Do you feel better after that, waiting?
Friend
JoinedPosts by Friend
-
77
Writing private letters to the Society.
by spectromize infor 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
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 inin 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 inin 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
-
27
The "routine", The failure
by Pathofthorns inis 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
-
-
-
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 inin 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 infor 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 inin 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
-
-
-
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