Posts by CalebInFloroda

58

Governing body deceiving members on purpose?

by wwjdnwt in

i was born into this religion.

i was a jw for well over 30 years.

i did much research before i had internet, i compared bibles and prayed deeply to help me to know if this was the truth.

CalebInFloroda

@galaxie

i think that is a wise assumption, but I can't say that I know for certain what these men on the GB actually think, plan or feel. I don't have that ability, nor can I offer more than assumptions of my own based on my particular limitations.

58

Governing body deceiving members on purpose?

by wwjdnwt in

i was born into this religion.

i was a jw for well over 30 years.

i did much research before i had internet, i compared bibles and prayed deeply to help me to know if this was the truth.

CalebInFloroda

But my comments are still hypothetical and an opinion. I agree that the truth might be a combination of things and also introduce the possibility that when it finally does come to end that the world will be left with more questions than answers about it all.

58

Governing body deceiving members on purpose?

by wwjdnwt in

i was born into this religion.

i was a jw for well over 30 years.

i did much research before i had internet, i compared bibles and prayed deeply to help me to know if this was the truth.

CalebInFloroda

@galaxie

I generally agree with you, but I hold on to the ideology theory when I realized that the changing details of the religion is also an earmark of ideological groups.

A from of "confirmation bias" and denial create a means of bending or re-interpreting reality when reality starts intruding on ideologies. For instance, prior to the dropping of the atom bombs the belief in kamikaze (the spreading of the worship of the Japanese emperor) was a non-negotiable part of the invasions and war effort of Imperial Japan. But after the war began to turn in favor of their enemies, "new light" suggested that engaging in kamikaze could be limited to the Japanese people only without proving false to it and that the central principle behind kamikaze was the protection and preservation of the emperor and his divine status (it's a little more complex than this, but I am trying not to go so far off the subject and thus I am condensing things).

Japan tried to make peace based on this new interpretation of kamikaze, but the American government demanded full surrender, including that of the emperor. When the Japanese refused the atoms bombs came down. In the eyes of the Japanese the impossible happened: their "gospel," kamikaze, was declared false by the emperor himself when he announced the unconditional surrender of the Japanese on national radio, thus dissolving Shinto from a god-worshipping cult into a shell of mere customs that it has become today.

The central idea behind the Watchtower is really but one: they are the one true religion. If you go back to the 1870s and check their doctrines and practices from back then and compare them to what they are today, you will note that everything has basically changed but that one central view. They are an ideology with an impromptu theology designed to twist and turn every way to preserve the main illusion: that they are the one true religion.

They will disown Jesus and Jehovah before giving up that central belief.

45

Governing Body, painted in a corner, now what?

by Wasanelder Once in

the governing body have painted themselves in a corner, so to speak.

if they acknowledge their response to abuse claims was insensitive, unloving and inadequate they are denying the belief that "god's way" is best and risk losing abuse cases.

if they stick with it and say it is "god's way according to the bible" they will be seen as cult leaders and risk losing abuse cases.

CalebInFloroda

I think the response of the GB would be like an "faithful" JW would be: Ignore the news reports, not even see them but they are likely lies spun by the Devil and his cohorts.

If the GB does respond, they will only do so because they will be dragged into them by authorities. The GB will go then and only then, "kicking and screaming," which will play into their self-prophecy that the nations are attacking them.

This is only a theory, but I predict the GB is on the path taken by David Koresh. The authorities are on to them and they will use this opportunity to make it appear that their prophecies are true and the end is near. I would not be surprised if this is followed by some sort of "self-destruction" on one scale or another.

58

Governing body deceiving members on purpose?

by wwjdnwt in

i was born into this religion.

i was a jw for well over 30 years.

i did much research before i had internet, i compared bibles and prayed deeply to help me to know if this was the truth.

CalebInFloroda

While I strongly agree with others that it is definitely possible that some members of the Governing Body might be purposefully fooling others and even themselves, I think the truth may be a little more frightening.

The Jehovah’s Witness movement is more than a cult. It’s what is known as an ideological movement. Imperial Japan was a state-religion ideology that fueled that country into the devastation that was World War II. ISIS (ISIL) is such an ideological movement too. Nazism is probably the prime and darkest example.

In ideologies while it is often possible that leaders know they are entrapping others, horrifyingly enough the leaders are the biggest drinkers of the Kool-Aid, so to speak.

This means that it is very, very possible that each and every one of the Governing Body truly believes what they teach and that they are the very mouthpiece of Jehovah, directed by Jesus and the holy spirit in all the do.

This is a far more dangerous situation than someone who is fooling others. The People’s Temple under the direction of the infamous Jim Jones is one of the most familiar examples of a leader who took a cult and drowned into his own ideology. To demonstrate the extent that leaders can very much believe the garbage they teach, Jim Jones not only had his followers drink the cyanide-laced fruit drink, he killed himself as well.

When ideologies began to spin out of control—and they all do, because they are not only destructive to the world around them, they are self-destructive—more than a few members begin to act like they did in Jonestown before that mass murder/suicide at the Guyana commune in 1978. People in the commune could see a bad ending on the horizon coming quickly, and they wanted out. This happened before the fall of Nazism, and it even occurred before the two atom bombs were dropped on Imperial Japan.

This is more than a shared coincidence. It’s an earmark of an ideological movement that is spinning out of control because the leadership believes its own twisted tale. This pre-self-destruct warning that is causing people to wake up and want out rarely hits when con-artists are at the helm. If the leadership is just out to take some type of advantage of the followers, the leadership will exit at the first sign of trouble. It is clear that they are not doing that, and that is a sign they are lost in their own web.

The sad thing about such ideologies is that because members believe in them so much, there is no exit strategy for anyone. The organization doesn’t supply one because that would be admitting that it wasn’t “the truth.” And members don’t consider one at any time because that would be a sign that one is doubting—a forbidden train of thought in an ideology.

So members begin to just stay, give up and go through the motions. Ideologies rob people of the ability to know what to do at this point. They are prepared for Armageddon, yes, but they are not prepared for the religion to self-destruct and/or be proven false.

It will not be a pretty sight when the end does come. People associated with ideologies often kill their families and themselves because they cannot cope with the fact that they sheltered themselves from reality and real truths. Others attempt to kill others and cause destruction. Some refuse to accept any truth but the ideology and continue to “drink the Kool-Aid” long after the original group dissolves, even going so far as to attempt to distribute it to others believing they have now been chosen to carry on “the work.”

7

When did things turn from paganism to religious?

by ssn587 in

jw
friends

heard someone mention that certain acts are pagan.

so thinking about it, i surmised that marriage, sex, eating certain things were okay and then after g-d gave the law to moses (supposedly) there was a separation for things, actions etc., that were pagan and otherwise bad.

just wondering what others may think about this.

CalebInFloroda

JWs mistakenly use the term "pagan" when what they really mean is "heathen." Paganism is a religion unto itself and is also the label of the Hellenistic/Roman cults of the first century.

A "heathen" is someone who does not worship the G-d of Abraham and Sarah, and the type of customs and traditions the Watchtower is talking about actually go back to heathen religions.

To illustrate: the names of our months and days of the week come from paganism (mainly Roman paganism), but Halloween and Dia de Los Muertos customs generally come from heathens (Celtic and Native American religions). Halloween is often called pagan by JWs, but in reality it is mostly heathen.

To be honest, unless it comes from the Jewish culture, it is paganism or heathen in origin. Since JWs don't allow the practice of Jewish customs among their members, it itself is pagan/heathen because the terms are generally used from the standpoint of that which qualifies as connected to Jewish, non-Gentile culture.

If you don't walk like a Jew, talk like a Jew, dress like a Jew, eat like a Jew or pray and live like a Jew, you're a Gentile...and if you are religious on top of that, guess what that categorizes you as?

39

Horrible Bosses

by John Aquila in

i just heard this a few minutes ago by a jw friend who is still an elder in my old hall.

the kingdom hall i used to attend and my mom still attends was paid off many years ago and serves about 6 congregations.

one of the english congregations has a lot of financially well of members.

CalebInFloroda

Marvelous, John, just marvelous! If only more had access to you in situations like these!

189

How much was Christ's ransom sacrifice? Equal to Adam?

by jonathan dough in

how much was the ransom?

gods justice did not require an exact equivalent man-for-man sacrifice between the first adam and jesus, the second adam.

gods gift required more.

CalebInFloroda

@John Aquila

Thanks, John.

By the way, in regards to what others are saying in support of the ransom of Jesus, I am not after you to try to turn you from your beliefs. But I am interested in your replies. I ask these things with all due respect. I just think pros and cons on any subject is the way to go because not all who leave the JWs who read this board get a chance to hear all sides of the "Jesus" issue.

If memory serve me right wasn't Jesus pretty much beaten to a pulp by the Romans before being crucified? How can Jesus be a sacrifice in such a condition in light of Deuteronomy 17.1:

You shall not sacrifice to the Lord your God an ox or a sheep that has any defect of a serious kind, for that is abhorrent to the Lord your God.

189

How much was Christ's ransom sacrifice? Equal to Adam?

by jonathan dough in

how much was the ransom?

gods justice did not require an exact equivalent man-for-man sacrifice between the first adam and jesus, the second adam.

gods gift required more.

CalebInFloroda

@TheWonderofYou

If Jews really had a tradition of a suffering Messiah, why was Peter so adamant with Jesus that this would NOT be the fate of the Messiah? Matthew 16.21-23 states:

"Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and undergo great suffering at the hands of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, ‘God forbid it, Lord! This must never happen to you.’ But he turned and said to Peter, ‘Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling-block to me; for you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things.’"

Compare Mark 9.31-32 that tells how Christ’s disciples didn’t understand him mentioning how the Messiah had to suffer and die. If what you say is true, why were the disciples so unaware of this Jewish tradition? Were they bad Jews who didn’t know their religion? Were they intellectually or mentally challenged? How do you explain the meaning of texts like Mark 16.10-11 or John 20.9 if the Jews really had a tradition of a suffering Messiah? I would really like to know how the apostles of all people missed it. Why would the apostle Paul have to try to convince the Jews that the Messiah had to suffer and die if, like you claim, they already believed in such a thing?—Acts 17.2-3.

If this was the tradition as you state, why did the two Jews on the way to Emmaus not know about it?—Luke 24.17-20, 25-26.

Why do the Gospels say that these Jewish disciples of Jesus did not know of this so-called tradition until Jesus “opened their mind” to it. If they were already expecting it, why would the Gospels say differently?—Luke 24.45-46.

189

How much was Christ's ransom sacrifice? Equal to Adam?

by jonathan dough in

how much was the ransom?

gods justice did not require an exact equivalent man-for-man sacrifice between the first adam and jesus, the second adam.

gods gift required more.

CalebInFloroda

On the other hand, just for argument sake, does the sin of a human being require anything else but the repentance of the same human being? And does G-d visit the sins of parents upon their children? Do the Hebrew Scriptures agree with the New Testament declaration: “Under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.” (Hebrews 9.22) Or does Scripture testify that G-d can and does forgive without shedding blood?

Romans 5.12 teaches that "sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all." But the idea that the sin of Adam causes us to inherit sin that requires redemption is counter to the words found in Ezekiel 18:

The word of the Lord came to me: What do you mean by quoting this proverb upon the soil of Israel, “Parents eat sour grapes and their children’s teeth are blunted”? As I live—declares the Lord God—this proverb shall no longer be current among you in Israel….The person who sins, only he shall die…

The person who sins, he alone shall die. A child shall not share the burden of a parent’s guilt, nor shall a parent share the burden of a child’s guilt; the righteousness of the righteous shall be accounted to him alone, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be accounted to him alone.—Ezekiel 18.1-20.

Either the concept of Original Sin or inheriting sin from Adam (or Eve) is true or the words of Ezekiel are true, but not both. Either G-d visits the sins of parents upon their children, contradicting the words of Ezekiel, or the story of Adam and Eve have to be interpreted in the light of Ezekiel 18.

And the idea that a human sacrifice is needed to forgive sins, that “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” also goes against the words of Ezekiel:

Moreover, if the wicked one repents of all the sins that he committed and keeps all My laws and does what is just and right, he shall live; he shall not die. None of the transgressions he committed shall be remembered against him; because of the righteousness he has practiced, he shall live. Is it my desire that a wicked person shall die?—says the Lord God. It is rather that he shall turn back from his ways and live.—18.21-23.

Note that G-d does not require a blood sacrifice of even an animal to forgive sins. A wicked person can merely have a change of heart and turn around their lives to keep in line with G-d’s laws and do what is just and right. By merely doing this does G-d promise “none of the transgressions he committed shall be remembered against him; because of the righteousness he has practiced, he shall live.”

The idea that the Jewish Messiah would have to die and that faith in his shed blood was necessary for forgiveness sounds like the same complaint the Israelites made against these words of Ezekiel. These stubborn ancient Israelites didn’t agree with G-d’s way of forgiving people and showing mercy:

Yet you say, “The way of the Lord is unfair.” Listen, O House of Israel: Is My way unfair? It is your ways that are unfair! …if a wicked person turns back from the wickedness that he practiced and does what is just and right, such a person shall save his life. Because he took heed and turned back from all the transgressions that he committed, he shall live; he shall not die.—18.25-28.

Is the idea of a ransom sacrifice provided by Jesus compatible with the G-d of Israel and the prophets?