Posts by moggy lover

s/he kept saying that the convention this year is focused on jesus.. i have been watching and comparing what is being said here and the things presented by the botchtower babble society, both in the local meetings and the assemblies/conventions.

it seems to me, without actually looking up post's, that what is presented to the r&f follows what is challenged here in jwd by a week/month or two.. for a quick example, this particular convention is speaking about jesus.... a lot.

moggy lover

I suppose this proposition may be true, but the extent to which it can be addressed is a subject of tiresome debate. It is true that we can supply plenty of evidence to indicate that the WTS leadership, or at least the writers of their publications, have been forced to react to pressure from the outside, especially from us 'postates.

At least one example can be supplied off my mind, and that concerns the use of Johannes Greber. Evidently a mentor of Freddy Franz when we consider the high esteem Franz accorded Greber, and the various occasions that the Greber NT was quoted with apparent approval in WT publications, this bestowal of "divine" sanction, had to be reversed after increasing pressure from sources outside the Society became apparent. It was only when forums such as this revealed the demonic influence that clearly under-girded the Greber NT, and when this exposure was having a telling effect on the R&F, that the WT leadership backed away from their position. Couching their retrenchment in suitably ambiguous phrases, of course.

And this may extend to various WT articles that are suffering under the glare of circumstances. The regular increase in Memorial partakers over time, has obviously forced those who are the Keepers of the Flame, at WT headquarters, to drop their otherwise absurd 1935 timing on the intake of the "anointed"

Having said that, however, it needs to be taken into consideration that books released at Dist Conventions can take several years to craft. Much of the prose has to possess a certain level of ambiguity which may tax the creativity of any one writer. It takes a skill, honed over many years of duplicity, to articulate WT theology to the condition that makes it conventional. Every editorial equivocation, every enigmatic prevarication, every degree of incertitude has to be utilized so as to make the text say what the leadership wants it to say. Generalization must be clothed in dogmatism, and vagueness given substance.

What can be termed Standard Literary Procedures must be observed. For instance, since 1995, with the dropping of the 1914 generation teaching, the expressions "1914" and "generation" must never be placed in congruency, theological or grammatical. Despite the fact that every English dictionary of the last few years will give "Heaven" as the first meaning for "paradise" [See Websters, for Americans, Collins for British English] it is Standard Literary Procedure in all WT publications to always modify the word "paradise" with the additional noun "earth" lest the R&F get heavenly pretensions.

Then there are the legal parameters. The men with the slide rules and the legal imperatives have virtually hijacked the WT ability to express itself. The polite fiction that the increasingly decrepit "anointed" are crafting WT material is maintained only in the dark recesses of what passes for humour in WT circles.

All this means that the pre publication stage of a Dist Convention release may have to go through several hands, and various modifications. The present publication may have first been given a substantive identity before any Forum suggestions had been provided.

I rather think it is a circular, stereotyped mechanization that reveals why certain publications are eventually released. What goes around, comes around. Obviously some high pressure meeting established that a book on Christ had not been published for a while. So Presto! Out it comes. The same considerations are being applied to next years publication, and the year after that and the year after that......ad infinitum.

I am almost certain the publication for next year's Assembly has already been written, in answer to some need, legal or otherwise.

Having been written in 1985, and revised in '89 I feel that the "[Human] Reasoning" book is fast approaching its use by date. It just isn't ambiguous enough. It just doesn't say the different things it needs to simultaneously say that current publication do. Look out for a replacement soon.

Cheers

8

Another example of the jws lying about their history

by dedpoet in

according to the watchtower of may 1st 1989, the watchtower society made.

"significant changes" to its practices in 1917:.

watchtower 1989 1st may - babylon the great takes a fall.

moggy lover

Badboy, you bet Russell was an apostate.

If he walked into an average KH today, he would promptly be thrown out on his arse.

And this is the guy, according to the latest "revelation Climax" book, who is communicating through the spirit realm, with the WT leadership today.

Cheers

13

Mouthy's Birthday Party

by truthsearcher in

hey guys, i went to the party this afternoon, and mouthy wanted me to post about it and let you know that she is really busy with company right now, but will post again sometime soon.. anyway, mouthy's party was lots of fun--almost everyone there were ex-jws.

i really enjoyed meeting them and talking about their experiences.

they all had their eyes opened in different ways--for some it was a gradual awakening, for others it was a sudden unexpected scripture verse and bingo, the blinders were off!

moggy lover

Haaa...py birthday... to you....haapy birthday to you..... haaapy birth...day dear Mouthy.......happy birthday to you.......

Now common over 'ere and give us a big big kiss

Cheers

5

Who is the god of this system of things?

by LtCmd.Lore in

i'm putting together a list of scriptural examples of jehovah directly intervening in the affairs of nations for his own purposes.. and then of course a much smaller list of all the times satan did that.. (obviously this is intended for jws, so i'm going by their interpretations of things.).

here's what i have so far for jehovah:.

1: jehovah hardens the heart of pharoah so that he won't let israel go.. 2: confuses the human languages, at the tower of babel.. 3: causes esau to lose the birthright and creates two entirely different nations, plus predetermines the political relationship between the two.. 4: gave nebuchadnezzer a dream predicting the next couple world powers.

moggy lover

You are going to have to be prepared to receive a heck of a lot of different views since it involves a verse in Scripture that may be interpreted widely.

For a start I am not sure what you mean by the expression "system of things" That is Watchtower-speak, which is another way of saying it is Freddy Franz-speak, since this was one of his favourite expressions. When I ask a WT follower for a definition, I get a series of meaningless phrases all pointing suspiciously toward the definition of "world" yet they insist that it is something different. The strange thing is that no one asked me for a definition when I was a WT follower, so like everyone else I assumed Franz had a correct "translation"

The actual term used in the Greek is "Aion" simply meaning a time period, an age. 2Cor 4:4 describes Satan as the "god of this age" or the "god of the times in which we are currently living". The extent of his influence is limited and is described for us in this very verse.His power evidently made possible on the sufferance of God, lies in his ability to "blind the minds of people so that the illumination that comes from the Gospel message of Christ - not the WTS, not Jehoover, not any organization, not any GB - will not shine through. Paul states quite finally in 2Cor 4:5] that we [ie True Christians] are preaching NOT OURSELVES, ie the WTS, not jehoover, not any GB to be loyal to, but Christ as Lord. Could it be that some J document somewhere will reveal that Kurios listed here is in fact YHWH? [See 1Cor 12:3 in J14]

The WTS makes a great play about Satan ruling this "world" as if he controls the nations. It is naturally in their interest to push this view, because it encourages their acolytes to remain exclusively bound to their apron strings. If their acolytes spent any amount of time deciding whom to vote for, or if they went to union meetings, it's that much time taken away from their attention that they might give to the organization. Like the master they serve, the WTS leadership has an arrogant and demanding posture they adopt with their followers. It is to them, and them alone you must bend the knee, and touch the forelock.

There is certainly nothing in Scripture to indicate such a blasphemous view of Satan's power.. God is in control of the nations. He always was and He always will be. Ps 47:8,9 makes this plain. "God is the King of the earth He reigns over the nations" Satan's ability to influence minds may indeed extend to those rulers of the world whom he considers fitting subjects.

And Rom 13:1 makes it plain that the Christian has a social obligation towards the governments of the world, Why? Because, Paul says, those governments are "BY" Greek - Hupo - God. The pompous "translation" made by Freddy Franz here reads like a lawyer's dream "Stand placed in their relative positions by'' 37 letters in 7 separate words to render a simple three letter word in Greek.

The world Satan actually controls is described for us in Eph 6:12: "The world of this darkness, [not the world of the nations] the wicked spirt forces in the spirit realm" It is this demonic realm, with it's occult practices, and which the WTS evidently embraces, in that it is in contact with the spirits of the dead ex-leaders of the organization, that the True Christian must contend with.

OK... Having said that what about the incident regarding the Temptation of Christ? How could Satan promise to give Christ the nations of the world if he didn't control them. It is because he is a liar, remember. Like a snake oil salesman, or a con artist, satan was trying to sell something he did not have to sell in the first place. Remember Christ has made one definitive statement regarding Satan: "There is NO truth in him" [Jo 8:44] It is not that he tells the truth sometimes, or maybe or possibly. It simply is that he never, ever tells the truth. So it is simple really. Always believe the opposite of what he says. If he says you will live, it means you will die. If he says he will give you something he never will, because he doesn't have it to give. The blandishments of Satan, persuasive to the physical eyes, are in fact fatal.

What influence Satan exacted in the OT "aion" or time period is not revealed. The revelation of a devil in the Hebrew OT is amorphous at best, and subject to several variant readings. The demonic authority of Satan is peculiarly a NT teaching. And it there that we need to turn if we want to know his operations.

As a free people, unfettered by bonds of darkness exacted by those making extraordinary claims about being the exclusive spokesmen of God, we need to ensure that the "god" they represent does not tell lies, is neither fraudulent, nor a flimflam mirage.

Cheers

48

Comments You Will Not Hear at the 5-20-07 WT Review (Humbly Submit)

by blondie in

humbly submitting to loving shepherds.

*** w87 6/15 p. 15 par.

500-501 par.

moggy lover

Aaaaah yeees .....them were the days. Gad. To strut about the congregation, looking humble but acting otherwise.

I mean...like.... all you said was "The Society says...." and everyone jumped. We had more authority than the medieval Catholic Church.

Now all I got to strut over is Miss Moggy. And she's so bloody spoilt she simply ignores anything I say anyway. Just thumps her tail, wiggles her whiskers in disdain and turns over in sleep. So there.

> sigh< Them were the days.

Cheers

25

Truly disgusting plead for cash in KM School this week

by MinisterAmos in

i wish i had posted this earlier so you guys could have gone to school this week to check it out, but the km school was a long winded plea plea for cash donations, reminding us that "jehovah will be grateful".. how i wanted to raise my hand and ask if the great need was related to paying off the child molestors or ask what happened to the$100s of millions from the property sale, or ask why they needed money after kicking out all the bethelites (two booted bethel couples in the congo).

anyway you guys missed a good laugh.

if anyone wants i'll post the km magazine.

moggy lover

Oddly enough, this appears to be the one weak link in our research facilities here on JWD. The Kingdom Ministry publication, the one used at the Service Meetings. We used to have a guy, as I recall, who kept us up to date with the programme, and who scanned them regularly.

Dunno what happened to him, but I reckon we need a "Service Meeting Overseer", same as we have a WT Study conductor [Blondie] and a Theocratic School Instructor [Leolaia]

So, step right up guys. The hours are long and the pay lousy [pay? what pay?] but we need ya.

Cheers

94

Why 6 Billion People Deserve to Die in Armageddon

by Leolaia in

jehovah is such a righteous, merciful, loving god -- slow to anger, overflowing with loving kindness and blessing.

yet it somehow bothers many of you that he will shortly execute his judgment on mankind and wipe out 99.9% of the world's population, as if that somehow is supposed to conflict with his loving qualities.

personally, i have no idea why many of you feel this way.

moggy lover

Right on, Leolaia!!

The WTS has'nt done any favours for their followers by publishing this stark picture, especially in view of the fact that my Moggy caught sight of it. She cant wait for the next one to come a-callin. Gunna bite 'em right there - where it hurts the most!!!!.

Ouch! Makes me eyes water just thinkin' bout it.

Cheers

2

Which system of reckoning did Daniel use?

by Doug Mason in

which system of reckoning did daniel use for kings' reigns?

did he use nisan or tishri, accession or nonaccession reckoning?

doug

moggy lover

Most scholars today accept the fact that Daniel would have used the system he was best familiar with and that was the Babylonian system of the Tishri based accession year.

Other Jewish writers such as Jeremiah writing from a Judaean national background would favour the Jewish Nisan based regnal, or non-accession system.

In support of this I can quote "The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings" by Prof Edwin Thiele. His chapter on "The fundamentals of Hebrew chronology" is particularly informative [Ch 2, pgs 43-60]

This may explain the discrepancy that might appear to exist between the two texts Jer 25:1 and Dan 1:1.

First a brief primer for those on the forum who are unfamiliar with the terms used in chronological research:

Basically there were two systems of counting the reigns of kings as found in the Bible record.

1 The Babylonian system: The Babylonians used a system called the Accession Year System, which basically meant that when a king ascended the throne in mid-year, the rest of that initial year, till the Babylonian "new year" would NOT be his first year, but his accession year. On New Years day, which in was Babylon Tishri 1, he would legally be recognized as starting his reign and from that day what was termed his first year began,

2 The Jewish system simply counted his reign from the time he started his reign. Simple. This was called the "Regnal" year system, or non-accession year system.

Does this make a difference? Yes. Consider it in our modern day context: Suppose Nebuchadnezzar came to the throne on Jan 2, this year. This year period right up till Dec 31,according to the Babylonian system, would not be counted as his first year, simply as his accession year. THEN on Jan 1, next year, he would be counted in Babylon as beginning his first year.

However if you were a Jew, you would already count this year as his first year, and the next year, as his second year. So at times Chronologists, trying to sychronize information found in the Bible, need to take these cultural differences into consideration.

Take Jer 25:1, as an example. There it tells us that in the fourth year of Jehoiachim Nebuchadnezzar came against Judah

But Dan 1:1 describing the same event says: That in the third year of Jehoiachim Nebuchadnezzar came against Judah.

Contradiction? Nope. Simply different ways of saying the same thing.

In this connection, I might just digress a moment and illustrate what I am trying to describe by relating what, in some instances might be an infuriating difference between the American and British/Aust way in counting the floors of a building. I was in the middle of reading a book on the Kennedy assassination, and having grown up on the American system of floor counting as found in books on the subject, I noticed for the first time that this particular author I was reading, stated that the so-called snipers perch was located on the fifth floor of the Dallas Texas School Book Depository. Fifth? I always thought it was the sixth, simply because every book I had read on the subject said "sixth". It was only when I remembered that the author I was reading was British that he had used that system of numbering that was current in British English. Like the pagan Babylonians we are, we don't count the ground floor as the first floor. The next floor above, what to an American would be the second floor, is our first floor. Problem solved.

Probably a poor illustration, however, it may describe the different ways seperate cultures may describe the same thing.

Cheers

38

Is shunning scriptural? At all?

by Open mind in

it's obvious that the jw view of shunning goes way beyond anything called for in the bible.

1 cor 5:11-13 says,(nwt) "but now i am writing you to quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man.

for what do i have to do with judging those outside?

moggy lover

I think that two seperate issues are being confused and need to be seperated. The concept of "shunning" as defined in WT theology, is foreign to the NT. That much is certain. Even the WT article that first promulgated the idea, back in 1981, admitted that the procedure developed from the more severe restrictions placed on the Jewish idea of identity, and expounded by the Pharisees and certainly not from the Person who taught the Parable of The Good Samaritan.

However, having said that, it must be admitted that every community of believers, whether social such as a primary school, or theological, such as a church is responsible for safeguarding the moral rectitude of its fellowship. In this instance, the matter of church discipline becomes important. Morality is a prime feature of the Christian faith. It claims to worship the God who IS love, and who has revealed His concern for the sanctity of moral codes of conduct among His worshippers.

Those persisting in violating the high moral standards expected of all, must be dealt with. Effectively. There can be no pussy footing around. And the local overseers, entrusted with the task of protecting the flock, must have a Scriptural basis for exacting divine standards.

Although it is true that no one is saved by his conduct, nor is anyone perfect, it is still expected that all believers would lovingly and freely subscribe to a sense of morality befitting the name of Christ. Persistant defiance of these standards must, inevitably bring divine retribution. The catalogue of sins mentioned in 1 Cor 5:11 clearly testify to the church's outlook on morals. Six are mentioned. Immorality,[ NO CHILD MOLESTORS HAVE ANY PLACE IN A CHURCH COMMUNITY!!! ] covetousness, idolatory, profanity, [both JFR and NHK were well known for their use of bad language, including the ''F'' word] alchoholism [enough said about JFR], and fraud.

If you were a parent with young children, your concern will be the protection that the local church accords them Being exposed to lewdness or profanity is not something to be contemplated. All must understand that there is a line that must never be crossed. Notice however, that the concern of 1 Cor 5:11 is morality, not doctrinal conformity. There is no excuse for imposing a uniform concensus of belief on all members in this passage. Nor is there an indication that such discipline was to be administered in such a way that familial relationships were to be distorted, simply to conform to the doctrinal imposition of a secretive leadership.

The ministry of the church is designed to lead the fallen one to a conviction of sin, and repentance.

It is the sad failure of the WTS to see the real thrust of this passage. In fact only very litte attention is given to moralirty in the WT conception of shunning. By far doctrinal probity is much more in demand. Anyone disagreeing with the anonymous leadership, even in the most trivial of ways is made to feel the pressure of shunning. In fact the latest trend in WT circles to secretly conclude child molestation cases with its accusers is ample proof that the WTS places theological conformity above immoral practices. It seems the leadership will protect you for being a child molester, as long as you subscribe to their unfettered authority. In this way they have grossly misrepresented what Paul was striving to maintain in his letter to the Corinthians.

In fact in my own case, my disassociation with the hedonistic leadership of the WTS was brought about by the shunning of several members of our congregation on the somwhat dubious grounds of "spiritual fornication" whatever that may have meant, when in fact their moral code was perceptably higher than the average member.

So yes - it is scriptural to discipline violators of the Christian code of morality, but whether that includes the WT concept of "shunning", especially within family circles, is much open to question. In fact the legacy of this monstrous practice, as seen in the misery created, the psychological damage perpertrated, and the consequent ruin in human relationships, simply to uphold the unwarrented authority of a deceptive leadership, is damning evidence that it is not scriptural.

Cheers