Bammer

Joined

• started 0 topics
• posted 6 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Bammer

• 
  7

  Who/What is the faithful and discreet slave?

  by KW13 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i know its not the dubs, but so that i have an answer to any dub.

  who/what is the faithful and discreet slave mentioned in matthew?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Bammer

  Funny, I was just discussing the same thing with some family members earlier today.
  
  My take on it is this: In Matthew chapters 24 and 25, Jesus compares the 'last days' with various situations (parables?):
  
  1: The great flood
  2: Tho men working in a field
  3: A faithful and discrete slave
  4: 10 virgins
  5: A main going on a journey
  
  JWs (or rather the GB) pick situation number 3 and state, that this particular parable is more than just a story or comparision. They claim it shows that God will pick a servant when the time comes. They don't claim the same for the other things Jesus mentioned, only number 3. They don't, for instance, claim that Gods people on earth should be governed by 5 wise virgins... interesting as that would be.
  
  I can't see why Jesus' story number 3 in this section should be more than just a story to describe how things will be. After all, the other 4 where just that. There are things in the Revelation and elsewhere that speak of a great crowd and a small crowd, but nowhere (as far as I know) does the bible connect these statements to Jesus mentioning the FDS.
  
  So, my personal view is that this section from Matthew does not state, that God will have a FDS today. I believe Jesus (or at least the author of Matthew) was describing how things would be when he 'came in his glory', whatever and whenever that was. I believe it talks of the sacking (?) of Jerusalem in the year 70.
  
  Hope it makes sense.
  
  Best regards
  
  Bammer
• 
  49

  Ever know of a great family movie, the Witnesses found demons or evil in?

  by free2beme in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i remember growing up, the witness children were often ones that were left to see all those g rated movies from disney.

  yet even those at time, while accepted by just about every religion out there, were considered demonic.

  for example, the following movies were said to show witchcraft and in or congregation we were encouraged to discard them and not own copies of them; sleeping beauty, snow white, the little mermaid, bed knobs and broomsticks, and fantasia.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Bammer

  The Witches of Eastwick. One time, I was stupid enough to tell some JW friends about a funny scene in the movie, and they immediately told me I couldn't possibly have watched that movie all the way to the end.
  
  I would actually have thought Gladiator was forbidden, because of the extreme violence portrayed. But I remember one time in book study, the conductor (or whatever it's called) would refer to the movie to comment on how horrific it had been for the christians who where killed in the colloseum. I was really surprised he openly 'admitted' he had seen that movie.
  
  No a movie, but hen I was a kid, I was told that the smurfs were a no-no, or that they had previously been a no-no or something. My mother couldn't remember the reason, and had no problem with me reading the comics.
  
  Also, the TV series Friends was more or less OK to watch here in Europe, but when I told some JWs in the States that I watched it, they looked at me in disbelief.
  
  Take care
  Bammer
• 
  58

  Why is the WTBTS so against mental health professional treatment?

  by Gill in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  following on from sandy's thread on her brother's pt, i wondered exactly why does the wtbts take such an opposing stand to professional mental health treatment?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Bammer

  Good idea Bammer, and welcome to the board! As for the girl you knew, is she still a JW? If so, would the same therapist adivse her to leave today?

  Thanks :-)
  I don't know if she's still a member, but I would assume she is. I don't know what advice she would receive today, but I can imagine it would be the same. I don't have much knowledge of how therapists work (I've just known some JWs who've received treatment), but it seems to me that they focus entirely on how the individual can learn to cope with their problems. Whether a religion is good or bad for the patient is not something they try to assess - at least that's how it appears to work.
  I can't help notice that of the JWs I've known over the years, and the very few I know now, it seems that a great deal have serious personal problems - often mental problems. And I think this is embarrasing to them. I've heard JWs state that being a JW is the ultimate joy and bliss, only to break down in tears afterwards because they came to think of something painful to them. By acknowledging the fact that many JWs need professional help, they have to admit that their God, the community and their faith isn't enough to help them overcome all problems... but they're probably just not praying hard enough!
  Bammer
• 
  58

  Why is the WTBTS so against mental health professional treatment?

  by Gill in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  following on from sandy's thread on her brother's pt, i wondered exactly why does the wtbts take such an opposing stand to professional mental health treatment?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Bammer

  By now, I think everyone here realizes that the "colleague in Croatia" was a made up story by the WTS.

  Well, probably, but doesn't have to be. I dated a JW girl a few years ago who had been to a psychologist (due to a death in her family this girl had a difficult time), and she told me the psychologist had actually adviced her to stay in the JW! The psychologist believed her faith was what kept her going. I personally think it's a bad advice to give a person with problems, no matter what religious group is in question. But as someone else stated, mental health professionals are not judgmental and this one probably felt that to advice the girl not to remain a JW would be putting personal opinion over concern for the girls mental health. Take care
• 
  29

  The October Awake on Creation/Evolution!

  by Gill in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i don't know if parts of this mag have been discussed.

  i've been reading it slowly, and though evolution/creation is not an argument i want to get in to (each to his own) there are a few points that i'm going to bring out in the next week or so that 'irritated me'.. does science contradict the genesis account?.

  page 19 subheading 'creations appear gradually'.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Bammer

  I recently received the magazine from a family member.
  
  Something that really bothers me about it is on page 3, where there's a small box that tries to explain why Jehovas Witnesses aren't creationists. Jehovas Witness are quite obviously creationists! They just hate it when they are put in a group with other religious people, as it makes it harder for them to think of them as being completely isolated and unique in the religous world.
  
  Some quotes from the box (I'm translating from my native language):
  

  ...there is no basis for calling them creationists. Why not? First of all because many creationists believe the universe, the earth and all life upon it was created roughly 10.000 years ago over a period of 6 days of 24 hours"

  
  
  Yes, many creationists do believe that. We call them Young Earth Creationists or YECs.
  
  Jehovas Witness are Old Earth Creationists.
  

  The creationists have adopted many doctrines that are not supported by the bible.

  
  
  So not all creationists share your beliefs? Yes of course. A Jehovas Witness waking up from a 20 year coma would not share present JW beliefs. Doesn't mean JWs aren't creationists.
  

  In some countries, the term creationist is used regarding fundamentalist groups who are politically active.
  ...
  Jehovas Witness are politically neutral.

  
  
  Again, so what? A creationist believes the earth was created and life was formed by an intelligent designer. JWs believe the same. JWs are therefore creationists.
  
  And it might be a good idea to look up the definition for a fundamentalist, too. JWs are a perfect match.
  
  It bothers me that they spew out so much nonsense, just to try to add to the illusion that JWs are oh so special and completely different from all the other religions on every single doctrine. Some even have trouble calling themselves christian.
  
  Take care
  
  Bammer
• 
  11

  Book of Daniel

  by blackswan Number 2 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i do not want to get into the whole 607 vs 587 debate here.

  not my intent.

  as of right now i am wondering about the book of daniel.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Bammer

  Hi all.
  
  I've been lurking around here for a while as I generally don't write much on forums, but when it comes to the book of Daniel I can't resist the temptation to join in on the discussion. I really find that book fascinating.
  
  I think the most compelling evidence that this book - or at least major parts of it - is not prophecy is chapter 11 regarding the king of the North and the king of the South. Basically this description of events fits extremely well with actual history as we know it, right until the events described in verse 40 and thereafter. The events described in these verses don't fit at all with history. The fact that the verses before fit perfectly well with recorded history, and the verses after don't, is in my opinion very strong evidence that the book of Daniel was written (or at least compiled) in the year 163 b.c.
  
  I know some christians argue that the events of verses 40-45 did actually happen, just not right at that time, and they're of course free to believe this.
  
  What I find quite interesting also, is the completely ridiculous attempt by the Watchtower to 'stretch' the events of the verses to make them fit far, far beyond the year 163 b.c. I once tried to compare chapter 11 and actual history with the timeline proposed in the book "Pay Attention to Daniel's Prophecy" by the Watchtower, and I was astounded by the way the Watchtower goes completely off the deep end in their interpretation of verses 40 and beyond.
  
  Whereas the events described in Daniel take place within a relatively short timeline - the events of one verse and the next are sometimes only 1 year apart, if that - the Watchtower has one verse span hundreds of years, actually more than a thousand years. The roman empire became the bysantine, which became anglo-america (where did the Ottoman empire go?), which brings us to the present day.
  
  They could have tried to reconcile the events of Daniel with actual history, and used that to claim Daniel was a reliable and accurate book, but instead they try and make the timeline of the kings of the North and South about the present day - even though they can't really say who is the Northen king today.
  
  Anyway, I know your post wasn't really about how the JWs interpret the book of Daniel, but I couldn't resist writing about it. Sorry :-)
  
  
  Take care.
  
  Bammer