for many jw's, they point to the gb as wonderful examples of zealous, humble, older men that are only serving jg for right and correct reasons.. unlike many of the preachers we see on tv, they are, and this is the important point, 'not in it for the money'.. of course we see them differently on this site, exposed many times over, as being self-serving hypocrites.. but if you want to win-over a jw doubter, this is one of the questions you have to answer.
"what's in it for the gb member?
why are they doing this if not for the money?".
Being a religious leader, even in Western democracies, is like having a never ending expense account.
No, they don't have salaries. But I think that anyone who has spent anytime with the GB knows that they don't live poorly. They have many material possessions, and don't pay for travel.
But while they get to go home to comfort, I don't think they do their GB thing for $$. They do it for the kick of power. It is a real 'delusion of grandeur' situation. They are literally deluded.
i've always wondered how they keep track of all members,.
like keeping a list and then scratching off those who pass away.. for example:.
bro minimus.
Yes, they do. It's not that big of a secret.
1.we use a name to distinguish one entity from another to avoid confusion.. 2.if there is only one of something it is one of a kind.
elivis is elvis and those who pretend to be him are impersonators.
those who pretend to be jesus are false or pseudo-christs.
Perry, my response I hope will not be construed by you as "piling on." If it is, I apologize. But I wish to make a point here, as you and I have debated very passionately some topics in the past.
Terry makes a great point, and the greatest point, one that I probably should have argued is this very simple statement.
The proper ending to a debate is that somebody admist their premise or conclusion was faulty. Have you ever been wrong about anything? I have. It isn't pleasant to be wrong, but, it certainly brings an opportunity to grow wiser.
As you continue to argue and debate for your theistic positions, this is the crux of the matter. Surely you realize that even among Christians and theists, there are those who disagree with you. And you can't be both right.
To be wrong is an opportunity to go forward with greater knowledge, facts, as well as an opportunity to associate and learn from people who believe differently and disagree with you.
Now, there is a big difference between what is right for you and what is factual and truthful. These are called personal beliefs.
Personal beliefs naturally have a measure of right or wrong, fact and fiction, what can be proven and what can absolutely not be proven.
Your insistence on arguing for what cannot be proven is one thing. Your persistence in maintaining things that aren't factual (example: Terry's questions on the bible that you didn't respond to) demonstratably show that you are not being intellectually honest.
Now let me be clear, I respect and honor your right to hold and discuss your personal beliefs. That is not the issue.
What is the issue is that in these discussions, you do not even allow for the possibility that you are wrong, and that other paths are correct. You won't even acknowledge that there are demonstratable weakness, logical and factual, with your personal beliefs.
If you are going to argue for your beliefs, then you must be prepared to "bring it". Like evidence. Like reasonableness. Like intellectual honesty.
It is your patent lack of evidence, reasonableness, and intellectual honesty that draw me to discussions that involve you arguing your position. I am not talking about your faith or personal beliefs. What I am talking about is how your faith and personal beliefs cause you to act so disrespectfully to others who believe (with excellent reasons) differently then you do.
Perry, I don't mean this to be condescending, but I feel sorry for you that your faith divides you from people and that your faith causes you to be so willing to ignore clear facts regarding your arguments.
To Terry's point, being wrong is not a bad thing, unless the certitude that comes from being a JW or other fundamentalist religions is something you can't live without. Certainty is dangerous though Perry, and for that reason, I fear for you.
enjoy these remarks, friends.
and, as always, if you have received this from another source, please just delete, forgive me and move on!
saturday, january 9, 2010, 8:22 am .
Something else about preaching and how we are still awaiting Armageddon...
If Jehovah really cared about me, he would have started Armageddon before apostates got to me. But he didn't. He strung me along.
Or the other alternative of course, is that Jehovah, like the Governing Body, is a total sham. I bet that is the correct answer....
1.we use a name to distinguish one entity from another to avoid confusion.. 2.if there is only one of something it is one of a kind.
elivis is elvis and those who pretend to be him are impersonators.
those who pretend to be jesus are false or pseudo-christs.
Are you wiling to state categorically that no accretions of a false nature have crept into the text?
Are you willing to state categorically that we have the ACTUAL VERBATIM text of the original uncorrupt autographs?
Arguments over "meaning" begin with texts. Do they not?
Oops, forgot to answer these didn't you Perry?
enjoy these remarks, friends.
and, as always, if you have received this from another source, please just delete, forgive me and move on!
saturday, january 9, 2010, 8:22 am .
JW's are changing before our eyes.
In decades past, you couldn't be a CO or a missionary unless you helped bring at least one person to the point of baptism. It used to be that the preaching work WAS about saving lives.
Now, it has taken the place of giving a cow to your local Levitical priest to sacrifice to Jehovah.
As already alluded to, there is a VERY pragmatic reason for the GB to frame the preaching work this way; its because the door to door work is an activity with diminishing returns.
So now they must condition their flock to view preaching as a way to show Jehovah how much they care. And you know how Jehovah shows he cares? He doesn't bring Armageddon so that you can REALLY show how much you care.
Because it at least made a little sense that Armageddon was being delayed so that some "right hearted"™ ones could respond to the preaching.
So it seems pretty clear that fewer and fewer are responding, and
It seems pretty clear that JW's have covered the entire earth with their witness, so long as you don't count a couple billion Chinese and Muslim's on two continents, and
It's just about time for Armageddon, except
Jehovah now wants to see how much you REALLY care and love him, by preaching to people who have already made up their minds.
This is real, unadulterated groping in the dark by the GB.
this is a complex question, and i just want to get a discussion started on the message of jehovah's witnesses and how it relates to their adventist roots, and esp calvinism.. bear with me, i will try to be concise.. we all know that while jehovah's witnesses like to deny adventist roots, that it is clear that according to them, the man jesus selected to get the whole thing started, c t russell, was heavily influenced by adventist ideas, esp the (adventist) idea that has really never left them; the idea that somehow, a time date or period can be inferred from the bible if you read certain scriptures through an adventist lens.
(thus, the 2520 years, 7 gentile times, etc.).
so while this is relatively well known, there is a concept that jehovah's witnesses teach against, yet practice.
Hi there. I would like to clarify myself, knowing as we do now that we have a Calvinist here to properly represent the religion. It is clear that my efforts at comparing an idea that JW's don't teach, but in my opinion practice in an ironic way with my rudimentary understanding of Calvinism was probably not the best way to broach the subject.
And I appreciate learning more then I did regarding Arminianism and Calvinism.
So, while this was just an observation of JW's, (a religion I know well) it wasn't meant to be a commentary on Calvinism (a religion I obviously am not familiar with.)
XJW4EVR, thanks for your input. While you are free to charecterize your religion as you wish, I would also remind anyone reading this that JW's claim to be a Christian religion, and most Christians don't believe that this is so, because they don't worship Jesus. JW's insist that they do, and that they also have keep their rights to define their religion as they so choose. Many disagree with them.
So while I have no doubt that my comparison of Calvinism and JWism regarding predestination was a bit of a stretch (admittedly so), I still seem to think that Calvins believe or teach in some kind of "predestination". Here is Wiki's opening salvo
Calvinism (also called the Reformed tradition, the Reformed faith, or Reformed theology) is a theological system and an approach to the Christian life. [1] The Reformed tradition was advanced by several theologians such as Martin Bucer, Heinrich Bullinger, Peter Martyr Vermigli, and Huldrych Zwingli, but it often bears the name of the French reformerJohn Calvin because of his prominent influence on it and because of his role in the confessional and ecclesiastical debates throughout the 16th century. Today, this term also refers to the doctrines and practices of the Reformed churches of which Calvin was an early leader. Less commonly, it can refer to the individual teaching of Calvin himself. [2] The system is best known for its doctrines of predestination and total depravity, stressing the absolute sovereignty of God.
Just curious, so that I may understand you. Thanks.
my avatar is a pic of a cool car, obviously.
.
Mine is Stephen Colbert of the US Speedskating team. He is the ultimate exposer of bullshit. I worship him. I sacrifice to his altar daily, I say my Colbert chants, and try to get bridges and satellites named after him whenever I can.
"united nations" and "beast".
"united nations".
this reference is done by paul of jwfacts.com .
Obviously, the WTS is trying to squirm out of their U.N. doctrine gradually. Still may be trying to become a NGO yet?
It must be hard for the GB, being the steaming pile of sh*t that they are, to suddenly try and step out of the great big pile of sh*t they stepped in with the whole UN thingy.
It's hard for terd's to tell when they've stepped into it, even harder to get it off ya.
i was born into "the truth" back in 1964. i made the big mistake of getting baptised when i was about 14 or so, purely to please my father as i saw how proud he was when my brothers were baptised....didn't work.. we moved to a new congregation when i was about 8, he introduced all my brothers to the congregation by name, a short bio of thier endearing qualities and how proud he was of them, when he introduced me it was "and this is our black sheep of the family, steve".. i remember living in fear at the fast approaching 1975....actually, living in terror is probably a more apt desciption.
all of you will full well know how it was instilled into us at every meeting and assembly how we are living in the last days.. as a 15 year old, a brother dobbed me in for kissing a worldly girl at school.
went through the marked process, judicial committy, disfellowshipped and the shunning which continues to this day by what's left of my family.
I know I definitely stopped caring before I stopped believing.
