Posts by Friend

44

"Apostolic succession"?

by Jokemyster in

jw
friends

since the wt organization claims "apostolic succession" who was it that passed the torch of gods spirit to c.t.russel when he founded the.

organization?

what denomination or faith?

Friend

waiting

You have presented a false analogy. Let me explain.

Premise 1: John decides if apples are sold as good.

Premise 2: Betty believes her apples are good enough to be sold and she tells people that.

(Alternate) Premise 2: Betty believes her apples are the only ones good enough to be sold and she tells people that.

Premise 3: Betty acknowledges that John decides if apples are sold.

Conclusion: Betty tells people that her apples will be sold but she yields that eventuality up to John.

Switch a few nouns and that simple analogy pretty accurately portrays what we are preaching as Jehovah’s Witnesses about ultimate salvation and ourselves.

While it is true that JWs admit that some within their ranks will most likely be judged adversely by God, it is also true that they do not presumptuously attempt to thwart God’s role as judge by saying that everyone not a JW will be judged adversely. Sure, us sharing a conviction to that end certainly leaves that impression, but that is tempered in that we acknowledge that Jehovah will ultimately decide who gains salvation, not us.

Answering the following questions demonstrates the point:

1. Do JWs believe that Jehovah will ultimately judge each of us or do JWs believe they will do that?

2. Has Jehovah provided Jehovah’s Witnesses a preview of his judgments for each individual?

If the answer to one (1) is, “Jehovah” and the answer to two (2) is, “No” then Jehovah’s Witnesses can make all the noise they want about their beliefs yet are still yielding—as did Betty in our illustration—that, regardless of beliefs, they have no say whatsoever in who gains salvation. How would you answer questions one and two?

As the JWs in the 20th Century brochure indicates, we teach we are the right religion but we also teach that in the end God decides who make it.

Also, neither you nor anyone else on this board has offended me. If anything it has, unfortunately, been the other way around.

Friend

Edited by - Friend on 7 June 2000 23:39:0

100

Preacher Jimmy Swaggart and JW Lawyers

by waiting in

in the supreme court of the united states, october tenth, 1988, case no.

88-1374, filed on june 22, 1988, clerk joseph f. spanol, jr.. on that date and file number, the attoreny james m. mccabe,and donald t. ridley, 25 colombia heights, brooklyn, ny 11251 (718)606-4993, attorneys for amicus curiae, watchtower bible and tract society of new york, inc. filed a "friends of the court" brief on the behalf of the famous preacher, jimmy swaggart and his ministries.. why would the watchtower society, direct channel for jehovah's holy spirt, which also godly hates babylon the great, which also christiandom is the largest part, go into the supreme court of the united states and file a legal brief to help jimmy swaggart's ministries in his trial which was case no.

88-1374: jimmy swaggart ministries, appelant vs. board of equalization of california, appeller?.

Friend

RedhorseWoman

I have noticed that whenever I have asked for specific responses from you, you have then turned around and asked questions of me rather than responding to what I have posted.

Each of my questions on this thread are for purposes of highlighting a critical point that appears to be ill-considered in someone’s conclusion or else is a request for clarification. When direct facts had already been likewise ill-considered then I proceeded to another mode to stir thinking about a detail that, to me, is/was critical to resolution. If there is something specific you have in mind let me know. I will be glad to redress it.

And, in fact, I have acknowledged your questions. However, your questions seem to me to tend toward the nitpicking aspects of the discussion where only a "yes" or "no" is the appropriate answer rather than examining the whole situation.

Usually resolutions lay in the details. Nitpicking is when irrelevant details are introduced, which nitpicking is also called introducing a red herring. If you feel I have done this then most likely either you have not realized the significance of a certain detail or I have misunderstood a certain question of relevance. If you have some specific example of this then, again, I will offer to redress it.

As far as acknowledging questions, that is not really my concern. Of greater concern to me is realizing (or not) how the resolution of a particular question affects a conclusion or deduction. That is where we apparently differ in addressing a question presented.

As Frenchy said, "JW's have a unique slant on words". I agree with this statement, and might I say, Friend, you employ this strategy very well.

Yes, I agree with Frenchy on the observation. Nevertheless, the resolution of that problem is the same as normal word usage; you demonstrate the “slant” (meaning) and then apply it accordingly.

As for me, I think you have had difficulty following certain details pertinent to this thread. If that is true then quite naturally some things I say may appear to you as having an unusual slant. In that case I suggest that you request clarification rather than offering a response based upon assumption. Several of my questions to you requested clarifications. Without those I was left unable to understand some of your deductions. How am I supposed to respond to that?

Friend

100

Preacher Jimmy Swaggart and JW Lawyers

by waiting in

in the supreme court of the united states, october tenth, 1988, case no.

88-1374, filed on june 22, 1988, clerk joseph f. spanol, jr.. on that date and file number, the attoreny james m. mccabe,and donald t. ridley, 25 colombia heights, brooklyn, ny 11251 (718)606-4993, attorneys for amicus curiae, watchtower bible and tract society of new york, inc. filed a "friends of the court" brief on the behalf of the famous preacher, jimmy swaggart and his ministries.. why would the watchtower society, direct channel for jehovah's holy spirt, which also godly hates babylon the great, which also christiandom is the largest part, go into the supreme court of the united states and file a legal brief to help jimmy swaggart's ministries in his trial which was case no.

88-1374: jimmy swaggart ministries, appelant vs. board of equalization of california, appeller?.

Friend

SevenofNine

I appreciate you sharing your impression of me. I do not take offense to it and will consider your advice in the future. I wish others were just as candid. However, please be aware that neither you nor I can measure another person’s impression in settings such as this unless they express themselves accordingly, as you have here. One here has decided that they were offended by me and chose to denounce me and proclaim that they will not respond to any of my future posts. That is fine, except that had they taken the time to say, “Hey, what do you mean by that?(!)” then I think an explanation would have sufficed them. As it is, they decided based upon an impression that I could not see being developed. On forums such as this there is a need to speak clearly and frankly for purposes of understanding. There is also the need to ask questions if you are not sure. Presuming intent to hurt feelings, condescend or be rude is just that—presumption. In your case you have expressed your impression to me and I value that. Thanks.

As for my responses seeming to be condescending, I apologize for that. That is certainly not my intention.

You will find that I ask a lot of questions to get people thinking and I prefer to deal with those details that resolve issues. As long as the other party can follow the discussion I can go to whatever depths the details take it. But I will not expend time into details when it becomes clear to me that the other party is not following. Then I will retreat to more questions, illustrations or something else to help them get there. If that doesn’t work then I cannot spend more time on it with them. That is not meant to condescend but rather let them know that I cannot proceed on the subject with them. At that point I will express what I see as the status of our discussion up to that point. At least the other person then has the luxury of knowing why I do not continue the discussion—which, to me, is polite. That also gives them the opportunity to address what may be a misunderstanding on my part. If that is correct and they can overcome that misunderstanding on my part then we can both proceed. Otherwise, we both call it quits until another day. To me that is just normal conversation.

You said:

I can benefit more from your wisdom without all the condescending remarks.

Again, I apologize for leaving that impression; that is not my intent. Please forgive me.

As for helping to benefit others, that is the principal reason I chose to participate on this forum. Hopefully I can provide some perspective or information on some issues that will help some; at least that is my fondest hope.

Friend

77

Writing private letters to the Society.

by spectromize in

for anyone who's ever written something of a private nature or asked clarification on certain beliefs have you ever had the unfortunate experience of the elders calling you in the back room or a sheperding call ?.

the reason i bring this out is that newer brothers or sisters don't know that everytime you write the society the society sends a copy of your letter to your local cong.

elders.

Friend

RedhorseWoman

If one does not know the procedure, and one expects it to be similar to the procedures experienced when dealing with other entities, one cannot be castigated for being shocked at what they consider to be a gross disregard of their rights.

Your comment is circular to your intended inference. Who says the individual ever knew the “procedure” was otherwise? If they “don’t know” then they don’t know what to expect anyway—just as you expressed. In that case, persons are equally apt to be shocked if they receive a written reply rather than a personal one? Certainly you continue leaning on your weak notion that other entities would not assign a local agent to handle your needs when that is not at all the case. Some may do that and some may not. That latter point is yet another of your conclusions that has completely ignored critical questions regarding it that I have raised. As I pointed out, large corporations have local agents respond in their behalf on a regular basis. Examples include the FBI, Insurance companies, etc….

BTW, you keep speaking of a “right” yet you have yet to demonstrate that such a “right” as you conclude even exists; that despite being asked for such evidence. Just another in a long list of questions left unresolved for your conclusions.

I'm sure that those who have received this treatment will never write again to the Society. Their point in this whole discussion was to warn others of what they would be likely to experience.

Warn them of what? That the Society responded to their letters? In the past I have made some requests of the Society that I wished they had sent a local representative to discuss with me. They chose to respond in their own way because that what I asked of them. I asked for their response. Again, on this issue you have ignored critical questions to your conclusions.

I'm not saying that a mother shouldn't respond in person. I'm simply saying that a considerate mother would call first before dropping in.

When you call your mother and leave a message on her recorder that you need her help, do you consider it an act of inconsiderateness for her to rush over in person as soon as possible? I mean, whose calling who here?(!) Let’s not distort this thing into “The Society just dropped in on me!” when you are the one that called them with a request. Do you want their answer or not? That is the only question to be answered.

Friend

Edited by - Friend on 7 June 2000 15:34:38

100

Preacher Jimmy Swaggart and JW Lawyers

by waiting in

in the supreme court of the united states, october tenth, 1988, case no.

88-1374, filed on june 22, 1988, clerk joseph f. spanol, jr.. on that date and file number, the attoreny james m. mccabe,and donald t. ridley, 25 colombia heights, brooklyn, ny 11251 (718)606-4993, attorneys for amicus curiae, watchtower bible and tract society of new york, inc. filed a "friends of the court" brief on the behalf of the famous preacher, jimmy swaggart and his ministries.. why would the watchtower society, direct channel for jehovah's holy spirt, which also godly hates babylon the great, which also christiandom is the largest part, go into the supreme court of the united states and file a legal brief to help jimmy swaggart's ministries in his trial which was case no.

88-1374: jimmy swaggart ministries, appelant vs. board of equalization of california, appeller?.

Friend

RedhorseWoman

I have no concern about your personal views. If you are happy then I am glad for you. But if you for one minute think you have addressed each of the many relevant questions I have asked of you on this thread then you have deluded yourself. One after the other you have ignored critical questions that can only be resolved with conclusions other than what you have decided.

If you want to go back and respond to each of those questions asked then I can pursue this discussion. Otherwise I cannot continue offering alternate considerations for you. I just don’t have the time for that.

Your
Friend

77

Writing private letters to the Society.

by spectromize in

for anyone who's ever written something of a private nature or asked clarification on certain beliefs have you ever had the unfortunate experience of the elders calling you in the back room or a sheperding call ?.

the reason i bring this out is that newer brothers or sisters don't know that everytime you write the society the society sends a copy of your letter to your local cong.

elders.

Friend

RedhorseWoman

You said:

The Society does not inform anyone, it just assumes that it has the right to deal with the matter as it sees fit without feeling the necessity to inform anyone.

Then this question should sum it up: If you didn’t want the Society deal with things as it saw fit then why would you relay your concerns to it in the first place?

You said:

I can see that your feelings are simply that this is the way they do it....get used to it.

No, that is not my feelings, though it may be a truism.

My feeling is that nothing is wrong with the Society’s exercising its discretion in how to handle our requests. If we did not want them to do that then we would not make request to them in the first place. Also, I see nothing negative about receiving a personal visit informing us of the Society’s discretion versus receiving it in writing.

My point is that as a "Mother" they should show a little more consideration for their children.

Then you apparently feel that a “mother” choosing to respond in person is less motherly than one responding from a distance. Is that what you are saying?

Friend

100

Preacher Jimmy Swaggart and JW Lawyers

by waiting in

in the supreme court of the united states, october tenth, 1988, case no.

88-1374, filed on june 22, 1988, clerk joseph f. spanol, jr.. on that date and file number, the attoreny james m. mccabe,and donald t. ridley, 25 colombia heights, brooklyn, ny 11251 (718)606-4993, attorneys for amicus curiae, watchtower bible and tract society of new york, inc. filed a "friends of the court" brief on the behalf of the famous preacher, jimmy swaggart and his ministries.. why would the watchtower society, direct channel for jehovah's holy spirt, which also godly hates babylon the great, which also christiandom is the largest part, go into the supreme court of the united states and file a legal brief to help jimmy swaggart's ministries in his trial which was case no.

88-1374: jimmy swaggart ministries, appelant vs. board of equalization of california, appeller?.

Friend

RedhorseWoman

I can see criticizing a tax-exempt organization from using that as vehicle to gain wealth for individuals. The Society has done this regarding various religious organizations. I do not know that the Society ever criticized the tax-exempt status of an organization just for growing, even though that growth could be at least partially attributed to the tax-exempt status.

In the case of the Catholic Church, the Society has criticized it use of funds because it has enriched individuals—plenty of them. Can you say the same of the Society?

As for paying Caesar’s things to Caesar, the Society is more than willing to do that. The issue is one fo equal application of law. If religious organizations meeting the definition of “X” are legally entitled to tax-exempt status and if the Society meets definition “X” then they should receive the tax-exempt status as well as anyone else meeting the same standard. The question here is not one of “do you pay your tax or not?. The Question is, is the law being fairly applied. That is what the Society is debating in countries like France.

As an aside, I remember years back Nnorr saying, “We are more than willing to give up our tax-exempt status as long as other religions must do the same thing.” That is the real issue.

As for guarding “riches”, the relevant difference is that the Society is not guarding anything to the material enrichment of individuals.

Friend

44

"Apostolic succession"?

by Jokemyster in

jw
friends

since the wt organization claims "apostolic succession" who was it that passed the torch of gods spirit to c.t.russel when he founded the.

organization?

what denomination or faith?

Friend

SC

You said:

Thank you for your interpretation of two ideas supporting another. What about two different ideas supporting each other

You entirely missed the point. I did not address the single aspect of two ideas supporting each other. I discussed four possibilities of how two different ideas relate to each other. Please reconsider what I said. Take your time. I am in no need of an immediate reply.

You said:

Right now I would ask you to read John 6:66-69 and tell me where the WTBTS is mentioned in these versus. It is not! As I said, I will post a new topic tonight and will be interested in your reply.

A lot of things are not mentioned in that verse. What is your point? As for the WTBTS, it is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible, neither are a lot of things. Again, what is your specific point?

Jesus’ future followers were also not mentioned in that verses yet they are charged with teaching Jesus’ commands, making disciples and baptizing those disciples.

I will read, consider and respond to your new topic as soon as I can.

Friend

100

Preacher Jimmy Swaggart and JW Lawyers

by waiting in

in the supreme court of the united states, october tenth, 1988, case no.

88-1374, filed on june 22, 1988, clerk joseph f. spanol, jr.. on that date and file number, the attoreny james m. mccabe,and donald t. ridley, 25 colombia heights, brooklyn, ny 11251 (718)606-4993, attorneys for amicus curiae, watchtower bible and tract society of new york, inc. filed a "friends of the court" brief on the behalf of the famous preacher, jimmy swaggart and his ministries.. why would the watchtower society, direct channel for jehovah's holy spirt, which also godly hates babylon the great, which also christiandom is the largest part, go into the supreme court of the united states and file a legal brief to help jimmy swaggart's ministries in his trial which was case no.

88-1374: jimmy swaggart ministries, appelant vs. board of equalization of california, appeller?.

Friend

Pathofthorns

You asked:

Just wondering who actually owns the Kingdom Hall anyway?

Each local congregation should have a legal entity that holds that ownership. Usually those entities are corporations or trusteeships. In case of some type of default property is then dealt with according to bylaws or rules within those legal entities. In cases of default (i.e., congregation dissolves) most often what happens with the property is decided by a unanimous vote of members (usually a quorum of all baptized publishers at the time).

If a congregation has secured a loan with the Society with their Kingdom Hall (their property) then naturally if the congregation defaulted that loan then the Society could exercise their lean on that property and could eventually secure ownership of it if they wanted. The Society would not be entitled to anything more than the value secured. So, if the property were seized then it would most likely be sold so that the Society could separate its secured money and give the remainder back to the legal entity that secured the loan in the first place.

Friend

44

"Apostolic succession"?

by Jokemyster in

jw
friends

since the wt organization claims "apostolic succession" who was it that passed the torch of gods spirit to c.t.russel when he founded the.

organization?

what denomination or faith?

Friend

SC

You said:

[Friend’s] post reeks with double speak. I think I will start a new topic on this.

I will look forward to the discussion. Before you begin, though, please save us both some time by carefully considering what I have said here. You should pay particular attention to the idea of two different ideas accommodating one another. Let me explain.

Two different ideas have four (4) possible relationships to one another. As follows:

1) Two ideas can have nothing whatsoever to do with each other.

Example: Johnny can read. Sue can read.

2) Two ideas can support each other.

Example: Johnny can read. Sue learned how to read from Johnny.

3) Two ideas can oppose each other.

Example: Johnny can read. Johnny cannot read.

4) Two ideas can accommodate each other.

Example: Johnny can read. Johnny can do nothing without glasses.

In the instance of the Society’s teachings about itself (meaning: what it attributes to Jehovah’s Witnesses) versus ultimate salvation, too many times persons fallaciously argue that one is teaching an absolute about the other when in fact that is not true. All those teachings do is accommodate each other.

The Society’s teachings about itself have to do with their viewpoint of who is living and teaching as Christians. They see such merit in their beliefs and resulting aspirations that, quite naturally, they offer it as practically a must for insuring a good future. Whereas the Society’s teachings about ultimate salvation represent the bottom line of who will or will not be saved, who will actually get saved. They teach unequivocally that only God can and will make that judgment.

Those ideas are not 1) unrelated nor are they 2) supportive of each other nor are they 3) opposed to each other. Rather, they 4) accommodate each other. One gives a belief about acceptance of certain teachings and actions and results thereof, and the other represents who ultimately decides that resultsfor us. In the case of ultimate judgment, no Jehovah’s Witness that I know would take judgment away from Jehovah and His son and give it the the Society. The Society does not even teach that.

Friend

Edited by - Friend on 7 June 2000 11:17:38