Posts by Eusebius Hieronymus

2

The Father/Son Relationship

by TheApostleAK in

jw
friends

a subject often marked by strong controversy is calmly and carefully analyzed.

rather than the common "proof-texting" frequently characterizing such discussion, the author aids the reader to keep the full biblical picture in steady focus.. .

presents a comprehensive overview of the relationship and respective dignities represented in god and his son jesus christ.

Eusebius Hieronymus

That could describe DOZENS of books available.

Did I miss the title?

Jerry

55

GB Split Over Bible vs. Policy

by Maximus in

jw
friends

please read the following brief paragraph carefully: .

"once again, the ruling ecclesiastical class suppressed efforts to make gods word available to their flock.

they violently silenced a voice that pointed to some of the errors of their non-biblical beliefs.

Eusebius Hieronymus

Wasn't correcting you as much as taking the opportunity to clarify, Victor. I'm happy someone understands "the Society" is not a monolith, as some of us have been banging away at.

The GB Service Committee featured one really tough, hardliner in the person of Ted Jaracz. Remains to be seen how boxed in he is. Really missed is the intelligence of Lloyd Barry, who could effective keep TJ in check.

To finger good guys would be the kiss of death, of course.

55

GB Split Over Bible vs. Policy

by Maximus in

jw
friends

please read the following brief paragraph carefully: .

"once again, the ruling ecclesiastical class suppressed efforts to make gods word available to their flock.

they violently silenced a voice that pointed to some of the errors of their non-biblical beliefs.

Eusebius Hieronymus

Among responsible ones, a large concern some decades back was the clear need for the individual to be so educated that his/her own Christian conscience would guide, especially in those issues which the Bible writers saw no necessity to spell out. Turned out to be a challenge, to the GB. We know what happened to thoughtful Christian men like Ed Dunlap who valued the Bible over dogma.

In effect they too were put on a boat and shipped out as if for banishment, as was Lucaris. Yes, they were strangled. As The Watchtower says, "a sobering reminder of what happens when clergy-instigated intrigues stand in the way of freedom of thought and expression." Is there any wonder why the drop in publishers? Lack of zeal? Please!

A hierarchy has enmeshed itself inextricably in Talmudic dogma. Policy after policy, legalism after legalism. Can you imagine Paul or Peter ever condoning this kind of activity?

This statement is too simplistic and it is inaccurate. The author may not have been talking to insiders who know, or perhaps they have misinterpreted, or are speaking in generalities. Service has been highly influential organizationally but is not responsible for writing the Watchtower, although clearly Writing took a huge swipe at that department with this article. BTW With the changes in Service and the institution of the Branch committee, isn't Writing now handling Our Kingdom Ministry, previously the organ of Service?

Watch, elders, for letters that come your way from the new "Society," the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, with the signature Legal and Service Departments. That has implications which are very clear to those reading the tea leaves.

Look again at the 10/15/00 QFR with its picture of the couple reviewing the Bible over coffee, with "Questions To Ask Yourself." "Would my Bible-trained conscience be troubled if ...?" What scriptures are they reviewing? It's an inconsistent policy that NO ONE can really explain in Brooklyn.

Who wants to be viewed as "weak" in conscience? The average publisher thinks that there is only one answer to the questions posed in the box. At some future time, having given itself wiggle room, the Society will say, "We told you that you had a choice." They're hoping that a miraculous appearance of blood substitutes will bale them out in a few years.

The flock, however, are truly uneducated. Can they really go beyond three words? Most blur health issues with Scriptural issues over blood, and close their eyes to what no other readers of the Bible have concluded, saying: "What part of 'abstain from blood' don't you understand."

A dumbed-down TM School is the answer?

Better to read the Watchtower's comment in that QFR: "The Life-Giver urges all to trust in Jesus' shed blood."

How inconsistent can you get?

A friend of a Friend shared this with me: "By its deplorable action the Society has demonstrated that it is less concerned with the real and day-to-day interests of helpless and innocent children than it is with its own instrumentational viability. The internal strife and anger on this issue runs deep and it is heating up! The Society should have listened to its battery of lawyers years ago when they advised a uniform policy of reporting child abuse when protection and justice is reasonable expected.

"Why did the Society want its correspondence held in such strict confidence? Because they betray the Society’s self-interest gained at the expense of children and their families! In the end their interests will suffer over this and other issues.

"Just how deep the Society will yet mire itself in this sordid affair is yet to be seen, but what lies ahead will become even more untenable and nasty unless some major change is enacted by decision-makers at Brooklyn Bethel on a number of key issues into compliance with that which is sound and moral based upon the Bible, most importantly in those issues involving blood and child abuse."

Amen.

29

Accuracy of Bible Translation

by ruffian in

jw
friends

i am trying to find out more on the translators of the jw's bible.

they claim and so it claims in the front of their bible that it was translated by experts in greek and hebrew.

what training if any did these people actually have in these ancient languages.

Eusebius Hieronymus

Suggest you inform yourself more than superficially, and read Metzger and other authorities before you attempt to do anything like that.

41

Kierkegaard on Abraham and Isaac: Blood

by dunsscot in

jw
friends

to whom it may concern,.

the witnesses are often condemned for refusing blood transfusions and "permitting" their children to die.

such a religious position is untenable, opponents of jws will argue.

Eusebius Hieronymus

<DS: I think one's living habits have a lot to do with the issue of blood transfusions.>

Finally a simple sentence.

But it makes no sense! Living habits and blood transfusion?

Call Harry Peloyan and John Wischuk, they've got the perfect candidate for the Writing Department.

Eusebius

82

Prevalence of JW Suicides - Real or Imagined?

by AMNESIAN in

jw
friends

in one or two recent threads i've seen reference to the possibility of a rising number of jw suicides being another of the organization's very dark realities about which it is vigilant in keeping concealed from its pub populace.

is there anyone reasonably informed regarding this?

is there reason to suppose the incidence ratio among jws is any higher than among any peoples/religion?

Eusebius Hieronymus

For D wiltshire, whose sensitivity to the problem is greatly appreciated

41

Kierkegaard on Abraham and Isaac: Blood

by dunsscot in

jw
friends

to whom it may concern,.

the witnesses are often condemned for refusing blood transfusions and "permitting" their children to die.

such a religious position is untenable, opponents of jws will argue.

Eusebius Hieronymus

You are avoiding the issue. Did you not read what I said? I chose NOT to take a transfusion for MEDICAL reasons!

Blood and health risks are MEDICAL concerns. We understand this in an enlightened society. You are not keeping up with medical progress, a subject I need not go into here, with regard to blood safety. But this is MEDICAL.

The Governing Body should concern itself with SCRIPTURAL issues.

Right now they are concerned that if they tell the flock the truth, there will be further "disillusionment" just like that surrounding the generation "adjustment."

You seem particularly naive or uninformed about those situations in which ONLY a particular infusion can save a life. I do thank you for not implying I am making the issue merely an emotional one.

You spoke earlier of risk/benefit. Blood or no blood should be MY decision, not that of a GB who in actuality allows no choice. It is ready to enforce its position by a shortcut to shunning, utilizing the disassociation category.

How long, O Lord? How many more decades? Till the stones cry out? Do you naively think they sit around a table, pray, and wait for God to speak?

What if the GB is right? What if the Flat Earth Society is right!

The inconsistencies in the policy have been made abundantly clear to everyone. Avail yourself of the opportunity to do so. To make a decision just because the majority of the GB holds to a position, would not proceed from faith. And that would be sin. Cf my comments elsewhere.

I've made my point, you have made yours. I appreciate what Greg Stafford has said to you and I understand full well what he means. Finis.

41

Kierkegaard on Abraham and Isaac: Blood

by dunsscot in

jw
friends

to whom it may concern,.

the witnesses are often condemned for refusing blood transfusions and "permitting" their children to die.

such a religious position is untenable, opponents of jws will argue.

Eusebius Hieronymus

<Nevertheless, I'd like to ask you, do you think there are certain dangers associated with taking blood?>

Absolutely. I came out of a surgery with a hemoglobin of 7.7 because I took no blood. But that was for MEDICAL not SCRIPTURAL reasons from my hearing qol YHWH through Scripture.

Right now JW theology is weighted toward the medical and is not doing a very good job of that either. (Its new video does not address many situations such as sudden trauma in which packed red cells may be life-saving, and some physicians have said the film is downright insulting.) The Society has not refuted the material at http://www.jwbloodreview.org.

They merely restate their position without addressing the issues. They say that if a blood policy "adjustment" is to be made, Jehovah will do so in His good time. Meantime we should wait, be humble. They are in a holding position, and keen observers--and participants--know it.

There many be benefits from avoiding shellfish as well, but good Lord we're talking about life-or-death situations involving babies who have no voice!

I do not hear God's voice giving me a test, I hear the Governing Body telling me that if I do not obey them they will brutally punish me and my family simply for "running ahead." Yes, I can separate myself. What an enormous price to pay! Is that the message of the Christ?

Dunsscot, there are quite a few on this board who have been part of the organization for MANY decades. We're not stupid. Some of us watched persons DIE during the period of time between acceptance of Factor VIII and the too-long period of time before it was officially announced.

We're watching a Governing Body defend an emotional position they've staked out that is blurred by their misunderstanding of physiology and medicine, and we see all the signs--and internal leaks--that indicate they hope to hang on for a few more years when "blood substitutes" will save the day--and save face. Many at the top know that is wishful thinking at best.

THAT'S IN THE FIELD OF MEDICINE, NOT SCRIPTURE,
AND THAT'S NOT THEIR PURVIEW!

What's coming back to bite them in the posterior is that the GB has made decisions in every area of human life, accumulating a veritable Talmud. Only in hindsight has it become clear to top decision-makers that this is an enormous liability, from many standpoints.

How to appear less hierarchical, and yet maintain control. 'Equipped for every good work'? No, the elders are termed "untrained volunteers" when it suits the Society's legal purposes. Inconsistent?

Call up the BioPure corporation, and ask them if Jehovah's Witness reps did not assist them in development and "marketing" of HemoPure, the hemoglobin fraction from cow's blood, now "acceptable," kosher, according to the Society rabbis. Ask BioPure if they had advance notice of the w 10/15/00 QFR on blood. Ask if they know this was PURPOSEFULLY obfuscating? Ask them if the Society has stock in their company or owns part of it.

Hear me well: the truth will out.

I agree with you that such ones are reprehensible who misuse their authority no matter how well cloaked it may be.

41

Kierkegaard on Abraham and Isaac: Blood

by dunsscot in

jw
friends

to whom it may concern,.

the witnesses are often condemned for refusing blood transfusions and "permitting" their children to die.

such a religious position is untenable, opponents of jws will argue.

Eusebius Hieronymus

Ah, yes, Abraham. Who heard qol YHWH, the voice of God, for himself.

If I hear the voice of God through Scripture, must I not obey it? Is it not "sin" for me if I do not? You have not addressed my previous simply put questions.

Does anyone really think that the Governing Body hears the actual voice of God today? Ask them individually and they will tell you they do not. They generalize about His spirit on the organization, point to buildings, property and past "growth" as evidence of blessing. Yet ONE GB vote can make the difference between what is to be brutally enforced by shunning or what is merely a line of reasoning. They are not unanimous on life-and-death matters, hardly a clarion voice of God.

The blood policy is just that. Embryonic? Hardly. It's been evolving for decades. An ill chosen metaphor. Surely you must understand that a real battle is going on internally among both GB and top decision-makers, not to let a doctrine come to full growth but to change it. Period.

It is not God, but the governing body that asks me to suspend my own clear hearing of the voice of God with regard to letting my child die LITERALLY in some SYMBOLIC grand gesture of respect for the sanctity of life. If I listen to qol YHWH, I will be punished by countless family members, my life ripped apart. This is not a philosophic issue being discussed in vacuo.

You've evidenced good reasoning on a number of points, but to trot out Kierkegaard on Abraham completely obfuscates and misses the point. A red herring, actually. I detest that when the Watchtower purposely does that as well.

52

god is dead

by teejay in

jw
friends

my inactive sister who is very much a jw at heart recently discovered (i told her) that i was a budding agnostic.

she was quite intrigued and wondered why.

coming to an agnostic viewpoint has been a long journey.

Eusebius Hieronymus

The Nourishment for the Spirit thread lists some outstanding books that do not embrace and either/or philosophy. Evolution and science are not mutually exclusive to a belief in God. Glad someone cleared up the Nietzche quote.

..............................."NIETZCHE IS DEAD."
---God

.