Posts by moggy lover

13

W.T. legal dept. exposed!

by koolaid-man in

if you have never listened in to the six screens conference call you don't want to miss saturday night nov.7 ,2009 7p.m.est.

just when you thought you heard it all, along comes more evil that the watchtower org.

is hiding behind.

moggy lover

So....where is V, by the way? Doesn't he make videos any more?

160

Need help disproving 607BCE

by 2pink in

i hope i am posting in the right board.. anyway, i am newly out of the org, and have a dear friend who i've been speaking to all along about my thought process/decisions.

she has been hesitantly receptive (how's that for confusing?!

lol) and when i brought up 607bce to her yesterday, she was truly intrigued and had not heard of this as a false date before.. she is still half in/half out, so i know she isn't going to do a lot of naughty independent research on her own.

moggy lover

The trick about 607 BC is first to acknowledge that the date is not mentioned in Scripture, in fact no date according to our calendar is so mentioned. The reason is because the people in Bible times had a different dating system to ours. We simply have to deal with what is supplied by the text and to transcribe that to our modern dating system.

Instead of saying either in 607 BC or in 586 BC...etc, what the Bible does say is: "In the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar ...." [2 Kings 28:8] So the question arises: When was this 19th year?

Well, there are two schools of thought.

On the one hand there is the entire body of scholarship from every single university and scholastic institution in the world, which says 586/587 BC [Dont be too concerned about that forward slash. That's because the Bible uses two dating systems called regnal and succession years, and we aren't sure which the Bible is using at the text of 2 Kings 25:8, but the difference is only that of six months] and then there is the Watchtower, which says 607 BC. Why this stubborn inclination to hold on to this discredited date? Because this date conveniently leads to 1914 AD, a date pivotal for current Watchtower theology. When the Watchtower drops 1914, they will drop 607 BC. Betcha.

How can you tell which is the right date? Well, again there is no simple 6 second sound bite, like on TV where we can say one way or other. It takes some thinking and calculation. First, the time period we are talking about is called the Neo-Babylonian period. If you looked up Doug Mason's site that he refers to above, you will see that he lists, according to the historical information available to all, the 5 kings who made up this period. They reigned for a total of 66 years [count 'em] ending in 539 BC.

Now if this period ended in 539 BC, which is a year that the Watchtower agrees to, then when did this period begin? All you have to do is add 66 to 539, which leads to 605 BC. That means that this Neo-Babylonian period began in 605 BC which is the year that Nebuchadnezzar became king.

If 605 BC was his first year then when would his nineteenth year be? Again just count back 19 years: 604, 603, 602, 601, 600, 599, 598, 597, 596, 595, 594, 593, 592, 591, 590, 589, 588, 587 586 BC. Got it? It is so simple and so enlightening that even a child should be able to grasp it.

The Watchtower on the other hand resorts to subterfuge, obfuscation, prevarication, discrediting, circular rationalization, assumed illogic, retrograde cognition, [which is also called "proving that which is assumed". If you assume something you can easily "prove" it. Even a flat earth.] and other fallacious forms of so called "reasoning".

They also use pious platitudes along with imperious pontifications to try and hijack the subject. They will use buzz words like "But evidently this"...and "evidently that" As Deut 18:22 says of false prophets [who make unjust profits]: You must not fear such men!

55

To the "Believers" - A Sincere Question...

by AGuest in

to: "non-believers" (i am speaking to the "adult" among you as there are some who simply won't be able to resist... and you know who you are), i would like to ask that you please refrain from commenting, if you would be so kind.

if possible, it would be greatly appreciated if you would hold your comments for another thread, please.

thank you... and may you have peace!.

moggy lover

Your question assumes two things and these make your question loaded in favour of your own personal creed.

1 We do not "choose" to put faith in the Bible, but we do put faith in Him who is the substance of our faith. Jesus Christ. [2 Tim 1:13] The Bible is an extension of such faith but is not the substance of it. The Bible does not save nor does a study of it do so. Only Jesus does. [Jo 5:39]

As Christians we accept the fact that none of us has the Absolute Interpretation of Scripture, hence we accept a variety of interpretive ministries in those parts of Scripture that are not contingent on salvation, although, on those parts that are there is a remarkable and harmonious amity.

We believe, despite its problems, textual, and polemical, that the Bible contains the Word of God, and is inspired and is profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness. [2 Tim 3:16] But nobody becomes righteous by either reading or studying the Bible as if it somehow possesses Talmudic complexities that need to be divined. Righteousness is a gift [Rom 5:17] that is miraculously given to believers who have faith in Jesus Christ. [Ro 3:22]

2 You further imply that instead, believers ought to put their faith in "The Holy Spirit, who is the Son of God, and the Holy One of Israel". This sounds like a complicated system of Oneness Theology which sees The Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit as one person.

I do not intend to go down this road, but suffice it to say, that faith in Christ implies faith in the Father and the Holy Spirit equally, though Scripture portrays them as separate Persons, or centers of consciousness. We have faith in the Father as the Originator of salvation, in Christ as the Means of it, and the Holy Spirit as the Enlightener of salvation. There is no rivalry for our faith in heaven.

14

Blondie's Comments You Will Not Hear at the 11-01-09 WT Study (ATTITUDE)

by blondie in

jw
friends

comments you will not hear at the 11-01-09 wt study (september 15, 2009, pages 7-11)(christ's attitude).

review comments will be in red or headed by comments.

wt material from today's wt will be in black.

moggy lover

Great work, pal.

Will you be doing the two other articles that this study refers to?

2

The Bible And the People (PDF)

by Bangalore in

the bible and the people.(pdf).

download link : http://rapidshare.com/files/253521034/j5654574575745.rar .

bangalore.

moggy lover

Cannot open the file to read. I get a message saying Windows cannot read this file.

32

Memories of 8 day conventions

by monkeyman in

jw
friends

i dont know if this has been talked about before but i've seen it recently mentioned so i thought i'd ask and get the good and bad dirt.. first, who was the nut who thought this up?

8 days????

are you kidding me?

moggy lover

Was the 1958 assembly eight days?

I remember going to it because I was all of 16, had just been baptized the year before, and like the eager beaver I was, I scurried around doing all I could to give a hand. Mostly I was in the washing up brigade. The motto was: First in, last out, and it seemed like it.

We had to get in early to set everything up, and then dismantle everything for the washing up after eating. I must have loved it if I can't remember it being eight days. I have always felt in the vague recesses of my memory, that it was five days. Oh well, the ole memory isn't what it used to be.

I....I.... crumbs!.... I've forgotten what I was saying....OK OK... Just kidding just kidding.

I remember at least two publications that were released. There was the Daniel book, "Your Will be Done on Earth" and "From Paradise Lost to Paradise Regained" It was a release particularly designed for children due to its many rather crude illustrations, and in retrospect, means it was in fact designed for the mass rank and file.

I remember being among the vast herd of Watchtower followers who plagued the local newstand after each day, especially the day of the baptism because the local news would print a special edition for those who were "delegates" at the assembly.

It was great to be young, child-like, innocent and alive at that time, and magic to believe what only in later years we came to realize was a web of deceit, woven by a conniving leadership.

11

if the GB was female....?

by highdose in

jw
friends

just a wandering thought, what kind of religon would the jw's be if the situation was reversed and the gb was all female, only women could hold postions of power in the cong etc....?.

over to you my freinds....

moggy lover

All KHs would be painted pink.

8

Is the GB Representational?

by Simon Morley in

jw
friends

if the gb represent all "tribes, peoples and tongues" how come they are top heavy with us members?

if you take the 2008 ww report, taking the countries with the largest publisher count, assuming the law of averages, "impartaility" and a gb of 12, the make up would be:.

2 likely from the usa; 1 likely from brazil; 1 likely from mexico; 1 likely from either italy/japan/germany; 1 likely from either phillipines/russia/congo/zambia; 1 likely from either ukraine/columbia/argentina/britain and 1 likely from somewhere in the rest of the world.

moggy lover

I don't think that nationality is the only issue. There is also the thorny question of racial representation. And language. It is obvious that Jehovah has a greater love for non caucasian peoples since there are so many of 'em. Maybe something like:

2 caucasians [1 English speaking, and 1 multi European speaking. [Possibly skilled in German/French/Spanish/ Dutch would be ideal]

3 African/American, or simply African if from outside America, only one of whom would be English speaking.

2 Hispanic, 1 Spanish speaking, I Portugese, [to represent Brazil]

2 Asian, one speaking Japanese, and one Korean.

That will make up the currently constituted 9 member GB.

Now we have to look at the female population who make up some 55% of the Watchtower census. 5 women, 4 men again distributed through the grids shown above.

It is interesting to note that the SDAs have 3 women and every continental group represented in their 10 member International Presidency. But then they don't have this "anointed" humbug to protect.

7

District Convention's - Control Freaks

by xelder in

since for many years i served at many levels of convention administration for 5000-6000 attendance (small conventions), i think back and shake my head at the control freak policies.

do any of you remember?

when i used to attend 8 day conventions, (3 sessions a day 9:00-12:00 1:30-4:30 6:00-9:00) departments were huge to organize.

moggy lover

I don't really remember any eight day conventions, but I do remember sometime in the 60s attending what I recall being a six day assembly. Otherwise all the DAs I attended were either three and a half days, [beginning Thursday afternoon, till Sunday night] or four days, if they were International conventions.

[What happened to them anyway? Do they still have them? With Watchtower flunkies jetting around the world on discount air flight tickets]

It wasn't just the work during the blasted things, it was all the preparatory work that went into making all the parts function smoothly.

I must have been nuts.

19

Wish to debunk Witness God's Org Concept

by Luo bou to in

i wish to reach my ex who is heavily entrenched in the org.

i intend to argue along these lines using the parable of the wheat and the weeds.

that jesus knows those that belong to him and today they are scattered throughout the different denominations of christendom.

moggy lover

If you are going to use the parable of the wheat and the weeds, it may be best to know the Watchtower "explanation" for this parable.

Commenting on Matt 13:24-43, this is what they write in their Trinity brochure page 9: "Jesus himself explained what was behind this falling away from true worship. He said that he had sowed good seeds but that the enemy Satan would oversow the field with weeds. Thus a deviation from true Christianity was to be expected until the harvest"

All this is under the subheading "Apostasy Foretold", and as one can see, the "exposition" provided is to satisfy the Watchtower abhorrence of what they call "apostates". That's us, by the way. The Watchtower is telling us here that Jesus foretold a time when many who once bowed down before the Governing Body of the Watchtower would fall away. Hmmm...The question is: Is that what the parable is about?

You are going to have a tough time convincing your wife otherwise, if as you say she is in deep in the organization, since what the Watchtower says is regarded as gospel truth. But you may consider:

1 The word apostasy is not even mentioned in the parable, neither is its concept.

2 In order for those who symbolize the weeds, to be "apostates" it must first be shown that they were wheat originally, and then became weeds. This is absurd, as the parable shows. The wheat are always wheat, and the weeds are always weeds. It is obvious that what Jesus is referring to are not apostates, but counterfeit Christians. They will always look like wheat, and act like wheat and talk like wheat, but they are still weeds.

3 Thus ever since the birth of Christianity there will be counterfeits proposing all sorts of ideas, and naming all sorts of names, but that of Christ, these will be identified in the end.

4 The Watchtower teaches that by the 2nd century AD, a major apostasy broke out in Christianity, and the first evidence of this was the removal of the name "Jehovah" from the NT manuscripts, and the corresponding emphasis given, unjustifiably, mind you, to the name of Jesus. This apostasy would last 18 centuries, during which time True Christianity would disappear, except for scattered groups of unnamed true worshipers. This situation would last till 1879, when CT Russell would start the Watchtower system of belief.

5 If this is what the parable of the wheat and the weeds symbolizes, then: the wheat would have to completely disappear to be overrun by the weeds. This is simply not so. The wheat stands tall and unconquered, it is never overrun by the weeds. In fact the weeds are kept isolated, so that they may be burnt in the Day of the Harvest. This parallels Jesus promise to His church that it would never yield to any outside force. Despite its imperfections, despite its inner quarrels, despite it all, it will always exist as a free institute under Christ.

6 It must be noted that True Christians have no part in the harvest work. That belongs to Christ alone. It is not our place to persecute or in any way physically abuse these counterfeits. They must have their day.[Matt 13:42]

Hope this helps.

Cheers.