so many stories from so many people.
i've read with them all with interest and sympathy, and felt that if i am going to stick around and be a productive member, i should probably tell my own.
i know i am not the only non-jw on this site, and i wanted to offer the perspective of a 'never-was' as to why i am here and participating in the discussions.
A belated welcome to Sara Annie. That was an excellent and interesting post. I like your writing style, its professional (unlike my own).
This is a very good place to arm yourself with the true facts when you come up against those pushing the JW faith. Never be frightened of asking your questions here. There are quite a few here who will e-mail you copies of information if you need documentary evidence at any time.
Good luck
link
facts you you were not told when becoming a jw .
http://home.powertech.no/festus/awaken/a-007.shtml .
they believe & teach that all religions except theirs are of satan, and your pastor or priest is under the devil's control.
Gerard,
That Fred Franz, who for many years headed the Society, perjured himself under oath in Scotland in a court trial, by saying he could read Hebrew, and then failing a simple Hebrew test.I think that a little research will show that Fred Franz did not in fact take the test. It was assumed, probably correctly, that because he refused to take it he had no knowledge of the Hebrew language or at least his knowledge was very weak.
Just a point if we are talking TRUTH.
link
is it just me or does anyone else get really screwed up when they read something here on the board which they know is not factual and is utterly and completely wrong?
im not giving examples because youve all seen it.. what really gets to me is that when someone posts stuff that is completely factually inaccurate it makes all the posters here look like dummies.
i get to thinking about what all the jw lurkers must feel about "the stupid apostates" when they read some of this stuff.. i just wish that some people would do a bit of research before posting statements which they claim to be accurate.
Dear Mr gumpy (Im too lazy to correct my spelling mistakes), you make a good point about an hypothetical example so here goes:
Mr Poster makes the claim that Charles Taze Russell was a paedophile. How did he arrive at this conclusion? Just about everything that CTR ever did is documented somewhere, so there must be a record of his being charged and found guilty of child molesting. After all, the case of the miracle wheat is fully documented in contemporary records so why not something more serious?
How do we know that such a statement about the miracle wheat is true? How do we know that what we read is factual? Well it was written at the time and over a hundred years has passed for someone to challenge the information and no one has. It is documented in newspaper records of the day so we can safely assume that it has some credibility.
Lets look at where Mr Poster got his info. Guess what? It came from Mr David Ickes web site it therefore has to be the gospel truth and there is no need to check on his research because he is SOOO reliable.
OK. Now he has all the facts Mr Poster will approach the JWD board and post this accurate information and amaze everyone with his incredible level of accurate knowledge. However he omits to mention where he found his information which leads the gullable to believe and repeat it.
Along come Mr JW Lurker and what does he see? A load of rubbish on an "apostate" web site. Does Mr JWL see any of the really great, well researched and factually accurate posts put out by many contributors to the board? You can bet your life he doesnt, he wont look beyond the cr*p because that is all he is looking for to support his own beliefs.
This board is a wonderful place to post and discuss ideas and opinions on a whole range of topics but when claims of factual accuracy are involved it would be nice to see at least some sort of support for those claims.
This is just the way I see it! (opinion not fact).
link
edited to say: sorry prisca we were posting at the same time but I think that Ive covered your point by my example. Thanks
Edited by - link on 15 January 2003 6:7:48
is it just me or does anyone else get really screwed up when they read something here on the board which they know is not factual and is utterly and completely wrong?
im not giving examples because youve all seen it.. what really gets to me is that when someone posts stuff that is completely factually inaccurate it makes all the posters here look like dummies.
i get to thinking about what all the jw lurkers must feel about "the stupid apostates" when they read some of this stuff.. i just wish that some people would do a bit of research before posting statements which they claim to be accurate.
Is it just me or does anyone else get really screwed up when they read something here on the board which they know is not factual and is utterly and completely wrong? Im not giving examples because youve all seen it.
What really gets to me is that when someone posts stuff that is completely factually inaccurate it makes all the posters here look like dummies. I get to thinking about what all the JW lurkers must feel about "the stupid apostates" when they read some of this stuff.
I just wish that some people would do a bit of research before posting statements which they claim to be accurate.
O.K. O.K. tell me I can put them right if I feel that way but just remember that its not that simple. I would have to look up and present all the proper references when that is exactly what the original poster should have done.
Am I out of order in wishing that people would please be a bit more careful when making categorical statements of fact?
link
i have a request.. could you perhaps state all the real facts that support the idea of the gb being inspired by god?.
i am not talking about feelings, faith etc.
but of real proveable fact...things that would be accepted in a court or that would survive scientific testing.
It seems that everyone here wants to discuss things such as the blood doctrine and the two witness rule without realising that these issues, and many like them, are symptoms of the faulty reasoning which SOJ is constantly displaying. We need to look at basic principles because it is these that are wrong and producing the problems that we see.
He says:
The two examples you use (blood transfussions & associating with disfellowshipped ones) are not suggestions made by the GB. Those doctrines are based on Bible scripture. Whether you accept those scriptures or not is up to you. In those two cases I am not following the GB, but Jehovah God who inspired his word.
And
Probably not, most in this forum are not satisfied, they criticize the two-witness rule that is scriptural. Well that's not a problem with the organization, that's a problem with Jehovah's law.
This is clearly and completely untrue. SOJ is not following the inspired word of God as he claims, he is following the Societies interpretation of the inspired word of God, which is something entirely different.
He himself states originally that the organisation does not receive Divine Guidance but:
Spirit guided would be that Jehovah uses his spirit as a guide but is not telling the person what to write or speak word for word. The person might also ignore that guidance if he is does not have proper motivation or a pure heart. For example, the spirit could guide me to a specific door while I'm in the preaching work, but I could ignore it if I'm tired and just go home.
In other words it is falliable. (see also)
You have incorrectly assumed that as JWs, we are not guided by Jehovah. I did not say that, I said that the GB is not inspired to write as the Bible writers were.
With regard to the following:
As regard to the visual proof that you ask for, I think you would have to clarify further was you expect Jehovah to show you as proof. Is faith in his inspired word not enough?
It must be clear to every thinking person, including SOJ, that, as I have pointed out, he is not putting his "faith in His inspired word" but in the word of an organisation that that claims, without any proper or reliable evidence, to be His "sole channel of communication".
We rely on faith when we believe that the Bible is the Inspired Word of God. We rely totally on the suspension of disbelief when we are asked to put our belief a group of persons who claim to speak on Gods behalf. We have in fact discarded faith at the point where we begin to believe in these man made tales.We are then not using faith at all but are thinking with our disbelief suspended in a major way. Perhaps we could at this point ask a Watchtower type question: Would this be pleasing to God? Please think about this.
link
i have a request.. could you perhaps state all the real facts that support the idea of the gb being inspired by god?.
i am not talking about feelings, faith etc.
but of real proveable fact...things that would be accepted in a court or that would survive scientific testing.
SOJ is clearly identifying the problems that I and many others have with the "truth"
How on earth can this statement:
No, I allow Jehovah God to guide them and eventually things get turned around for the good. And even if some things are not clearly understood at the present time, I do have hope of perfection in the new system of things.
Possibly be reconciled with this:
It might not be a miracle, but it's accurate knowledge as described in Proverbs 2.How can accurate knowledge be "not clearly understood"? If it is "not clearly understood" how can it be taught as "truth"? How can a religious organisation insist that salvation must be earned by compelling others to accept, as binding upon them, information that is "not clearly understood"?
There are just far too many holes in what SOJ says for it to make any sense to a thinking person.
This is not a personal attack on SOJ, just a big question mark against his thinking.
link
i have a request.. could you perhaps state all the real facts that support the idea of the gb being inspired by god?.
i am not talking about feelings, faith etc.
but of real proveable fact...things that would be accepted in a court or that would survive scientific testing.
This is the part that stumbles me every time this matter is discussed with JWs.
SOJ wrote:
In the times of Moses, there were around 3 million Israelites, and Jehovah saw fit to organize them and Moses was their leader on earth. Although Jehovah guided him, on many aspects Moses made decisions himself. When judicial cases aroused, he would consult the law that Jehovah had given him and then made a decision. In that way, he was guided by Jehovah on every act. Now if Jehovah organized the Israelites and set up human leaders to guide them, would he not do the same now adays since were talking a lot more that 3 million followers? As we read the structures, we see that Jehovah usually follows the same pattern.
To me this is clearly saying that the GB and/or organisation of Jehovahs Witnesses have an equal position with Jehovah as that of Moses when leading the Israelites and this cannot be.Jehovah clearly and unequivocally demonstrated, not only to Moses but also to all the Israelites, that he was Gods spokesperson. If "Jehovah usually follows the same pattern" where is this pattern today.
Im sorry SOJ, it just is not there and there are absolutely no parallels whatsoever between any part of the JW organisation today and the situation in the time of Moses.
link
who has heard of the illuminati?
and the secret plans they have to rule the world?
geeesh...does anyone believe this?
I don't know how you guys are getting away with poking fun at the illuminati.
Just use the search facility to look at some previous threads on this subject and you will see that quite a lot of the people who post here take them very seriously. I think that most of them are 'born agains'.
I'm surprised that none of them have surfaced yet.
link
just recieved a new letter from the society.
it is another begging letter for contributions, in it they explain the british tax relief given to them as a charity .
for every 1 pound donated the goverment will give them an extra 28p if it is donated under the gift aid arrangement.
Thanks to T O H and frogit for your information.
I have just checked the Charity Commission site and note the following:
MEMORANDUM AND ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION. DATE OF INCORPORATION: 30TH JUNE 1914 AND THREE SPECIAL RESOLUTIONS, DATED 2ND NOVEMBER 1949, 20TH APRIL 1951, 10TH JANUARY 1958
How come they were busy incorporating the IBSA just a few months before the end of the system (or Armageddon depending on which version you chose to believe)???
On a more serious note, take a look at the income that is shown for the ISBA on the Charity Commission web site. For 2000/01 it was almost 12 million U.K pounds and in the same period another 15 million plus was donated to the WTB&TS. In total over 27 million U.K. pounds!!!
Can anyone shed some light on where all this money comes from and where it all goes? Bear in mind this is just the U.K. There is another $1 billion floating around in the U.S.A.
link
Edited by - link on 9 January 2003 10:23:4 edited again because things keep disappearing.
Edited by - link on 9 January 2003 10:25:26
just recieved a new letter from the society.
it is another begging letter for contributions, in it they explain the british tax relief given to them as a charity .
for every 1 pound donated the goverment will give them an extra 28p if it is donated under the gift aid arrangement.
Caspian,
Following the C.Os talk last week, my wife tells me that the Society is in urgent need of money to build Kingdom Halls in third world countries.
I have never heard the Society claim to build Kingdom Halls for anyone and I understood that the materials were always financed by the congregation who also supplied the labour f.o.c.
Can you confirm for me if the Society has any financial input in the building of Kingdom Halls. This might include people sent to different countries to supervise building operations (if this happens).
I do know that the Society finances missionaries and full time preachers (pioneers) from its resources and also run their monasteries (homes). Apart from this can you say what else the profits from their publishing operations is spent on.
Thank you
link
