Many JW's may say that even though the boy cried wolf, in the end he was right! Does the end justify the means? More to the point is the fact that the boy's constant proclamations of 'wolf!' meant that in the end, when it mattered, he had no credibility left and it cost him his life. Same goes for the Watchtower. They now have no credibility because of their constant false alarms and have become the organised religion equivalent of the cliched eccentric walking down the street wearing a sandwich board announcing 'The end is nigh!.
Will2Power
JoinedPosts by Will2Power
-
73
THE END IS NEAR
by Mary inwith all the ridiculous hype amongst the dubs about how this new tract is going to help bring about "the end", i thought it would be beneficial to highlight how often they've been crying that the sky is falling in the last 1/2 century:.
***w50 2/15 p. 54" stick to your work"*** now is the time to live and work as christians, especially now, for the final end is near.
*** the time of the end is near!
-
-
-
69
Did u want to leave the org bcause u were doing something immoral?
by Will2Power in..and then sought to justify your leaving the organisation/religion by researching websites like this (to salve your conscience, justify continuing in your pleasurable but unscriptural lifestyle), or did you sincerely leave purely because you discovered certain false teachings, scandals, etc, while still living a moral, christian lifestyle?
be honest now, i mean really honest.
(this is not meant to offend anyone but viewed like a survey).
-
-
Will2Power
Thanks for the fantastic replies. I am certainly not a 'troll', whatever that is. My question was legitimate, at least to me. I was interested in this because, as we know, many JWs imagine that those who leave the organisation do so because they are secretly sinning and their consciences become so troubled that they feel psychologically compelled to pull away from the congregation and later on perhaps justify that through discovering and making a big deal about all the faults in the organisation (ie, often those who protesteth the most are the biggest hypocrites). JW's may refer to the scripture about how those who are doing works of darkness do not want to come to the light and apply this to all those who voluntarily leave the org. From all the replies I've seen this JW view of 'apostates' is almost completely unfounded.
-
31
Getting DF'ed next Thursday -- hold me!!
by JimWood inwe are finally free, monday night we had our witch hunt.
they tried to get us to confess to anything.
we came to the jc thinking that we would be talking about the un material that we passed out.
-
-
Will2Power
Here is a scenario, at least interesting to examine from a theoretical perspective: Organise a group to prepare (perhaps set up a website for donations to cover associated costs) a comprehensive accusation/charge directed at the Watchtower Society of apostasy, serious wrongdoing over the UN thing and HAVE IT PUBLISHED in prominent newspapers in New York, London, etc (perhaps have a law firm noted as acting on behalf of the aggrieved and have that law firm give an opinion on possible defamation implications before publishing). In the advert, accuse the Society of failing to apply their own standards for accusations of wrongdoing and demanding that the Watchtower Society individuals responsible be subject to a judicial committee, in the same manner as any other JW should be. In the advert, accuse the Society of gross hypocrisy and flagrant injustice for disfellowshipping 100's of persons for exposing the Society. Demand that the Watchtower leaders follow their own protocol for dealing with accusations of wrongdoing and to conduct an official enquiry/investigation and discipline those. Admittedly this approach is way out there (readers would think it is done by total nutters), and perhaps not realistic, but imagine what the reaction might be...? Look at the fall-out caused to the Society just from those articles back in 2001 in the London Guardian that first publicly exposed the Society's wrongdoing. Imagine if that could be milked more via the media. Another option is, instead of publishing the charge in newspapers, make copies available to download on a website and organise a mailing campaign to JW's and congregations. Or stand outside the World Headquarters and hand them out to Bethelites, or stand outside your local congregation and hand them out to JW's when they are leaving their meeting. Or similar.
-
31
Getting DF'ed next Thursday -- hold me!!
by JimWood inwe are finally free, monday night we had our witch hunt.
they tried to get us to confess to anything.
we came to the jc thinking that we would be talking about the un material that we passed out.
-
-
Will2Power
It doesn't matter one jot whether the information about the alleged wrongdoing of others is true or not...if you are seen to be causing divisions and causes for stumbling then you are down the road. This implies a tacit approval for wrongdoing by others in the congregation. On this basis, the fact is that the Society have themselves given great cause for stumbling others. If you are being disfellowshipped for telling others about the Society's adulterous affair with the UN, then so should those individuals responsible at Brooklyn. The position the elders have taken with you is basically that if you tell others about serious wrongdoing then you are causing division, even if no justice is meted out for the original wrongdoing of which you are telling others about. You could have used the argument that all Christians have an obligation to expose wrongdoing in the congregation, and since you have become aware of wrongdoing amongst the Watchtower leadership (The charge against the Watchtower Society being: spiritual adultery with the UN and gross failure to maintain neutrality towards a political entity) you have an obligation as a Christian to expose that wrongdoing and attempt to have the wrongdoers removed. To play the devils advocate, and in defence of the elders, look at it this way: if you became aware of an individual in your congregaton who had secretly signed up to a political party, had agreed to spread information about that political parties ideals and activities, all in exchange for using that political parties resources/getting certain concessions from them, what would you have done? Would you have prepared a pamphlet and handed it out to everyone in the congregation? No, you wouldn't have. You would have gone to the elders and told them about the individuals wrongdoing. So technically the correct way you should have gone about the UN thing was to present your evidence to the elders of serious wrongdoing on the part of prominent members of the GB and their comrades at Watchtower headquarters and that there is clearly strong grounds for those individuals to face a judicial committee? The persons at WTS headquarters are just individuals in the global JW 'congregation' like anyone else. If there is a prima facie case for gross wrongdoing on their part, even at the very highest level, they should be subjected to the same tests and protocols as anyone else. However, as we know, that approach would have got you nowhere when it comes to the Brooklyn puppet masters. It is one set of rules for them and one set of rules for the R & F.
-
69
Did u want to leave the org bcause u were doing something immoral?
by Will2Power in..and then sought to justify your leaving the organisation/religion by researching websites like this (to salve your conscience, justify continuing in your pleasurable but unscriptural lifestyle), or did you sincerely leave purely because you discovered certain false teachings, scandals, etc, while still living a moral, christian lifestyle?
be honest now, i mean really honest.
(this is not meant to offend anyone but viewed like a survey).
-
-
Will2Power
..and then sought to justify your leaving the organisation/religion by researching websites like this (to salve your conscience, justify continuing in your pleasurable but unscriptural lifestyle), OR did you sincerely leave purely because you discovered certain false teachings, scandals, etc, while still living a moral, Christian lifestyle? Be honest now, I mean REALLY honest. (This is not meant to offend anyone but viewed like a survey).
-
26
I sent him a letter, here is his reply!
by Matt_fs inhey folks,.
for those of you who dont know, i sent my jw friend a letter " http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/121182/1.ashx " after about 3 weeks, i got his reply in my inbox.
i was pretty excited to read it, but only was i disappointed with some of the things he said, and ill explain that after you read it, so here it is: .
-
-
Will2Power
Why is he talking about your lifestyle and quoting scriptures like 1 Cor 6:9? Are you being a naughty boy Matt? If so, he will only think that your 'questioning' is in reality motivated by desire to try to justify an immoral lifestyle. Don't take this personally chum, but It would actually be interesting to survey how many persons honestly leave the organisation purely out of epiphanies about beliefs, cognitive dissonance etc, and how many leave because of getting into an immoral lifestyle and then seek to salve their conscience by researching all the errors of the JW's, the bible, etc. Probably about 50/50 I'd say.
-
14
No, really, it means THIS generation will by no means pass away...
by BabaYaga inwith this seemingly endless 1914 "this generation" brouhaha, i wondered what the age was of the current oldest living human.
no surprise, the answer was found on the guiness site: .
http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/content_pages/record.asp?recordid=48371 .
-
-
Will2Power
A scriptural generation is 40 years. That was how Jehovah viewed the generation that he said would die off in the desert during Israel's wanderings after the exodus. Can't recall the exact scripture but there is a specific reference to all men between the age of 20 and 60. Also, the end of the Jewish system of things in 70c.e. came 37.5 years after Jesus pronouncements on the mount of olives. So from Jesus own point of view and that of his listeners, a 'generation' is 40 years max. So Brother Russell had this right all along, as this is one of the the bases upon which he arrived at the dates 1874 and 1914; he just applied the right key to the wrong keyhole. It is not the 'generation' that Jesus referred to that is wrong, it is the date the Society attaches it to; but since so much WTS doctrine revolves around the 1914 date the Society chose to fudge Jesus own words rather than dump their false date.
-
396
Who is Jesus? Is he God?
by BelieverInJesus ini live in memphis.
months ago, i had some jw's come by and talk with me.
i'm a believer in the holy bible.
-
-
Will2Power
Jesus is patently a lesser God than the father, for numerous scriptural reasons. What did Jesus say about where he got everything from, whose will, teaching, instructions, etc, he was following? God read the gospels again - unless you are thoroughly predisposed to the Athanasian creed you would never see any trinity in them. Any authority Jesus has is only derived from and given by the Father. One has to be blind to not see that Jesus is subordinate to the Will of the father prior to his incarnation, during it, and after it. The father is the head of Christ (1 Cor 11:3), Jesus submits himself to God and hands the kingdom back to Him (1 Cor ?) - all after his return to heaven. Only the father is the Almighty God, the son is only a mighty god.
-
46
Was Being A Witness, All THAT Bad???
by minimus ini mean, you could've been made to be an islamic fundamentalist or something, right?
-
-
Will2Power
It wouldn't be all that bad except for all the damn meetings and being blackmailed into going out on 'field service'. One can at least have a pretty good social life amongst the JW's, although they are only conditional friendships. But then again, it could be said that all friendships are to some degree conditional.
-
396
Who is Jesus? Is he God?
by BelieverInJesus ini live in memphis.
months ago, i had some jw's come by and talk with me.
i'm a believer in the holy bible.
-
-
Will2Power
Nonsense. The one thing that damns the trinity doctrine is the simple fact that Jesus cannot be the mediator between God and man and yet also be God. You cannot be a mediator between yourself and someone else. In fact, in this respect the trinity is a denial of Jesus' mediatorship, and thus an antichrist teaching. Jesus cannot also be God yet hand the kingdom back to God at the end of his millennial reign. You can't hand something back to yourself. These logical fallacies escape Athanasians. Jesus is divine/god-like in nature and only has a type of functional equality while all things have been given to him, but that's as far as it goes. He is clearly a lesser 'God' than the Father.