Posts by hotchocolate

34

Issue Number 2.... Incorrect Predictions.

by hotchocolate in

okay, just to re-introduce myself, i was raised in the truth, regular pioneered for years, and am a member in good standing with my congregation.

i have just recently been shocked to realise that i actually have some doubts about the truth.

it helps for me to focus on one point at a time, and to write down my thoughts in a logical sequence.

hotchocolate

BTW I've seen the 72 WT article about the "prophet". The elder I spoke to was quite well-informed. Nice guy. Open minded in fact, and newly appointed, there's hope for him yet... :-)

34

Issue Number 2.... Incorrect Predictions.

by hotchocolate in

okay, just to re-introduce myself, i was raised in the truth, regular pioneered for years, and am a member in good standing with my congregation.

i have just recently been shocked to realise that i actually have some doubts about the truth.

it helps for me to focus on one point at a time, and to write down my thoughts in a logical sequence.

Ha ha Besty... Don't worry mate, I worked it out. ;-)

The whole "we never prophesied" thing really to me is just nit-picking. I mean, it's not hard to work out. You predicted the future. You prophesied. Own it. (Yeah a bit of Dr Phil in there)

Hey I think I'm starting to fire up! haha

34

Issue Number 2.... Incorrect Predictions.

by hotchocolate in

okay, just to re-introduce myself, i was raised in the truth, regular pioneered for years, and am a member in good standing with my congregation.

i have just recently been shocked to realise that i actually have some doubts about the truth.

it helps for me to focus on one point at a time, and to write down my thoughts in a logical sequence.

hotchocolate

Oh I forgot to add my last scripture, Mark 13:21...

21 “Then, too, if anyone says to YOU, ‘See! Here is the Christ,’ ‘See! There he is,’ do not believe [it]. 22 For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will give signs and wonders to lead astray, if possible, the chosen ones. 23 YOU, then, watch out; I have told YOU all things beforehand.

So from this I think it's obvious that a prophet (or false prophet) INCLUDES those that interpret scripture.

(Like I needed to add to that post) :-)

x

34

Issue Number 2.... Incorrect Predictions.

by hotchocolate in

okay, just to re-introduce myself, i was raised in the truth, regular pioneered for years, and am a member in good standing with my congregation.

i have just recently been shocked to realise that i actually have some doubts about the truth.

it helps for me to focus on one point at a time, and to write down my thoughts in a logical sequence.

hotchocolate

Okay, just to re-introduce myself, I was raised in the truth, regular pioneered for years, and am a member in good standing with my congregation. I have just recently been shocked to realise that I actually have some doubts about the truth.

It helps for me to focus on one point at a time, and to write down my thoughts in a logical sequence. So this is point number two. I hope this all makes sense, I welcome any feedback you might have. :-) I'm still trying to get my own head around it.

SO

A huge issue for me is the society's history of incorrect predictions.

Most people here probably know about these, but I have to say, I am a third generation witness who has deeply studied the Bible my whole life, and I had not come across about 75% of these predictions until I specifically started looking for them. So, in case some are unaware, I'll outline a few incorrect dates published by the witnesses.

- The presence of Jesus started in 1874.
- The battle of Armageddon was marked for 1914.
- The faithful men of old would be resurrected to earth in 1925. (And the witnesses bought a beautiful house for them to live in, in San Diego)
- It would be "fitting for God to end man's misery" in 1975.
- The generation that saw 1914 would not pass away until the end comes.

There are many other now-abandoned teachings that I have some problems with, one of them particularly being that Russell measured an Egyptian pyramid to calculate prophetic dates FOR 35 YEARS. (Proclaimers pg 201)

With a respectful attitude, I took this information to my elders. The response I received was that these predictions did not class as false prophecy. They are merely incorrect interpretations of Scripture. The example they used was the one at Acts 1:6 where the apostles asked Jesus "Are you restoring the kingdom to Israel at this time?" They feel that this shows that God's true servants can often be mistaken. But, with all respect, I have a problem with this. I feel we are talking about two very different situations. The Biblical one is of an apostle who did not yet understand the kingdom, and so he humbly asked Jesus. If that same apostle had decided that he KNEW the kingdom was being restored at that time, and had taken it upon himself to claim understanding and to begin teaching this belief to the early Christians, I can imagine Jesus' response might have been somewhat different.

The elders also mentioned Proverbs 4:18 which most of you probably know well, "the light is getting brighter and brighter". But I can't help but notice that this scripture only mentions light, not dark. Truth, not untruth. The light gets brighter. Not brighter, then dark, then brighter again.

But one thing the elders were clear on was that the witnesses have never acted in the role of a prophet. So then, what is a prophet?

Well the first online dictionary definition I clicked on described a prophet this way:
Prophet \Proph"et\, n. [F. proph{'e}te, L. propheta, fr. Gr. literally, one who speaks for another, especially, one who speaks for a god and interprets his will to man, fr. to say beforehand; for, before to say or speak [1913 Webster].

Okay. So I just feel - the definition of a prophet should not be determined by the group or people who are being questioned. But in any case, to go further on this point of "What IS a false prophet?" I looked at the instances of how this term is used in the Bible and came up with these scriptures:

In speaking to a false prophet in Acts 13:10 Paul said: “O man full of every sort of fraud and every sort of villainy, you son of the Devil, you enemy of everything righteous, will you not quit distorting the right ways of Jehovah?" So distortion of the ways of God is one sign of a false prophet. Interestingly, the original Greek word "K'yri-os" in this scripture literally meaning "Lord" has been translated in the NWT as "Jehovah."

The second scripture I looked at was Matthew 7:15. “Be on the watch for the false prophets that come to YOU in sheep’s covering, but inside they are ravenous wolves. 16 By their fruits YOU will recognize them. Never do people gather grapes from thorns or figs from thistles, do they? 17 Likewise every good tree produces fine fruit, but every rotten tree produces worthless fruit; 18 a good tree cannot bear worthless fruit, neither can a rotten tree produce fine fruit. 19 Every tree not producing fine fruit gets cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Really, then, by their fruits YOU will recognize those [men]. 21 “Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. 22 Many will say to me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ 23 And yet then I will confess to them: I never knew YOU! Get away from me, YOU workers of lawlessness.

So firstly, by their fruits you will know them. I know as witnesses, we believe that this fruitage is demonstrated by our love, not going to war, preaching etc. And this is valid. But I think that there are probably just as many people that would argue that they feel they have seen "worthless fruit" from the witnesses. For example, the survivors of child abuse whose claims were invalidated by disbelief or by discouragement in following the appropriate channels for justice through the "higher authorities" (Romans 13:1) But in fact this scripture is specifically discussing "False Prophets". So, the "fruits" could likely be in relation to prophecy.

Secondly, this false prophet to many people would seem innocent and trustworthy.

Thirdly, these ones would "prophesy" "expel demons" and "perform powerful works". And they would be earnest. So who does this scripture apply to?

Well we could look for any person or organisation who makes future predictions, who claims to release people from the power of Satan and his demons, and who is involved heavily in their works. (BTW I am just re-phrasing this scripture, I don't claim any special understanding to know who this scripture refers to)

And the final and most powerful scripture for me was one I came across while sitting in the meeting. I was looking at the back of the Bible, under the section "False Prophets" when I saw something like "How to determine a false prophet" and the scripture Deut 18:20-22;

20 “‘However, the prophet who presumes to speak in my name a word that I have not commanded him to speak or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet must die. 21 And in case you should say in your heart: “How shall we know the word that Jehovah has not spoken?” 22 when the prophet speaks in the name of Jehovah and the word does not occur or come true, that is the word that Jehovah did not speak. With presumptuousness the prophet spoke it. You must not get frightened at him.’

When I read this, I got goosebumps. If the word does not occur or come true, that is the word that Jehovah did not speak. I just don't think the Bible could be any clearer, you know?

So these are my thoughts. Feel free to respond, agree or disagree. :-) This is pretty scary stuff for a lifetime witness.

x

13

Women: Do you pray in presence of men?

by outofthebox in

jw
friends

do you still find it difficult to pray for the family, let's say, if your husband or another man is present?

do you still feel uncomfortable to do it?.

-ootb.

hotchocolate

Hey Susanhere... oh you're JW pioneer sister is SINNING BIG TIME.. haha

In the presence of her hubby she should always be wearing a head covering, whether he's a witness or not.

"A Christian wife might have an unbelieving husband and on occasion be expected to pray or teach the Bible in his presence. In any of these situations a woman would have worn a head covering, “a sign of authority,” thus manifesting her recognition of the headship principle." WT 77

Tell her that as a witness, she's getting WAY too big for her boots, and she needs to learn some submission. That should get things fired up.. LMAO

13

The Skeptics' Annotated Watchtower - What Does the Bible Really Teach?

by B_Deserter in

i'm going to start a project.

i'm going to do a paragraph-by-paragraph rebuttal of as much watchtower literature i can get my hands on.

i've been inspired by v's watchtower comments, so i'm going to do the same with books and brochures.

hotchocolate

Missing Link, I'd definitely be interested in hearing about the Evolution Book issues. (Oh excuse me, the "CREATION" book) :-)

I have heard reports that there are some major flaws and misquotes, would like to hear more about that. x

46

What J.W teaching did you find the hardest to accept??

by karter in

for me it was the fact that god is allowing all these innocent people to get killed to prove a point ,i mean it was a big bet he had with satan.. i explained it to my wife this way if i had our children killed in the most horriable way just to show they couldn't live without me how does that make me look?.

hotchocolate

OHHH This is a good thread... haha...

Amazing how many I actually have to choose from when I start thinking about it. Okay, here's a couple:

Russell was chosen out of every person on earth although he was measuring pyramids and making incorrect predictions.

If the paradise earth is the future of nearly all mankind, why didn't Jesus mention it in a clear way at least once?

Every day about 155,000 people die. If you die on Tuesday, and Armageddon comes on Wednesday, you get a bonus 1000 years! Die on Wednesday though, and you are up the creek.

Oh I got SO many more...

35

Abstain from Blood...

by hotchocolate in

my first post was a few days ago now, and finally my heart has stopped pounding whenever i log on.. :-).

so, i have been in the truth all my life, 3rd generation witness, never left, never been in trouble, pioneered for years, and am a respected member of my congregation.

at the moment.

hotchocolate

Ooooooh the elusive Skyring. Yep, heard all about him. Do you think he's real or just urban legend? LOL

Actually I sent him a PM so if he replies I'll know he's real for sure... LMAO

Thanks a lot for your replies. I'm feeling good about this stuff for once!

35

Abstain from Blood...

by hotchocolate in

my first post was a few days ago now, and finally my heart has stopped pounding whenever i log on.. :-).

so, i have been in the truth all my life, 3rd generation witness, never left, never been in trouble, pioneered for years, and am a respected member of my congregation.

at the moment.

hotchocolate

Marmot, aka Mr Popcorn..

Hey thanks for that.. I just read through Matt 12.. I had never read that passage with the blood issue in mind, but I have to say I totally agree with you...

As far as evolution goes... yes, I'm interested in checking that out for sure, but having never believed or listened to a word of it, I'm afraid I don't even know where to begin. Any good sites you can point me to?

xx

35

Abstain from Blood...

by hotchocolate in

my first post was a few days ago now, and finally my heart has stopped pounding whenever i log on.. :-).

so, i have been in the truth all my life, 3rd generation witness, never left, never been in trouble, pioneered for years, and am a respected member of my congregation.

at the moment.

hotchocolate

My first post was a few days ago now, and finally my heart has stopped pounding whenever I log on.. :-)

So, I have been in the truth all my life, 3rd generation witness, never left, never been in trouble, pioneered for years, and am a respected member of my congregation. At the moment. ;-)

So a couple of people asked what my doubts are with regard to the witnesses, and the information I've found represents months and months of study. This is not a conclusion I have come to lightly.. along the way I have met regularly with the elders here to see whether there is anything I'm missing in my research, but you know - I'm beginning to realise that I have been given a functioning brain and heart for a reason, and maybe I need to start listening to those things for once in my life!

I haven't had a chance to outline my research in a logical way yet, so I figure by writing on this board I can kill a couple of birds. :-) So to speak.

SO - My first problem with the witnesses is also the issue I am most convinced of. That is the refusal of blood transfusions. I'm sure a lot of what I say here are points that others have already discovered or realised.. so bear with me. :-)

A few years ago I was faced with making a conscience decision about a blood fraction. This is where I initially encountered some confusion. I went away and poured over the WT's information, and came away with two conclusions.

1. The same blood fractions can pass naturally between mother and child during pregnancy. AND
2. The refusal of this fraction could result in the death of any future child I may have, and I could not justify refusing something that was ultimately a "conscience" product when that may infringe on the sanctity of life.

So I decided to go ahead with the treatment. BUT. I had some nagging doubts at this point. These were

A. As witnesses, part of our belief is that we are to pour out the blood on the ground - and to create this fractions, this doesn't happen. The blood is collected, stored and processed. And also, to me, blood is blood. Are we abstaining or not?
B. I found out since that whole blood also passes from mother to child, so this negates the initial reasoning I was led to by the WT articles I read.
C. When I thought about point 2 (above) I had this little voice that kept telling me that this same principle could, in effect, be applied to whole blood. Could I refuse a transfusion and allow a death if God's law clearly states that life is sacred? Wouldn't that then be breaking two laws?

To elaborate on that - I remember a conversation I had with a brother a year or so ago, and he was saying how he'd cut his finger and put it in his mouth. And a sister had told him it was wrong. He made the point that the witnesses often misunderstand the law about blood. Blood is a representation of life. It was the LIFE that was the big deal, not the actual blood. The laws about pouring out blood and not eating it was to remind people that life is sacred. To take a SYMBOL of life and make it even more important than what the symbol MEANS - just to me is not logical. It doesn't ring true.

To back up this point, I remember a person raising something at my pioneer school. They said when we eat meat, even after we pour out the blood - there is still some residue of blood left in the meat. (And I found that this point is backed up in the WT51 7/1) I remember the CO saying that our requirement is not to be particular over whether there is still some blood, but that by pouring out the blood we've fulfilled God's requirement of showing sacredness of life. This to me is further proof that the actual blood itself is not the issue - the issue is LIFE.

Another point. Each time blood is talked about in the Bible, it is in relation to a life taken. I mean, isn't that the whole point? A life is taken and it's "lifeblood" is given back to God. But with a blood donor, there's no life taken, so this principle is pointless. I have looked this up on the CD-ROM, and the same article mentioned above (WT51 7/1 p414) brings out the example of David in 1 Chron 11:17-19. This was basically a story about how David wanted some water. Three guys risked their lives trying to get it, but when they brought it back, David wouldn't drink it. He felt if he did he would be bloodguilty. So he compared it to blood and poured it out. This account is used to prove that it doesn't matter whether the blood donor is still alive or not (because the men were still alive). In my humble opinion, this argument is severely flawed on so many levels. It's not that complicated! This wasn't actual blood he was refusing to take, it was water! And the reason? Because the men might have died. The principle to this story is not about blood, it is about the sacredness of life. I'm afraid for the life of me I cannot see how this story relates to blood transfusions.

The other problem I have is with the change in thought on some blood fractions. My understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) is that for years, witnesses did not have immunisation, and other blood fractions. And I have heard (and would presume) that this resulted in deaths. There is a feeling amongst witnesses that even if we now know this wasn't technically correct, the important thing was that they had still made a stand for Jehovah, and that this life is fleeting and imperfect, and that they will be resurrected to a superior perfect life. But what this argument fails to take into account is that God has made it clear in the Bible that ANY life is considered as sacred, regardless of whether that life be imperfect or temporary. In the old law, if I life was taken, there were serious consequences, and bloodguilt attached. We hear so often about the bloodguilt of Christendom for the deaths during the Dark Ages, and my thought is: What of the deaths that did result from the laws placed upon Jehovah's Witnesses, which we have now seen were incorrectly imposed? New light and understanding I guess I can perhaps understand... but we are now talking about a erroneous understanding that has led to the death of innocent people. I'm just not sure I can see how God would be a part of that.

If anyone can see a flaw in my logic, please tell me... I'm really interested in hearing other ideas on this...

These are all just my own thoughts, I don't want to impose any of these views upon anyone else, but this has been bubbling around inside me - and with noone willing to listen my only outlet is here! Hope that's okay! :-)

xxxx

PS I'm not on IE so I'm using html... hope it worked okay!