Because it serves to keep the Pharisaical Governing Body's organisation looking beautiful on the outside, but inside their organisation is full of of uncleanness, plunder and immoderateness. (Matt 23:25-28)
Must obey!
JoinedPosts by Must obey!
-
5
Peak Publishers
by IMHO inwhy does the 'society' continue to erroneously collate its 'peak publisher' figures by counting two (or more) reports for the same publisher in a single month?
-
-
-
11
The New Annointed
by joelbear69 inmy parents have been witnesses for almost 65 years and have .
been totally faithful all that time.
they have many friends their .
-
-
Must obey!
As Blondie alluded to, the main point now is that it is not about 'replacements' for anointed ones who have fallen away. The rather dramatic and surprising increase of those partaking in the last 2 years has been about 600 or so from 2005. Those are not 'replacements', they are brand new ones being added! According to JW theology, theoretically the number should always be decreasing (with the decrease only being slowed down a bit by 'replacements'), not making big increases by 300 annually. So much for the anointed decreasing and the great crowd increasing, something the Watchtower Society has harped on about for decades.
The Society boasted in a Watchtower study article in the late 1990's that the ongoing decrease in the number of partakers was one of a bunch of core proofs that the end of this system is close. This should be a real embarrassment to the Society. But of course most JW's are just too afraid or uninterested to ponder about the ramifications of such things.
-
33
Four years late. Just watched Passions of the Christ. I have a question
by shopaholic inas you know this movie was banned for jws.
any faithful witness would not watched a non-jw bible movie (even though they do it all the time but that's a different subject.
) i watched it this pass week over a couple of days.
-
-
Must obey!
No,of courrse it shouldn't matter. There are arguments both ways: cross v stake. I think Leolaia has made a very strong case on this board that the historical evidence suggests it was more of a cross than a stake. The Watchtower Society has even published a picture of a classical painting of Christians being thrown to the lions with people hung on crosses around the perimeter of the Roman ampitheatre! JW's make a big deal out of it and so do Christians, wearing their ridiculous big crosses around their neck, like a lucky charm. Both sides are being stupid. My research leads me to believe the truth lies in the middle: the eyewitnesses to his death thought of a stake, because the Greek word used is Staurus, but at the same time that stake had a fairly narrow horizontal piece/beam which Jesus hands were separately nailed to (not a very wide beam like most Christians portray), so the stake also resembled a cross. Jesus was indeed nailed to a stake (staurus) but his hands were not together nailed to that staurus, like the Watchtower portrays; his hands were nailed to a fairly small/narrow horizontal piece. Both sides are feeling only a part of the elephant in the dark and imagining they have the whole truth.
The RCG website has a balanced viewpoint:
In the gospel accounts, the Bible says that Christ was nailed to a cross. The Greek word used for “cross” is stauros, which means “stake, pole, upright post or cross.” Interestingly, other scriptures record that Christ was nailed to a tree ( I Peter 2:24 ; Acts 5:30 , 10:39 , 13:29 ). The Greek word used in these verses, xulon, means “timber, stick, club, tree or other wooden article or substance.”
In ancient times, Roman soldiers used to crucify people using wooden structures of various shapes. Sometimes they used upright stakes or poles. Other times they used wooden crosses by attaching beams either at or just below the top.
"The Bible does not specify the exact shape of the “stauros” or “xulon” on which Christ was crucified. If God thought it was important for us to know, He clearly would have recorded it, leaving us no doubts. The shape is not important, but Christ’s sacrifice is!"
-
7
Rev 21: 4
by moomanchu inhe will wipe every tear from their eyes.
there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.".
death no more for who ?
-
-
Must obey!
The context is speaking about "a new heaven and a new earth" (Rev 21:1), so it really applies to both of those; death (the opposite of life) will not exist in either. Rev 21:4 applies after the millennium, not during it (see Rev 20:7; Rev 21:1). The cry that death is "no more" is the result of the "holy city" coming down "out of heaven" (Rev 21:2) and the resultant dwelling/tent of God being with mankind, so it is a situation on earth. Revelation 20:14 talks about "death and Hades" being destroyed, ie, death and the common grave, the pit, will be gone - no more Adamic sin & death. Compare with Isaiah 25:8 also - clearly talking about something on earth.
-
15
The Watchtower and Year 2012
by NomadSoul ini'm curios of what the watchtower society thinks about the year 2012. i think they russell should've used the mayan calendar, and not the pyramids.
at least he would have something in common with the rest of the prophets.
-
-
Must obey!
I don't think the Watchtower has (yet) published anything about this date in the context of Mayan calendar expectations. If they do in the future, it will probably only be in a general interest article about 'new age' predictions or such-like, portraying these in a negative light.
And I don't think that many people have (yet) heard about the Mayan calendar supposedly ending in 2012.
I don't give the slightest bit of credence to it frankly. 2012 will just pass by like any other year in human history, with its share of woes (more or less) and joys (more or less) just like any other year.
-
37
Watchtower says JW's can reach different conclusions & it's fine!!!
by Must obey! inwatchtower study article "responding to your conscience" (october 15, 2007, pages 25-29, studied december 3-9, 2007) .
dealing with, inter alia, oral sex, contained what i thought was an interesting new way of describing how jw's can form their own personal, and different, conclusions and that no one needs to be 'disturbed' by this.
i have never seen the watchtower describe it quite this way, even in relation to conscience matters like whether to attend a church wedding.
-
-
Must obey!
Thanks for your comments & very interesting points. I totally agree that the Society often says one thing in print but in practice its a different story. It often seems to depend on how compassionate a certain body of elders is, or what the PO is like (staunch or kindly).
What the Watchtower really needs is to have an article that doesn't only call for toleration of differences over "conscience" matters, but also calls for tolerance for differences in "interpretation" matters, with a question like this:
Q13) Why need it not be disturbing that two Christians reach different INTERPRETATIONS?
If the GB only relaxed their sphincter muscles a bit and let go on their stifling control over all interpretation, what a wonderful thing that would be. But it seems that will never happen in the foreseeable future and all the submissive, fearful fools who let the GB get away with this unabashed lordship over their minds only have themselves to blame for the organisation being so horrible. How sad.
Merry xmas everyone!
-
37
Watchtower says JW's can reach different conclusions & it's fine!!!
by Must obey! inwatchtower study article "responding to your conscience" (october 15, 2007, pages 25-29, studied december 3-9, 2007) .
dealing with, inter alia, oral sex, contained what i thought was an interesting new way of describing how jw's can form their own personal, and different, conclusions and that no one needs to be 'disturbed' by this.
i have never seen the watchtower describe it quite this way, even in relation to conscience matters like whether to attend a church wedding.
-
-
Must obey!
The Watchtower study article "Responding to Your Conscience" (October 15, 2007, pages 25-29, studied December 3-9, 2007) dealing with, inter alia, oral sex, contained what I thought was an interesting new way of describing how JW's can form their own personal, and different, conclusions and that no one needs to be 'disturbed' by this. I have never seen the Watchtower describe it quite this way, even in relation to conscience matters like whether to attend a church wedding. What was particuarly interesting was the wording of this question Q13) Why need it not be disturbing that two Christians reach different conclusions?.
This question seems to be worded in this way out of silent consideration for the fact that what the Authoritarian Watchtower Society prizes above all else, is UNITY OF BELIEF. Unity of belief is prized and sustained even above truth itself because some the GB most certainly know that certain of the Society's interpretations are flawed and false. That is why it is normally so DISTURBING for JW's to "reach different conclusions" on things.
What is interesting is the thinking coming through in paragraphs 11-13. What we see in those paragraphs is in fact the correct way that the Society should be treating many of its interpretations. Where there are very good reasons that can be argued BOTH WAYS, the only logical and proper stance for the Watchtower to take is to let each Christian make up their own mind, based on their own conscientious research and conclusions! In this example given, both sisters went away and did personal research (unfortuantely to be restricted to the Society's own publications - a point strongly alluded to in para 12) and both formed different conclusions about the SAME MATTER from their research, and based on their own personal circumstances. How often have we seen the Society present such a balanced and reasonable position???
Sadly, the Watchtower only allows this moderate stance in the most greyest of grey areas. As para 4 in this study article strongly implies, it is wrong for JW's to ever disagree with the Governing Body on matters of doctrine and even the smallest of interpretations the Society has put forward as being the true scriptural position must never be questioned. This authoritarian stance is completely unnaceptable. In contrast to that, the Society has unwittingly declared in these paragraphs 11 to 13 of this study article the exact attitude it needs to adopt with a whole raft of teachings for which good scriptural arguments can be presented both for and against (and in fact, for which the opposing arguments to their position are indeed much stronger).
In a nutshell, allowing each Christian to form their own conclusions on NEARLY EVERYTHING is what the Society should be doing, but within a certain minimum range of basic doctrine (notice that the apostles & older men in Jerusalem, the first century so-called "governing body" the Society mentions in paragraph 4, say that they holy spirit only expects the congregations to adhere to "these necessary things" - so only a few things need to be insisted upon by the Governing Body today!!). For example, since there is so much evidence against the 1914 chronology being correct, the Society should humbly announce "there are good reasons and arguments that can be presented both ways...it is not up to us to tell you what you must believe on this matter.....do your own research and come to your own conclusions and tolerate each others conclusions....there is no need to be disturbed by this at all!" This approach, the approach set out in paragraphs 11-13 in the examples of two sisters faced with the same choice, is EXACTLY the approach they should be taking with a huge range of their debateable interpretations! What a pity it seems that will never happen in the organisation except for inconsequential so-called "conscience matters" like attending a church wedding.
Here are paragraphs in the articles:
Q11) Describe how one Christian wife might reason on whether to attend a church wedding, leading to what conclusion?
11) Lois reflects on the serious Bible command, `Get out of Babylon the Great,' the world empire of false religion. (Revelation 18:2, 4) She once belonged to the church where the wedding is to take place and knows that during the ceremony all present will be asked to share in religious acts, such as prayer, singing, or religious gestures. She is determined to have no part in that and does not want even to be there and be under pressure to break her integrity. Lois respects her husband and wants to cooperate with him, her Scriptural head; yet, she does not want to compromise her Scriptural principles. (Acts 5:29) Hence, she tactfully explains to her mate that even if he chooses to be there, she personally cannot. She may mention that if she attended and refused to share in some act, it might cause him embarrassment, so in that sense her not attending might be best for him. Her decision leaves her with a clear conscience.
[Picture on page 28] Two Christians facing a similar situation might make different decisions [Husband and wife discuss invitation. Husband has goatee (non-JW); wife holds up hands objecting. Picture represents scenario in paragraph 11.]
Q12) How might someone reason on and react to an invitation to a wedding in a church?
12) Ruth faces virtually the same dilemma. She respects her husband, is resolved to be loyal to God, and is responsive to her Bible-trained conscience. After thinking about points such as the ones Lois considered, Ruth prayerfully consults "Questions From Readers" in The Watchtower of May 15, 2002. She remembers that the three Hebrews complied with a command to be where idolatry would occur, yet they kept their integrity by not sharing in an idolatrous act. (Daniel 3:15-18) She decides to accompany her husband but not to share in any religious deeds, and she is acting in harmony with her conscience. She tactfully but clearly explains to her husband what her conscience will permit her to do and what she cannot do. Ruth hopes that he will see the difference between true worship and false.-Acts 24:16.
Q13) Why need it not be disturbing that two Christians reach different conclusions?
13) Does the fact that two Christians might reach different conclusions suggest that it makes no difference what a person does or that one of these two must have a weak conscience? No. In view of her past experience with the music and trappings of church ceremonies, Lois may sense that being present would be particularly dangerous for her. And her past interactions with her husband on religious issues may affect her conscience. So she is convinced that her decision is best for her.
-
22
1930s Article on Disfellowshipping
by Shepherd Book inback when i was just lurking on this board, someone posted some information from an old wtower or awake!
that showed the society was against disfellowshipping.
the society said it hurt people, and that if people choose to disagree with the borganization, they should have full liberty of conscience to do so.
-
-
Must obey!
The material on this thread about disfellowshipping is a real keeper. Is it possible to earmark this thread for future reference somehow?
-
24
What JW Beliefs Did You...
by Abandoned inwhat jw beliefs did you make up for your own sanity?.
for me it was regarding the flood.
instead of believing that god had destroyed millions of people, i imagined that because of all the violence, by the time the flood came, the only people besides noah and his family that were still alive were the nephilim.
-
-
Must obey!
I also never believed that the resurrected couldn't marry. I also never believed that oral sex was wrong. And I secretly believed that Jehovah would allow many more people to pass through Armageddon into the new system than just JW's.
-
18
Why does my cat drool saliva when he purrs?
by Fisherman ini have a cat that cannot stop purring when he is with me, when i carry him or put him on my lap he drools saliva all over me.
he cannot stay still on my lap.
he moves all the time and demands to be petted all of the time again and again.. this is the only cat that i have ever owned.
-
-
Must obey!
the reason it drools so much is because it is not getting enough raw, natural type meat to eat. Your cat has weak gums and eating nothing but slops like jellymeat or highly processed crap like biscuits are making his gums even worse, hence the chronic drooling. Start feeding your a bit of top quality raw mince, fish, or some other raw, natural form of food on a regular basis and this will start to go away. Your cat will also be more content and less 'neurotic' once given more natural forms of food regularly.