Posts by Friend

27

The "routine", The failure

by Pathofthorns in

jw
friends

is it possible to do all that is required as a witness?

if one were to put down on paper all that is required to carry out, both with secular work and a good spiritual routine, is it even possible to do all that one is "supposed" to do?.

a basic routine includes:.

Friend

Pathofthorns

Is it possible to do all that is required as a Witness?

I think that failure to perform—if I can apply that term—depends upon the extent that each is compelled to perform. Without a doubt persons going to an extreme in even one of certain areas mentioned could fail in terms of performance. There are quite a few of those and they inevitably fail. When just depends upon how much gas was in their tank in the first place. Those with lots of fuel usually land the hardest.

The overall thrust of your comments provides several good points. You highlight that we must not loose sight of our limitations; doing so is self-defeating.

Once at a meeting of elders the question was asked, “Who comes first, you, your family or the congregation?” Answers from the audience of elders ranged all over the place, which is normal for what amounts to a brainstorming session. Finally the chairman said, “You should come first.” While that answer would not prevail in all circumstances, from a his perspective it was an answer worth considering. He reminded those men that unless they took care of themselves first that they could not help their families or the congregation. From that perspective I agreed with his comment.

Sometimes we need to just sit back and take stock of our lives and how we divvy ourselves out.

For example, when meetings start become a huge burden because of preparation then perhaps it is time to just take the view that, “This week I am just going to go sit and enjoy the company of my friends.” If we get anything out of the meeting then fine, otherwise we have still had an enjoyable evening within our limitations.

Meetings may also become a burden because of how worn-out we are from just daily living, besides going to the meeting that night or day. Then maybe we need to stay home and recoup. Several months back I was out in service with a publisher that was just not at all enjoying themselves. I asked, “Do you really want to be out today?” When they said, “No” then I suggested that the two of us leave the group and do something else. We did just that, thereby saving ourselves for another day in the future. There is nothing wrong with that.

We should all do no more than we are able. That is the basic counsel in your sage advice here, and it agrees with our Master Jesus’ words that we must love God with our whole heart and with our whole soul and with our whole mind. Jesus said nothing about loving our God with more than we are. If anyone demands of us more than that then we should give them what-for in that instance, if we bother replying to it at all.

I appreciated this post of yours, Pathofthorns.

Friend

Edited by - Friend on 9 June 2000 13:10:2

67

PROOF from the WT

by Scorpion in

jw
friends

that the organization means salvation

Friend

RedhorseWoman

A scriptural teaching can change to a totally opposite view before one of the books has even been released, and you just accept it without question?
You don't see a problem with this?

I do not just accept it without question. I think about it, which is what everyone should do.

No publishing company is going to rip apart a work like the Insight volume over such a triviality as this is. The answer is one of practicality. Those books had already been printed and bound before the change in teaching occurred. Do you know anything at all about publishing?

As a matter of record the Society has always utilized The Watchtower as its means of publishing changes in some biblical view. That means everything else published centers on that journal. The Watchtower of June 1, 1988 introduced the new view in question. The Insight volumes had been produced long before that specific journal was conceived.

From the foregoing, if you cannot figure why I am not too concerned about your perceived anomaly then words, facts and common sense are not enough. That is what I believe, it is my view—for those who insist upon having it.

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

Now they are engaging in exactly the types of dealings that they have always criticized. Why should they be immune from criticism?

That is an essential element yet determined. I have not heard the Society criticize other tax-exempt organizations—religious or not—for abiding by laws of the land. Unless you can show that the Society has broken laws of the land then that essential element in the complaint is moot. Also, I have not heard the Society criticize other tax-exempt organizations—religious or not—for utilizing laws of the land for legally arguing points of law as the system entitles. In that case, unless you can evidence that the Society circumvented the law then you have no valid complaint on that front.

If today a law is interpreted by the judiciary as saying, “Tax-exemption is only valid for green books” and tomorrow that law is interpreted by the judiciary as saying, “Tax-exemption is only valid for greenish-blue books” then can we rightly criticize an entity for changing their green books to greenish-blue? Can we possible construe that as circumventing the law? To argue that such a change is circumventing the law would be absurd. In each case they were trying to abide by the law.

Another essential element of this thread has to do with whether the Society aligned it itself with a false religious organization or defended it. Facts are clear that the Society did neither of those things.

I don’t know what is left to legitimately support the complaint.

Certainly I agree that any organization claiming to represent Jehovah’s interests in some way should be criticized when it acts hypocritically, including the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society or any of its associate organizations. There are valid criticisms against the Society, the JSM issue is just not one of them.

If you imagine that I have been arguing the legal wisdom of the Society then you are mistaken. I have been arguing details relevant to whether, on this subject, the Society can be criticized for acting contrary to how they preach others should act.

Friend

Edited by - Friend on 9 June 2000 11:44:46

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

I appreciate your feelings about what this forum is, that is a casual get together of friends. But your feelings are not the only ones. As far as I can tell this forum is for discussion of bible research and Watchtower publications. From the title of this and other threads that subject matter appears to include anything remotely associated with either.

What I have tried to do here is discuss. That is all. You cannot intelligently discuss without presenting information and asking questions, so I have also done that. Usually it is the details that determine a matter, so I will concentrate on details as far as they are important to the subject. Since this site has forums covering the humanities (i.e., Make New Friends, Entertainment, Health, etc…) then I was under the impression that participants on the Bible Research forum were interested in discussing details of subject matter indicated for it. I have not posted on those other forums because that is not why I am here. Of course, that does not mean that those areas are not of concern to me, that is just not why I visit this particular web site. On this site each of us have the ability to pick and choose our areas of interest and post accordingly.

If I see what appears to be distortion of facts then I will always speak up if I have the time. That is also what I have done on this thread. As a full grown adult I suggest that if you find a conversation not of your liking then you should ignore it. We all have feelings and convictions. We either choose to express them or not. If we express them and someone responds then we have the same choice all over again.

If I wanted to share a casual cyber get-together with friends then I would choose one of those other forums on this site. The risk is high that I would run into someone wanting to discuss issues on the Bible Research forum.

Rest assured that I will always share my beliefs and concerns as I have the time to do so, just as I have with this message.

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

WOW!

If you people could just step aside from your prejudices and look objectively at your views based upon the facts; you would say, “WOW!”

You appear to believe,

1. That taking advantage of tax laws is somehow ungodly and/or hypocritical.

2. That the Society questioning the legality of certain tax impositions by taking the matter to the duly appointed tribunal—like in France—is somehow ungodly and/or hypocritical.

3. That presenting a legal argument potentially beneficial to the community at large is somehow ungodly and/or hypocritical just because a subject in the case is immoral—that despite the fact that the subject’s judgment is not determined by whether your argument is successful.

4. That by changing procedures to better conform with laws relative to tax-exempt status that that is somehow ungodly and/or hypocritical.

I’m glad like-minded ones have never prepared my tax returns.

WOW!

Friend

67

PROOF from the WT

by Scorpion in

jw
friends

that the organization means salvation

Friend

SC

My response to Apostolic succession in this thread was not meant to be a counter argument as you put it. It was meant to be the truth as far as the WT teaches us. Is not this what we are supposed to be teaching, the truth.

Yes, truth is what we should be teaching and it is also the distinguishing feature that I prefer. I only wish more people would let the truth speak—both inside and outside the WTS, including forums such as this one. Too often we let our present conclusions, opinions or mindsets get in the way of expanding our base of knowledge of what is true. Such a disposition produces self-limitation; it is intrinsic to the nature. I hate to see that happen to anyone, but real life teaches us that it is unavoidable.

As far as the arguments in the apostolic succession thread, the points to each of your questions was met. You just did not like the answers or did not want to understand the answers presented. You have tried to not only skew the subject on this thread, but have done the same on the thread about the Society evading taxes and the apostolic succession topic. I left a response to RedhorseWoman on that thread, (Swaggart).

No, “points” to each of my questions were not met. If they were please repeat those questions with concise answers following them. Please do not reword my questions. I will look for your answers on this thread.

I am not sure what you mean by asserting that I have attempted to skew the subject. Is representing facts skewing? Perhaps you mean my presentation of the four (4) possible relationships between differing ideas. Well, I’ve got news for you; “different” does not always connote “oppose”, which is what you apparently believe. Such a belief is a bifurcation of the worst magnitude; it is self-deception.

I also wondered, being you are so good at pointing out that two different ideas can basically mean the same thing or as you put it, (help us resolve the sum of what is actually being taught), can you help me with this.
The men of Sodom will be resurrected. INSIGHT, VOL. 2 PAGE 985 (1988)
The men of Sodom will not be resurrected. REVELATION, PAGE 273 (1988)
Hear we have two different opinions on the same subject released the same year at the summer Convention of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Is it time to start flipping a coin for our answers?

Your presentation above you demonstrates serious miscomprehension of what I said previously about the four (4) possible relationships between differing ideas. In that case you are hardly in position to declare that my corollary questions are answered or not—as you have done.

Those two statements above represent two different ideas that oppose one another, which is one of four (4) possibilities. Remember my illustration, “Johnny can read. Johnny cannot read.”? Do you? Do you recall that little part where I said that those two differing views represented differing views that oppose one another? Do you remember that? Well, guess what? Those two views above fit that description, to a tee.

Your notion that we should somehow flip a coin between those two views above is an argument to the crowd.

The paradox you represent in that the two ideas were released at the same convention is your own construction because there is a simple and reasonable explanation for what happened in that instance, an explanation that you are either unaware of or do not want to believe. Here it is:

The expression in the Insight volume had been printed months before the convention and prior to the change in teaching. The one in the Revelation book had been printed not so long before the convention and after the change in teaching.

Is it so hard for people to realize that publications like Insight on the Scriptures take a long time getting through the publishing process?

Friend

Edited by - Friend on 9 June 2000 9:31:51

67

PROOF from the WT

by Scorpion in

jw
friends

that the organization means salvation

Friend

Andyman

Yes, I am the same Friend from H2O.

I know that most JW's will tell you that Jehovah and Jesus will be the ones to do the judging, but lets be honest here, they tell that to those at the door, or those who aren't JW's. When JW's get together the conversation, in most cases, is that ONLY JW's will be saved.

Yes, what you say is all too true yet it does not agree with the fine distinction taught in the publications of the Society. Too often JWs get overly caught up in their convictions of having a/"the" true association of Christians that they discount Jehovah’s role as Judge. By questioning them you can get them back down to earth to a reasonable degree—at least you can usually do that on the subject of salvation.

I think that SC has proven his point here very well.

I respect that that is your view, but SC has neglected to resolve a number of questions asked relative to his point. When he does so successfully then I will also agree with him/her.

Like Waiting said, the best debater isn't the issue here. The facts are right here for all to see, and I think that is the issue.

I prefer to stick with facts myself. When SC does that and resolves those questions I mentioned then (s)he and I can continue with the discussion, if they so desire.

If you are the same Friend from H20 I would like to say that I do respect your devotion to the society, and though I don't agree with everything you say, I admire your loyalty. But again I believe that loyalty should be for Jehovah, not the organization.

It is a misconception the think I am devoted to the Society. I am devoted to our Creator alone. I have several major divergent views from the Society and they know what they are because I have told them so. Since there is so much misinformation about the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses, perhaps you mistake my debates over those issues as defense of the Society. I have just as often hung the Society’s laundry out for everyone to see it for what it is. Being truthful demands nothing less than that. Rest assured that my loyalty lay in the hands of the only One that can reciprocate it in full measure.

waiting

Maybe Friend is not our friend at all........

Or maybe Friend is a bigger friend than you realize.

Friend

Edited by - Friend on 9 June 2000 0:19:23

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

waiting

Friend: "Why I Find You Offensive"

Thank you. If you had left out the formatting it would have made for a quite nice poem.

I appreciate frankness.

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

I disagree that debating is necessary for growth. Debating to me is simply trying to prove a point just for the sake of proving that point.
If, by debate, you infer discussion, sharing of knowledge, and learning....then I agree with you.

Debate can be painful but it can bring rich rewards. Debating is all that you mentioned. It is proving a point, discussion, sharing of knowledge and learning. (Actually I prefer the idea of evidencing a point versus proving a point. Proof is an elusive thing. Most often we conclude with the best information available, which is usually short of the absoluteness of proof.)

To be perfectly honest, I never asked for your beliefs because I noticed that others had asked direct questions of you, and you did not seem to care to divulge your beliefs or feelings.

Like everyone else, I also have beliefs and feelings that are dear to me.

My impression was that you were more interested in stirring up a rousing battle. If this is in error, I apologize.

I have no interest in stirring up a rousing battle. On the other hand, if I see distortion of truth I will jump in there with the best of them and present my case. Most often taking umbrage are the distortionists. I am not too concerned about winning or losing. I am more concerned that accuracy prevails.

I appreciate your candor and accept your apology for what it is, just two persons getting to know one another better. Thanks.

[W]hy the snide comment about recognizing an argument when I see one?

LOL. I have a bad habit of trying to be thorough. That "snide" remark was not intended as such. It was intended to just cover all the possibilities.

Sharing generally is a good thing. Taking something you feel is what a person needs and force-feeding it to them generally results in choking.
Please feel free to share. Please do not badger.

That is a concept with which I struggle. It is extremely difficult for me to become choked or feel badgered on a forum such as this. True, there is a measure of interactiveness, but in most respects forums such as this are like reading something in a magazine. I read all kinds of idiotic nonsense everyday; it is unavoidable. Yet I do not feel force fed because I can just ignore it. If I am pressed on some issue of importance to me then I respond with my convictions and bases for them. If my bases are demonstrated as inaccurate and I learn something new then I am happy that it happened to me.

Please do not let this disagree with you, but on forums such as this I find that persons who feel force-fed or badgered are those who find that their views are based upon emotion rather than reality. No one here is required to respond or evidence anything. I think the frustration comes when evidencing some claim becomes less and less likely. You have opined that I should share my beliefs and that is one of them.

I do not want to continue discussing issue with anyone if that makes them feel uncomfortable. In their case I would rather just learn about them. Later if an occasion arises for discussion of issues between us then we will see about that at that time. Perhaps by then a better understanding or personalities will aid toward avoiding needless frustration and anger.

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

waiting

You are a fascinating opponent, as in opposer. Why, again I ask, do you perceive yourself as our Teacher?

It is not bad to be an opposer. I am sure you will agree that sometimes being an opposer is the moral high ground.

I do not perceive myself as your teacher. If you perceive anyone as your teacher then most likely you have either learned something from them or else you feel you need one.

Like you, I am clumsily making my way through life, which for me is probably not going to go on for much longer. During that process I try to learn and share as much as possible. In the end how much and what we share of ourselves is our measure as a person. If I have shared too much here and it has somehow caused offense then I am sorry for that. On the other hand if my sharing has helped anyone then I have increased my measure as a person.

Friend