Posts by Friend

20

A Request

by Friend in

jw
friends

lately i have spent some time responding to various subjects on this forum.

at this time it seems a bit necessary that i address something about myself in the hopes that it will clear up some misunderstandings.

first of all, i am not a defender of the watch tower bible & tract society.

Friend

Carmel

…it seems to me that your apologetic regarding Witness teachings regarding who will gain salvation, goes beyond recitation of facts.

I believe an analysis of my comments on the subject will reveal that I have done two things. 1) I have recited some published and explicit teachings of the Society on the subject of salvation. 2) I have applied logic by considering all possible relationships—which there are four of—between two expressed views that are different and reputed to be a dichotomy.

As a point of logic, if two different ideas can be accommodated without conflict then they are not opposed to each other; there is not dichotomy. After considering all the Society has published and realizing that the two subject ideas can accommodate each other then the only possible conclusion is that they do not represent a true dichotomy because a true dichotomy represents two ideas that oppose each other.

Perhaps one more time you could explain your feeling about the blinking light.

Here you raise the subject of the Society’s "new light" concept. In particular you question the validity of that concept when the "light" keeps reverting back and forth in two opposite directions.

In short, such actions on the part of the Society represent only one thing, that they are searching for correctness just like anyone else who cares for it.

Regarding the "blinking light" about the ancient Sodomites and any resurrection, the following presentation has been offered:

- The men of Sodom will be resurrected. WT 7/1879, p.8

- The men of Sodom will not be resurrected. WT 6/1/1952, p.338

- Will be. WT 8/1/1965, p. 479

- Will not. WT 6/1/1988, p.31

- Will be. LIVE FOREVER, EARLY EDITIONS (1982) P. 179

- Will not. LIVE FOREVER, LATER EDITIONS, (1989) P. 179

Actually it looks like this:

- The men of Sodom will be resurrected. WT 7/1879, p.8

- The men of Sodom will not be resurrected. WT 6/1/1952, p.338

- Will be. WT 8/1/1965, p. 479

- Will not. WT 6/1/1988, p.31

As you can see, the Society has switched views on the subject 3 times over the last 110 years. I do not find it so incredible that genuine Christians would vacillate on an issue such as that when comparing the level of misunderstanding amidst followers of Jesus that were taught in his very physical presence, namely the twelve apostles. Do you know how often they continued harping about personal greatness even after Jesus counseled them otherwise? Have you considered how vacillating those early Christians were regarding the issue of circumcision? Even after the Apostolic Counsel—as recorded at Acts 15—genuine Christians still struggled for a time with that issue.

You might also consider the question, "Just how forgiving is Jesus when it comes to teaching falsities?" A review of words attributed to Jesus for congregations in Asia Minor reveals that he was willing to work with his followers for some time through some pretty nasty stuff. For instance, the congregation of Thyatira had accommodated (maybe supported) false prophecy for some time before Jesus stepped in with an ultimatum and counsel. Even then Jesus admitted that he had allowed some time for overcoming the false prophecy. Additionally, for the congregation of Thyatira Jesus was allowing still more time for cleaning up their act. (See Revelation 2:18-29)

As I said, comparatively I do not consider the "blinking light" about the ancient Sodomites to be a big deal. On the other hand, I also do not believe that association with the Society is necessary for gaining God’s approval. There are others besides Jehovah’s Witnesses that are also encouraging the spread of the good news of God’s Kingdom.

Friend

Edited by - Friend on 11 June 2000 0:3:25

67

PROOF from the WT

by Scorpion in

jw
friends

that the organization means salvation

Friend

SC

I am aghast at your assertion that my two questions asked have "nothing to do with what the WT teaches about Salvation being found in the WT organization."

Let’s take a look at those two questions. As follows,

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

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

SC, if you think that answers to those two questions have "nothing to do with what the WT teaches about Salvation being found in the WT organization" then you have reading comprehension problems and any discussion between us henceforth may therefore be useless. Please note that each question relates to WHAT Jehovah’s Witnesses believe on the subject of salvation. Your reply is appalling. I also see that you could not muster a simple "Yes" or "No," or "A" or "B" answer to either question.

Considering your experience and present circumstances it is understandable that you have some pent up frustration regarding the Society. Perhaps this is not the time for you and I to be considering objectively the issue at hand of what the Society teaches regarding salvation.

If you choose to continue then please provide concise answers to the two questions asked. Afterward I will be glad to expand this discussion by considering your reasoning.

waiting

I am glad to see that you and I are on better footing now. I would ask that you not make too much of my work. All of us have valuable things to share with one another.

Friend

Edited by - Friend on 10 June 2000 23:18:52

20

A Request

by Friend in

jw
friends

lately i have spent some time responding to various subjects on this forum.

at this time it seems a bit necessary that i address something about myself in the hopes that it will clear up some misunderstandings.

first of all, i am not a defender of the watch tower bible & tract society.

Friend

To All

Lately I have spent some time responding to various subjects on this forum. At this time it seems a bit necessary that I address something about myself in the hopes that it will clear up some misunderstandings.

First of all, I am not a defender of the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society. It is true that I do defend some issues involving them, but not as a defense of them. Rather I am defending what the record actually is. Therefore when someone offers a misinformed, ignorant or stupid assertion regarding some aspect of the Society then I will set out making accurate information known on the subject if I am able and have the time. Along the way I will also offer considered conclusions about those issues. Some persons view this as defending the Society when in fact I am only defending the facts.

As for the Society, I have some major views divergent from theirs. They know of them because I have told them so. Two of them have to do with blood transfusions and the chronology of the gentile times. A third has to do with subtle but critical nuances about its judiciary.

What I do defend with a passion is the people making up Jehovah’s Witnesses. I will defend that brotherhood vigorously and with resoluteness.

I will not provide personal information except to inform you that I am an active Jehovah’s Witness.

Now, I do not mean to impose upon anyone, but I have gotten a little stretched out on this and other forums besides my daily life otherwise. I feel I owe response those responding to messages of mine but my time is very limited. Therefore I request the following: If this post about my disposition does not resolve whatever issue we have between us then let me know. Thereafter please just indicate in a sentence what issue (and thread) you want that I go back to for continued discussion. I will do so as able.

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

waiting

Friend has put forth a good argument on taxation. So has Red Horse and yourself, Frenchy and myself and others. We all have opinions - they are all valid, are they not?

All opinions are valid as what they are, opinions. However, I’m sure you agree that having an opinion does not make that opinion right.

As for arguments, I take it that you’re referring to sound reasoning (i.e., good arguments)? In that case, all arguments are not valid. The validity of an argument must be determined by supporting premises. To validate the conclusion of an argument supporting premises must be evidenced as correct.

Then there is the fallacy. Oftentimes fallacies are offered as sound reasoning, but they are not. Learning to spot fallacious arguments is good because it enables a person to better decide on issues that could be crucial. Fallacy is an invalid form of argument, it is not sound reasoning.

On this thread there is a mixture of sound reasoning, opinion and fallacy. The reader must determine which is which.

Friend

Edited by - Friend on 10 June 2000 16:37:7

67

PROOF from the WT

by Scorpion in

jw
friends

that the organization means salvation

Friend

Frenchy

So nice to hear from you. Your comments did not exactly satisfy the request.

You cited the following:

Only Jehovah's Witnesses, those of the anointed remnant and the "great crowd," as a united organization under the protection of the Supreme Organizer, have any Scriptural hope of surviving the impending end of this doomed system dominated by Satan the Devil.—Remaining Organized for Survival Into the Millennium, The Watchtower, 1989 9/1: 19

I too will cite a comment published by the Society followed by a question. If you will honor it with an answer I would appreciate it. I am not looking to cause trouble. I just want an honest evaluation.

Do Witnesses believe that their religion is the only right one?
Anyone who is serious about his religion should think that it is the right one. Otherwise, why would he or she be involved in it? Christians are admonished: "Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine." (1 Thessalonians 5:21) A person should make sure that his beliefs can be supported by the Scriptures, for there is only one true faith. Ephesians 4:5 confirms this, mentioning "one Lord, one faith, one baptism." Jesus did not agree with the modern, relaxed view that there are many roads, many religions, all leading to salvation. Instead, he said: "Narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are the ones finding it." Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that they have found it. Otherwise, they would look for another religion.—Matthew 7:14.
Do they believe that they are the only ones who will be saved?

No. Many millions that have lived in centuries past and who were not Jehovah’s Witnesses will come back in a resurrection and have an opportunity for life. Many now living may yet take a stand for truth and righteousness before the "great tribulation," and they will gain salvation. Moreover, Jesus said that we should not be judging one another. We look at the outward appearance; God looks at the heart. He sees accurately and judges mercifully. He has committed judgment into Jesus’ hands, not ours.—Matthew 7:1-5; 24:21.—Questions Often Asked by Interested Persons, Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Twentieth Century, 1989:29.

Here is my question to you:

Do you think our two (2) citations are unrelated to, oppose, support or accommodate one another? If you feel they are in outright opposition to each other then why?

It is possible that they are in opposition, but I do not think that is the case because it is also possible that each comment accommodates the other. The accommodation is as follows:

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 see it as 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. Since God makes that judgment—a judgment He has place in Jesus’ hands—then in spite of their religious convictions Jehovah’s Witnesses also teach that they cannot say who will or will not be saved during that judgment. Since God does that judging they yield that ultimately he decides who is right and wrong and who is saved or destroyed.

As a point of logic, if two different ideas can be accommodated without conflict then they are not opposed to each other.

As for who each of us should ask, there is a lot of presuming about what people are and are not around here. Aside from that, I’d rather stick with what we can evidence from the very publications that promulgate the stuff. Deciding issues based upon another persons supposed opinion is at least two (3) steps away from the horse’s mouth and it is circular because anyone invoking such an idea will only presume their conclusion is the right one and thus offer that as the other persons thinking. Don’t you agree?

As for standing behind something (i.e., supporting it) I will only do so as long as I am convinced it is tenable. I will not be so bullheaded to stand behind anything after it is evidenced as wrong, or in the case of a Christian association, that it is evidenced as being less than the Bible describes of the Master’s earliest followers.

Friend

Edited by - Friend on 10 June 2000 13:8:55

67

PROOF from the WT

by Scorpion in

jw
friends

that the organization means salvation

Friend

SC

…please give concise answers to your questions. I did.

No, you did not. If you insist otherwise then you are dishonest.

Regarding the initial subject of salvation, following are the two most important questions asked relevant to your ranting:

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

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

Since you have already demonstrated a complete lack of logical skills, let me explain that question one (1) is multiple choice. The answer can be as simple as saying, "A", or, "B." Answering question two (2) is as simple as saying, "Yes" or, "No." Can you handle that?

You have not answered those questions in any sort of fashion. You have responded to them though, but only by avoiding them. I think you do not want to answer them because the simple answers dispel your notions about what the Society teaches at the heart of the issue of salvation—a teaching that disagrees with your prejudiced opinion.

As for the rest of your nonsense (i.e., about Sodomites/resurrection) , you have yet to discern that even our earliest Christian friends made mistakes on several fronts for as long as they lived. Mistakes were made as individuals and collectively. That means that whether an individual or group makes mistakes is not necessarily corollary to Christianity. (I wonder if you comprehend that thought.) On the other hand, while teachings are important, the far more important issue is that of heart condition. Though the earliest Christian friends made mistakes in conduct and teaching what made them stand out was their strong and faithful hearts. They pressed on in their godly devotion regardless of their own shortcomings. That devotion was manifest to others by their relentless evangelizing spirit. They kept preaching and teaching and trying to live accordingly as best they could.

SC, I really am not sure if you comprehend all of this, but I hope you do. All the hoopla over the issue of salvation as taught by Jehovah’s Witnesses is little more than persons either ignorantly or intentionally turning a blind eye to ALL that is taught by us regarding salvation and who can be saved.

Frenchy

A good line to include in a talk is one that agrees with our beliefs as Jehovah’s Witnesses. The man can say,

"Do Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that they are the only ones who will be saved? No, we do not believe that."

Alternately the man could say,

"Do Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that they are the only ones who will be saved? We believe we practice the right form of worship but God has committed judgment of our salvation into Jesus’ hands, not ours. We cannot say who will be saved for sure and who will not; no one can because only God can read hearts."

Those expressions might disagree with your views, Frenchy, but they are the truth of what we teach.

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

Do you feel better after that, waiting?

67

PROOF from the WT

by Scorpion in

jw
friends

that the organization means salvation

Friend

Carmel

You tried to say:

At the risk of continuing a brush fire Friend, common sen[s]e would indicate that if the FDS is the only channel or even "a" channel from God, it would not flip flop on the issue of Sodomites being resurrected. That you see no antinomies of reason in such anom[a]lies I[n]dicates a mental recalcitrance of the first order.

Peter: John is not going to die.
John:[/b] I am going to die.

To our knowledge, in writing John corrected that inaccuracy only after about 60+ years[/b]. (See John 21:20-22)

Do you get the picture?

As for the integrity of my assessment, since you so easily discount or fail to consider that Jesus’ followers often made mistakes—worse yet you may not realize it—I trust my own considered view above yours. If you have some information you wish to share beyond your underdeveloped conjecture then by all means supply it. I always like to consider the facts.

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

Since you equate “seeking wealth” with “gaining money” then I see little point is discussing the subject at hand any further with you. However, I do appreciate you answering my question.

Characterizations in the latter portion of your reply reveal less than complete knowledge about some things. For example, while it is true that the Patterson complex is not strictly utilitarian it is also true that living quarters there are pretty Spartan on a comparative basis. In fact, when Brooklyn Bethelites were first informed about being transferred to Patterson many resisted because of the smallness of those living quarters. Also, those who travel extensively, as I have in the past, know that oftentimes limousine service is no more expensive than a regular taxi and sometimes less expensive. I see no need in pursuing this portion of your reply between us either. But again, I appreciate you sharing your view.

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

My comments have referred to the criticism of other religious organizations by the Society for seeking wealth.
The Society has frequently spoken out harshly against any wealthy religious organization.... directly condemning them for having and seeking wealth.
They have been doing exactly the same thing....seeking wealth by whatever means possible. THAT always has been and still is my point.

Yes, I have realized that that was also a sticking point for you. Understandably if the Society condemns religion “X” for seeking wealth and thereafter does the same thing themselves then they should be ridiculed.

The problem for my understanding that criticism of yours is that I do not understand what you mean by “seeking wealth.” Earlier I tried to elicit some details about that but it was to no avail. Perhaps I did not explain myself well enough. Please let me again seek clarification from you on that point. Afterward if you will please tolerate my desire to understand your view then I would ask for that clarification.

In the context of our discussion,

1. Do you equate “seeking wealth” with gaining money? Is it the gaining of material funds that you feel the Society criticizes in other religions?

2. Do you equate “seeking wealth” with getting rich? If so, who is getting rich? Do you think the Society has criticized religions because of the size of their bank accounts, that they were somehow unnecessary? Do you think individuals working at Bethel offices are receiving this wealth as individuals? If so, what do you base that upon? (NOTE: I read some past comments about housing, food, travel, et cetera. If that is considered gaining wealth then are you saying the those expenses should not be afforded to those volunteering to do the work associated with their duties?)

3. By “seeking wealth” do you mean something other than (1) and (2) above?

Without some clarification of what you mean by “seeking wealth” I cannot make sense of your criticism here. From a financial perspective, to me the Society is just a tax-exempt organization that needs funds to operate just like any other tax-exempt. When they feel those funds encroached upon differently than they think the law allows then naturally they respond accordingly, which should be done within the law. I don’t know that such an action on the part of another religious organization has ever been criticized by the Society.

Friend

Edited by - Friend on 9 June 2000 14:51:12