.

In addressing the question of whether the WTS system of belief can be termed "Christian" the answer must revolve around the way they confront the assertion of Acts 15:14. God is calling out a people for His name.

Whose name? The record of the first Christians found in the book of Acts assigns only one name to these called out ones: CHRISTians [11:26]

Since the WT leadership, and their several writers who hide behind the subterfuge of anonymity, have themselves declared their allegiance to another name, with only tangential lip service to Christ, and since they have conveyed the idea, through mesmerizing repetition, their divine sanction to modify the meaning of Scripture, and since they have ascribed to themselves the authority resident in the Word, and since they demand unfettered obedience to their will as expressed in their literature, rather than the liberty that belief in Christ brings, I cannot feel it in myself to regard them as belonging to this community we call Christianity.

Cheers