Posts by Cold Steel

37

Do They Still do Door-to-Door as Much as Before?

by cofty in

since the advent of the trolleys do the majority of jws still go door to door like we used to?.

do they still have meetings for field service on sat mornings and sun afternoons where most head off to the local territory while one or two go to do trolley work or has the importance of door to door work reduced?.

with the reduction of printing wts and awakes what will they offer at the doors?.

Cold Steel

They still go door-to-door, but they no longer push for personal Bible studies. The time was, they'd ask you if you wanted them to come back, then they'd tell you about their Bible study program and actively push it. Now, they come to our neighborhood, bail out of their cars and an hour later they meet back, pile in the cars and hit a Denny's. When we answer the door, they cram some magazines into our hands and are gone.

Back in the 70s they were more aggressive and they knew their Bibles much more than they do now. They're just more interested in getting to the restaurant nowdays.

14

Do you have a comfort dog?

by compound complex in

jw
friends

greetings, dog owners and lovers:.

since i wrote "i walk dogs" a few days ago, i started caring for a new little fellow.

feisty and noisy, bouncing off the walls.

Cold Steel

Dogs are great...but my number one love are cats. I've never owned a dog, primarily because they need walking so much. It's a way of bonding. My cat goes on walls with us and doesn't need a leash. At night he sleeps by my head or climbs up on my shoulder to settle down.

The worst thing about animals is having to put them down when they're too sick to recover. Everything I know about dawgs I learned in this video.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=3yNSF7ljOoU

5

Archangels

by dogisgod in

the jws teach that jc is michael the archangel.

how many archangels does the bible mention?

is it three?.

Cold Steel

There aren't that many angels mentioned in the Bible. Many religions believe that Gabriel and Michael are archangels, but most concede Michael was the chief angel. Michael is mentioned in Jude regarding the body of Moses in Jude 9:

Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil, he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee. (Jude 9)

In the Dead Sea Scrolls there's a document that asserts that Moses did not die in the mount, as Exodus states. Rather, that he was taken up as were Enoch and Elijah. Thus, the dispute in Jude. If Michael were Jesus, I doubt he would back away from a direct confrontation as Michael is said to have done.

An archangel in traditional Christian angelology, is a being of the eighth order of the ninefold celestial hierarchy. The chief angels are said to be They are: Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, and Uriel.

Michael, who leads all of the holy angels, often works on missions that involve fighting evil, proclaiming God's truth, and strengthening people's faith.
Gabriel, who communicates God's most important announcements to humans, specializes in helping people understand God's messages and apply them to their lives well.
Raphael, who serves as God's main healing angel, cares for the health of people, animals, and every other part of God's creation.
Uriel, who focuses on wisdom, often works on missions of helping people learn more about God, themselves, and others.

13

Quotes where Watchtower claims inspiration

by krismalone in

http://www.eaec.org/cults/jw/jw5.htm.

Cold Steel

I've often wondered if, not only GB members but leaders of any exclusivistic religion, ever question if they're on the right track. If they really believe in Jehovah as the ancient Hebrew God who led the Israelites out of Egypt by miracles, how could they know they've been chosen by the same God to leadership roles in our day? What would happen if a group of reformers within the Church (and it is a church) decided to break away and start a new movement, teaching essentially the same doctrines, but reforming the mind control aspects, abandoning the policy of creating dates, reversing the blood doctrine, introducing love into the shunning policy, opening the bread and wine to all members and reforming the faithful and discreet servant doctrine, perhaps even changing it from a prophecy and changing it to parable or metaphor status?

Why would the reformed movement be any less legitimate than the one existing now? After all, when Charles T. Russell founded the sect, he was not operating under any heavenly directive, was he? Nor was Joseph Rutherford. If the core doctrines are the important thing, why would a reformed movement be any less legitimate? When Jesus inspected all the world's religions and the JWs say he chose theirs, how do we know? We're taking their word for it.

If such a thing happened, do you think it would negatively affect the present system?

13

Quotes where Watchtower claims inspiration

by krismalone in

http://www.eaec.org/cults/jw/jw5.htm.

Cold Steel

They can't have it both ways. Either the GB claims divine appointment and inspiration, or it doesn't. On their website, they say they aren't inspired like the ancient apostles nor are they infallible, so how inspired are they? And how many degrees of inspired are there? If Elisha can call down fire on fifty, can a GB member call down a summer day in the middle of July?

I'd think only two levels. They are or they ain't. But it seems that if they're right about something, they want to take credit for it and if they're wrong they want to chalk it up to human error.

28

If You Question The Governing Body, You're Like Korah

by pale.emperor in

anyone who questions the governing bodys authority is labelled as an apostate and almost always they bring up the story of korah and his revolt against moses.. watchtower august 1st, 2002, the article loyally submit to godly authority paragraphs 8-15.. https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2002563.

in not so subtle hint, the gb likens themselves to moses, and those who disagree with the gb are korah.. paragraph 15 is actually quite damaging to the gb's argument though:.

it was so unnecessary for all those people to lose their lives.

Cold Steel

Actually, Moses and Aaron didn't risk their lives. If I recall correctly, God told them to go and not to be afraid. In other words, they were under the protection of God. How could they be risking their lives. According to the story, it was the Pharaoh who was the one in danger.

30

Those who DO NOT get a resurrection?

by stuckinarut2 in

so we know that by jw logic, the idea is that everyone who dies is acquitted of their sin and will get a resurrection in the "new world".

however, those directly destroyed by god, or at his command will not.

(for example, those destroyed in the flood.

Cold Steel

The Bible doesn't teach that anyone will be denied the resurrection. "For in Adam, all die; even so in Christ shall ALL be made alive." It doesn't say that all except the unrighteous or "the judged" shall be made alive. At the end of the thousand-year reign comes the resurrection of the unjust; and that means that both the just and unjust will be resurrected in the course of things.

The JWs get in trouble when they attempt to use logic in interpreting scripture. If Jehovah has already judged the people, they reason, why would he need to judge them again?

If Jehovah is the Father, as they surmise, one reason is that he won't be judging anyone. For "the Father judges no man, but has committed all judgment to the Son." (John 5:22)

Acts 24:15 Paul says, "There shall certainly be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked."

John 5:28-29 says, "For an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs shall hear His voice, and shall come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment."

The Bible, they say, is their standard and, if so, they should know what it says; however, they frequently resort to using their own logic to deny what the scriptures say. If they want to believe their own stuff, fine by me, but they shouldn't turn around and claim to base their beliefs on the Bible. If they're right about them being the only true and operational earthly organization of Jehovah, fine, I'd prefer not to be resurrected but to just never regain consciousness. The same thing's true if cows turn out to be running the universe; however, they seem to have their doctrinal wires crossed on the resurrection.

19

JW.ORG logica: I don't get it

by Gorbatchov in

jw
friends

a dutch saying is "am i that smart or are you so stupid".. watching this jw.org movie about god's name made me use it: .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njtimafdp7m.

jw broadcasting june 2015, 15 seconds cut.. geoffrey jackson is proud that jw.org is using god's name.. then he convinced that jw.org does not know exactly what god's name is.. then he convinced that jw.org uses the name jehovah because it's most common recognized in english.. is this reasonable, asks geoffrey... yes!

Cold Steel

Earnest » Why? Why not use the version commonly understood in our language, as you would with John, Juan, Jacque or Jack?

That actually was the point I was trying to make with them -- that if a name is so important, then why isn't it important enough to be precise with? God has never been known to His people by His name, right? Even the prophets didn't call Him by His name. And in the scriptures when the Lord references his name, it's used as an idiom. For example, in Ezekiel 39 where the Lord says that "they shall no longer pollute my name," He's not speaking literally about a name; He's saying they will no longer blaspheme him in any respect. JW theologians, however, have always taken the term literally. Thus, they address Him as "Jehovah" in their prayers, which has always seemed a bit disrespectful in my view.

Thus if it's so critical that we be so familiar with Him that we use His name, perhaps we should do it precisely, otherwise Jehovah becomes just another placeholder like GOD or FATHER.

20

Joel Osteen's Church is a Cult too ??

by ShirleyW in

jw
friends

it's being said all over social media that joel osteen hasn't opened his mega church for refuge during the storm, pictures are showing this area is not flooded.

i made a few comments myself saying that the jws only help their own in time of need but this god fearing man isn't helping anyone.. just what religion is he and his followers, i guess it's one of those non-denomination churches that collect a shitload of bucks to him and wife so he can afford the glamorous life, nothing new of course, i thought he was just a bit different than the others, fooled me..

Cold Steel

VV101 » [Osteen's] church is very involved helping others with no membership requirements unlike the Mormons and JWs.

Not to toot our own horn, but the LDS (Mormon) church has no missionary requirements, and it's often on-site in stricken areas before the federal government. Key humanitarian initiatives include not only disaster relief, but clean water, vision treatment, wheelchair provision, neonatal resuscitation, immunizations, family enrichment programs and family food production. In 2008, LDS Humanitarian Services provided aid to 3.3 million people in 122 countries. We not only collect monetary contributions in addition to what the church gives, we sign people (Mormons and non-Mormons) up for labor, medical, plumbing personnel on-site.

Osteen, by the way, though his dad was a preacher, engages in what is referred to as the prosperity gospel. It's based on the idea that when you are happy, God is happy. People donate wildly to the cause, but it's definitely not centered in Christ. As far as I know, he's never taken a stand against anyone.

19

JW.ORG logica: I don't get it

by Gorbatchov in

jw
friends

a dutch saying is "am i that smart or are you so stupid".. watching this jw.org movie about god's name made me use it: .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njtimafdp7m.

jw broadcasting june 2015, 15 seconds cut.. geoffrey jackson is proud that jw.org is using god's name.. then he convinced that jw.org does not know exactly what god's name is.. then he convinced that jw.org uses the name jehovah because it's most common recognized in english.. is this reasonable, asks geoffrey... yes!

Cold Steel

YHVH = YHWH = Ja-Veh = Ja-Weh-Veh = Jahovah = GOD

I remember in the early 70s a JW told me that if we didn't use God's name then He would not hear our prayers. "If you were out in a crowd and you saw your friend Jack, if you yelled out, 'Hey, you!' then you shouldn't be surprised when he doesn't answer you. Likewise, we call God by His name and thus we identify Him, and thus He knows when we call out to Him."

But there's a big difference between pronunciations. Shouldn't we get as close to His name as possible? For someone who's omniscient, wouldn't He know when we're addressing Him? There also doesn't seem to ever being a time when His people called him by name. In fact, wasn't it punishable by death? Abraham didn't do it. Moses didn't do it. Peter, James and John didn't. So why should we? Even if we call out to our friend, "Hey, John!" -- it might be John, Juan, Jacque or Jack. If it's important to call HIM by name, we should get the name right, or as close to the Hebrew as we can get.

But seeing that Jehovah was actually Jesus just adds more confusion.