Posts by Cold Steel

17

Marry Only in the Lord

by Rattigan350 in

last night at the meeting, a local needs talk preempted the regularly scheduled part.

an elder who is the most society following elder talked about loving god and then he talked about bible principles such as marry only in the lord.

he talked of deut.

Cold Steel

Stuckinarut2 » Wow, so he actually said this was a "marking" talk? That is not supposed to happen nowadays.

What's a "marking talk" ?

14

if you had to choose to belong to 1 religion, i was curious as to what any on the forum would pick.. i realize most here are likely atheist (i would have to say i'm agnostic), but if any would like to share their opinion, and maybe why?.

Cold Steel

I'm a Mormon as many of you know. BUT if I were not a latter-day saint, I'd be an Orhodox Christian. (I might join Blondie's church, but there's a waiting list.)

12

Only Jehovah's people

by rebel8 in

jw
friends

today i went to a large talk.. there was no arguing or swearing, just kindness and respect.. it was orderly and calm.. trash was put in the proper place.

people were even picking up litter that wasn't even theirs.. the speakers were passionate and inspiring.. the entire event was orchestrated by volunteers.. it was march for science, not a dub ass-embly.

so much for "only jehoopla's people" behaving like this at large events..

Cold Steel

Rebel8> It was March for Science, not a dub ass-embly. So much for "only Jehoopla's people" behaving like this at large events.

Yes, but they're gonna be destroyed during Armageddon while all those stuffy old elders at the Kingdom Hall and the people at those events are going to be saved in Paradise Earth. (Gloat, gloat!) The birds of prey are gonna eat those science march people to the bones. Pick a little, peck a little.

5

Eschatology based faith

by Steel in

my wife recently took a week off work to pioneer which really pissed me off because it kind of pissed away our summer holidays.

of course i asked my typical questions about " do you actually know what the new covenant is ?

or what is the point of all this time with the new understanding of the faithful slave.

Cold Steel

Still, there are certain rules one must adhere to, not only in biblical exegesis, but apocalyptic exegesis as well. Numbers, beasts, prophecy all mean certain things and one can't just take a translation and delve into the text without knowing the rules. And this is what the JWs do all the time. (And it's a reason they've yet to be right about anything.) You also can't tell them anything, either. They could take analytical courses that would help them understand beasts, numbers and rules that can't be abrogated or ignored, but one would have to go take college grade courses and above, and higher education, as we all know, is a distraction.

I've read the red Revelation book one of them gave me several times, and the interpretation they apply is so precise that it could only be interpreted by someone who knows the rules and has the Spirit of God; for what is given by revelation can only be interpreted by revelation. The problem is, the Slave has never claimed to have either the understanding or the inspiration. In fact they have repeatedly told the world that they do not receive revelation or inspiration in the same fashion as the apostles. One wonders, well, in what fashion do the members of that august body receive inspiration and guidance which is revelation but is not revelation, and is inspiration but is not inspiration?

How are people to know whether they are numbered with the anointed class if it is not revelation? And how can the Slave know that the two prophets of Revelation 11 are really a bunch of 1919 Bible Students released that year so they could begin preaching again (thus being resurrected on the streets of Jerusalem, which is another term for the church. That leap makes the one Eval Knieval took across the Grand Canyon look like a kid's hop, skip and jump exercise! It violates everything we know about eschatological exegesis, and giving it in a paper with real scholars would be a supreme embarrassment. Now if the Slave claimed revelation, it would simply be their word against everyone else's; however, since they have said they don't receive revelation, then how could they possibly know?

The entire GB=FDS equation is based on one verse in Matthew 24. But ask any JW to show you another scripture that has a similar interpretation. Or, when two prophets in an apocalyptic book are murdered and then resurrected on the streets of Jerusalem "where our Lord was crucified" -- ask them to find a similar verse that had a metaphorical interpretation. When apostles and prophets took the time to be so precise, it's highly unlikely they refer to something completely different.

Cobweb > The book of Revelation does not apply to our time. It was describing an imminent end just as Paul also expected an end in their lifetime. It has references to the Roman Empire. The mark of the Beast 666 or 616 as they think it is now, is a code number that identifies a specific Roman emperor.

There are numerous reasons this can't be true. The Beast to which this person refers never fulfilled any of the prophecies applied to him and they were made after the destruction of Jerusalem. There was no mark on the hand or forehead employed by which people could buy or sell. And the Beast was very carefully associated with a ruler described by Daniel, which the emperors of Rome never fulfilled or bore the slightest resemblance to.

You say the King of the North and the King of the South were "the Ptolemies of Egypt and the Seleucid's of Syria, literally to the North and South of Israel in the second century when Daniel was written." But how would you know that since you yourself said "these biblical apocalypses are failed prophecy and they have [no] relevance for us." You're doing the same thing the JWs are doing, but in reverse. The fact that you say these were "failed prophecy" could just as easily mean they don't refer to the Greek sub-kingdoms you say they do.

34

Are there 'ultra strict' congregations?

by jambon1 in

jw
friends

when i studied as a young adult, it was in one of those congregations.

having viewed the religion as a quaint little band of christians it conpletely dumbfounded me when i was told about such rules as 1 - no beards.

2 - you must wear a suit to meetings and while giving a talk.

Cold Steel

Jambon1 > Also, they had a white shirt in the cloak room for any visiting elders who showed up to give a public talk wearing a coloured shirt.

Okay, I take it that elders wear white shirts, but only while giving talks or all the time?

Relating to the beard issue, let's say I have a neatly trimmed beard and am doing the Bible study thing. When do they tell me the beard has to go?

Before baptism or after baptism? And have any of you had the distinct experience of informing someone with a beard that it has to go, or do the elders do that? Any interesting reactions that anyone can share?

What if someone resists? Or says that their skin breaks out? Or they have a sales job and that their beards hide a droopy neck or something?

7

Baptism as a Symbol of Dedication - Anther unbiblical doctrine of men

by doubtfull1799 in

i'm not sure if this has been discussed before - i did a brief search and couldn't find anything on this particular aspect.. for those atheists who believe it is all nonsense anyway, feel free to ignore this post.

i happen to be of that same persuasion but i still enjoy discussing it on a philosophical level.

its funny how you may have left because of the more "out there" doctrines and chronology etc not making sense and you come to see that they are going "beef the things written", but the longer you're out and the more you think about your old beliefs, even the most common basic or "fundamental" doctrines are also "going beyond the things written.. baptism as a symbol of dedication is a case in point.

Cold Steel

Baptism was viewed by the early Christians as more than just an outward display of inward commitment, but as a covenant. That's why John 3:3-7 records:

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

Baptism is required for all men (and women) who gain eternal life. This is what was meant as being born of the water. Being born of the Spirit is receiving the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands. The JWs believe that all who are baptized receive the power to become ministers of God with the authority to preach, teach, expound, exhort and baptize. The strange thing is, men cannot baptize their own children in the Organization, though I know of nothing that specifically prohibits it. The Organization won't recognize it as official unless it has one of its own elders perform it and until the baptizee answers a pledge of loyalty to the Society.

The Bible never specifically states what will happen to those who never have the opportunity of being baptized. If someone must have these to gain eternal life, that leaves a lot of people seemingly hanging. The Bible also never answers the questions of how to baptize, who may baptize and what one must say while performing it. When ancient ordinances were performed in the Old Testament, they required that the priests do it. We also know the first century Christian Church had priests, deacons, teachers, bishops, seventy and elders. Did these positions require ordination and instruction? We don't know because the Bible was never intended to be a church manual. We know that Jesus ordained his apostles, but beyond that, nothing.

11

Another Blood Question

by Cold Steel in

village idiot » by the way, [one's wife] can be disfellowshipped for allowing her child to have a transfusion.. just a side question here, but what if the husband allows a child to receive a transfusion over the objection of the wife?.

let's say the wife joins the jws but the husband doesn't?

then, nine years later the husband allows their child to receive the transfusion.

Cold Steel

Glad things worked out, TD. Just out of curiosity, how did the elders know to show up there? Did they speak to your wife, ask to speak to her or try to exert any influence on her? Were they nice or were they "on a mission"? Did they get the message?

I find it odd that they just show up without first making any phone calls.

Did they bring their scriptures with them?

11

Another Blood Question

by Cold Steel in

village idiot » by the way, [one's wife] can be disfellowshipped for allowing her child to have a transfusion.. just a side question here, but what if the husband allows a child to receive a transfusion over the objection of the wife?.

let's say the wife joins the jws but the husband doesn't?

then, nine years later the husband allows their child to receive the transfusion.

Cold Steel

Yes, AR-10s might have an adverse effect on a pushy elder, but I've been told when it comes to JWs and blood that it's not unusual for church authorities to show up not only to counsel the members and act as go-betweens. One fiend who worked emergency rooms I a metropolitan area said that if they could get to the members or the parents before the church leaders, they could usually influence them in the right direction. But once the church guys showed up, it was a different ball of wax.

The staff would do everything they could to separate the parents or patients from the church authorities while the doctors counseled them, and they'd also bring in chaplains to try to explain why the JW biblical exegesis was not only wrong, but destructive.

Members who needed blood were more likely to sacrifice their own lives than those who had children who needed blood. And apparently JW parents who lost children that could have been saved were more likely to be divorced in the painful months that followed. So yes, it's a topic that interests me.

My friend said he never had a case where the father wanted to save a child and the mother wanted to let it die. If the father was for blood transfusion, the mother always went with it. Once the elders, or whoever, arrived on the scene it was another story. They did everything they could to keep the doctors and other medical staff at bay, and as for the chaplains, it was get em outta here! There's the door!

Nice guys.

27

Jehovah's Witnesses and Love

by Cold Steel in

comments?

stories?

reminiscences?.

Cold Steel

konceptual99 » I think there can be a lot of love amongst Witnesses. The problem is that it is conditional.

Among the JWs is one thing. How are they at helping those outside of the sect? Do they limit the groceries to those on the inside or do they help people on the outside? How about earthquake relief and flood relief? Are we likely to see JWs involved in these?

11

Another Blood Question

by Cold Steel in

village idiot » by the way, [one's wife] can be disfellowshipped for allowing her child to have a transfusion.. just a side question here, but what if the husband allows a child to receive a transfusion over the objection of the wife?.

let's say the wife joins the jws but the husband doesn't?

then, nine years later the husband allows their child to receive the transfusion.

Cold Steel

TD » Assuming this is something weighing on your mind, I could explain in more detail when you come back through that Stargate.....

I'm back and I'm watching the thread. If it's something you don't mind sharing, I'd like to hear it. It's one of the less endearing traits of the sect and I have a difficult time seeing the reasoning.