Awakened at Gilead: Your situation seems very interesting...and I am glad you understand what it is I am trying to get across in this post. So were you actually in the school when you left the org? Can I ask what particularly made you think otherwise?
johnnyc
JoinedPosts by johnnyc
-
193
Deceptive or just wrong?
by johnnyc ini have been virtually non-stop studying everything i can get my hands on with regards the wtbts, and "apostate" literature and information.
in all honesty, 80% at least is non-sense and over critical.
however, i do find about 20% (if i have to create a percentage reference) is appropriate in its line of reasoning and questioning.
-
-
-
193
Deceptive or just wrong?
by johnnyc ini have been virtually non-stop studying everything i can get my hands on with regards the wtbts, and "apostate" literature and information.
in all honesty, 80% at least is non-sense and over critical.
however, i do find about 20% (if i have to create a percentage reference) is appropriate in its line of reasoning and questioning.
-
-
johnnyc
Deputy Dog: Perhaps you have enough for a "warrant" or "incitement" to bring to trial, but you do not have a "prima facia" case - far from it. Funny, obviously the Jews had enough claim to bring Jesus to trial, yet not evidence to (truly) convict him.
-
193
Deceptive or just wrong?
by johnnyc ini have been virtually non-stop studying everything i can get my hands on with regards the wtbts, and "apostate" literature and information.
in all honesty, 80% at least is non-sense and over critical.
however, i do find about 20% (if i have to create a percentage reference) is appropriate in its line of reasoning and questioning.
-
-
johnnyc
wobble: I am not another person, but good to know more out there have this thought. Check out my other posts then to see my situation.
-
193
Deceptive or just wrong?
by johnnyc ini have been virtually non-stop studying everything i can get my hands on with regards the wtbts, and "apostate" literature and information.
in all honesty, 80% at least is non-sense and over critical.
however, i do find about 20% (if i have to create a percentage reference) is appropriate in its line of reasoning and questioning.
-
-
johnnyc
isaacaustin: so then lets say a GB first got drunk...then, k?
-
193
Deceptive or just wrong?
by johnnyc ini have been virtually non-stop studying everything i can get my hands on with regards the wtbts, and "apostate" literature and information.
in all honesty, 80% at least is non-sense and over critical.
however, i do find about 20% (if i have to create a percentage reference) is appropriate in its line of reasoning and questioning.
-
-
johnnyc
oompa: I guess you are right, I was responding to someone else. I'll read yours again and respond to your specific comments - sorry.
-
193
Deceptive or just wrong?
by johnnyc ini have been virtually non-stop studying everything i can get my hands on with regards the wtbts, and "apostate" literature and information.
in all honesty, 80% at least is non-sense and over critical.
however, i do find about 20% (if i have to create a percentage reference) is appropriate in its line of reasoning and questioning.
-
-
johnnyc
shamus100: Perhaps I do deserve to be DF'd for being here and discussing these things. I started this journey probably as many of you did (I am not saying all, so no need to debate me on this), as I was having a judicial committee against me for a sin that I committed. I think something goes through your mind at that point when someone accuses you of wrong, and you want to find "dirt" on them - so to speak. In all honesty, at first I was taken back by what I read on the internet about the WT - including Franz's book. But it was his book that also got me thinking back towards the WT. In his book, he talks about how none of the people (including himself) should have been DF'd or had judicial meetings since evidence was either lacking, or in his words, they were on a fishing expedition for apostates. The problem with all that, is that he clearly states in his book that he, and the other associates of his, had those contrary conversations and thoughts before any of that started. Then, to back everything up, he and the other DF'd members (Dunlap etc) immediately turned and attacked the WTBTS intensely - basically confirming they were who the GB thought they were. The only real point that Franz had, was perhaps the way it was all handled (taking his word at face value)...but how can you fault that when Franz did what he did afterwards.
-
193
Deceptive or just wrong?
by johnnyc ini have been virtually non-stop studying everything i can get my hands on with regards the wtbts, and "apostate" literature and information.
in all honesty, 80% at least is non-sense and over critical.
however, i do find about 20% (if i have to create a percentage reference) is appropriate in its line of reasoning and questioning.
-
-
johnnyc
Deputy Dog: So do you believe that the members of the GB actually meet and discuss what lie they are going to promote or cover-up? If you all believe the WTBTS is lying, then it must come down to a point of people there at Brooklyn meeting to decide how best to accomplish such. Even your prince of apostates, Raymond Franz, said the WTBTS (including the GB) are sincere in their efforts, but Franz uses a catch phrase to describe his opinion on what is happening at the GB level - "The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie—deliberate, contrived and dishonest—but the myth—persistent, persuasive and unrealistic." He claims they are unrealistic and myth based, but he does not accuse them of lying. Don't you think he would be one of the first whistle-blowers of the GB if they were having meetings to talk about how they can deceive their membership??? You all need to "get real" about what is, at the worst case, occurring at the GB. Mistakes and nothing more. Regardless of whether or not God uses them to channel information, the fact is they HONESTLY believe that he is. This tread was started to discuss if the GB errors, or is fraudulent. So far, NO ONE has presented proof of fraud. Admittedly, it is difficult to prove, but nothing less than information showing the GB knew one thing to be true, yet purposefully and intently sought to deceive others of an alternative reality. Something along the lines of a recording of one of their meetings, or personal memos indicating such. Otherwise, any claim that they are fraudulent is a conjecture or slanderous.
-
9
blood transfusions among the ancients
by truthsearcher inis there any evidence that blood transfusion was attempted in ancient history--ie ancient egypt, greece, rome?
could it be that the bible does refer to these practices in the "abstain from blood" passages?.
arming myself for my hlc meeting, any help or suggestions are appreciated.. ts.
-
-
johnnyc
Whereas they may have tried, they could not have succeeded - an impossibility. The types of blood were not understood until the advent of biology technologies not introduced into mainstream science until the last century. ie, if you were to place AB type blood into someone needing A, they would die very quickly - probably quicker than the reason they needed blood to begin with. It causes Agglutination. Therefore it cannot have been a common practice used back then.
-
193
Deceptive or just wrong?
by johnnyc ini have been virtually non-stop studying everything i can get my hands on with regards the wtbts, and "apostate" literature and information.
in all honesty, 80% at least is non-sense and over critical.
however, i do find about 20% (if i have to create a percentage reference) is appropriate in its line of reasoning and questioning.
-
-
johnnyc
Another point: I often talk to atheists who show me all sorts of (supposed) contradictions in the bible and what they claim to be inaccurate. Even God's own inspired word is subject to these sorts of attacks of "proof of un-authenticity" through error. Unless God himself comes and writes something down, there will always be these sorts of claims I suppose. Some, if not all of you, were at one time dedicated JWs who fully supported the GB and WTBTS. So that means you probably defended the GB's actions to someone out in service. You obviously feel your current thinking is correct, but I wonder if you ever have the slightness fondness for the WTBTS for teaching you certain things about the bible?? Is there any appreciation for any of what you have been taught?
-
193
Deceptive or just wrong?
by johnnyc ini have been virtually non-stop studying everything i can get my hands on with regards the wtbts, and "apostate" literature and information.
in all honesty, 80% at least is non-sense and over critical.
however, i do find about 20% (if i have to create a percentage reference) is appropriate in its line of reasoning and questioning.
-
-
johnnyc
bennyk: I was simply making the point that there are examples in the bible of God's channel not always acting correctly or doing the right thing - but in each example God still requires others to keep in line with their authority. In those cases however, it usually means a very bad punishment for the party in authority who makes that error.