I agree with you easyreader and they should allow higher education, they are held back by a few core aging teachings that need to be pruned and that is one of them, but it may take some younger men coming through to the GB to achieve it. I think it is a necessity to the organisations growth.
Posts by reniaa
-
86E-mail to JW Ex-Wife: What You Can Learn Researching the WTS in 3 Hours!
by Seeker4 ini posted a thread earlier this week about a conversation i had with my jw ex-wife.
the next day i sent her this e-mail.
one should never be afraid of ideas.
-
-
-
86
E-mail to JW Ex-Wife: What You Can Learn Researching the WTS in 3 Hours!
by Seeker4 ini posted a thread earlier this week about a conversation i had with my jw ex-wife.
the next day i sent her this e-mail.
one should never be afraid of ideas.
-
-
reniaa
hi seeker, I like your post a lot of which I agree with,
I'm a person that can see the mistakes the watchtower does and it saddens me yet I am still drawn back in because of the beliefs, (aside from the date thing which i think they have just made a hogwash of) the hardest thing for a religion to do is get rid of the dead wrongful part of their teachings they have accumulated over time, you can see that with trinity with other christianity groups and 607/1914 with witnesses, I've been thinking all night how Jw's could drop the date issue and blood, soften the shunning and allow higher education without losing a lot of members. Religions need to change and grow and it's time JW's had a makeover, they did it in the past they just got to learn how to do it now.
They still got jehovah going for them and thats more than the others.
The only thing I disagree with on your post is the education thing because despite witnesses not doing higher education, I think as an organisation you are taught to a higher level skills reading writing etc and this shows, they may get stuck in deadend low paid jobs but i bet the average witness IQ is quite high,
I myself have only had basic education but found that reading skills i learned in the JWs made me a different person than I would have been. I actually think Jw's teach you to be analytical thinkers but this is a shot in the foot because then you can analyse them and so see were they are wrong, thats why i say they are better having a makeover and getting rid of the deadwood teachings.
I wouldn't discourage college education because I think there is arguebly a bible principle for allowing it which is jehovah allowing jesus to reach 30 before he came into his inheritance thus he had a full life and job training :)
-
54
Found this today - My Book of Bible Stories
by kurtbethel ini was looking in a thrift store and found this gem from 1978. .
quick!
hide it from your children!.
-
-
reniaa
lol I read the new Harry potter book I certainly wouldn't call it suitable for young kids that read it, it's very black although not as black as some in the series, certainly lots of people die though.
and the gold-compass books are very black and grusome in content for kids
I would say bible book of stories is very tame, as a lot of the death etc is very much played down.
You say there are better bible-story books but I search the whole of my local book store but could only find ones on christmas an no other stories in them. I'd be happy to have a look at one you recommend though?
-
54
Found this today - My Book of Bible Stories
by kurtbethel ini was looking in a thrift store and found this gem from 1978. .
quick!
hide it from your children!.
-
-
reniaa
I quite like this book, wts spin isn't so obvious and if the more grusome aspects are played down isn't that because of age group its targeted at?
It makes biblical stories quite accessable to kids so in that respect I like it, Its certainly unique as a kiddie bible storybook i've looked at others and they have 3 maybe 4 bible stories in them only.
I will say this book more than any other made me a bible reader as i got curious to read the stories from the original.
-
77
Taking apart the Memorial
by jgnat ina new poster inspired me to take a look at the memorial talk and the way that the witnesses honor (dishonor) jesus' memory.
i had mentioned that the form is, from this christian's point of view, an abomination.
the participant is encouraged to look and not partake.
-
-
reniaa
Hi jcanon your replies are intersting but from what do you base your conclusions from? personal study?
-
77
Taking apart the Memorial
by jgnat ina new poster inspired me to take a look at the memorial talk and the way that the witnesses honor (dishonor) jesus' memory.
i had mentioned that the form is, from this christian's point of view, an abomination.
the participant is encouraged to look and not partake.
-
-
reniaa
Wow jgnat geat research :) I loved the comparative scripture post that was facinating, heres a couple of questions
From what I remember one specific difference is catholics actually think the wine and bread change into blood and body of christ am I correct?
The breaking of bread thing in the NT is interesting it looks like it was done as a recognition of new followers infomally as they sat to meals together with no time period indicated, so on thatr basis no one has it exactly right?
After researching it I finding "breaking bread" is already a scriptural term so can used not just to mean the memorial. here's an interesting site i found refering to the breaking bread problem of interpretation.
The debate over these four verses in these two chapters in the book of Acts has been waged among disciples of Christ for centuries, with one's traditional practice and preference often having an impact upon one's interpretation. For example, those who argue that the Lord's Supper must be observed every first day of the week (Sunday), and only on the first day of the week (with it being a sin to observe it any other time), will invariably denounce Acts 2:46 as a reference to the Lord's Supper. Why? Because the passage can much too easily lend itself to an argument for daily observance. Thus, these folk will never acknowledge even the possibility that "breaking bread" in that verse could be a reference to the Lord's Supper. To do so would pose a grave threat to their "pattern." That can never be allowed. The same is true of Acts 20:11, where there is some evidence to suggest the "breaking of bread" occurred the day after "the first day of the week." I can absolutely guarantee, therefore, that among the ultra-conservative, patternistic, legalistic elements of the church, the NLT will be universally and unequivocally condemned for its rendering of these four verses in Acts.
- We should probably point out here that the extremists among the patternists have taken the example of our Lord's breaking bread and have attempted to establish church LAW from it. Bro. Clovis T. Cook, in an article titled Breaking Bread, quoted Luke 22:19 and then observed, "I think it is admitted by all that Jesus broke the loaf. It should be just as freely admitted that we are commanded to do the same. What we need to find out is just how He broke it, and then we will know what we are to do" (Old Paths Advocate, July 1, 1991). Thus, if we are to get the "pattern" right, we must know exactly HOW Jesus broke that loaf, and unless we break the loaf exactly the same, we sin. Bro. Cook then goes into a complex argument as to whether Jesus broke the bread "in or near the middle," or whether He "took a loaf and broke off a piece." It is his conclusion that the latter is the acceptable "pattern," and thus each disciple "must do exactly what Jesus did." He then spoke of those factions in the church who "broke the bread after thanks, in or near the middle, which they claimed had to be done to represent the 'broken body' of Jesus" (ibid). However the bread was broken, it was nevertheless agreed that it MUST be broken before the members could eat of it. A man in Denver once said to him, "Brother Cook, I would never partake of an unbroken loaf." To this he quickly replied, "I wouldn't either!" (ibid).
- Lest one think such legalistic, patternistic extremism is a thing of the past, Bro. Mac Lynn, in his well-researched 2003 edition of Churches of Christ in the United States, points out that there are still divisions among those of this faith-heritage, primarily among the One Cup factions, over the breaking of the bread. "Although the majority of the One Cup folks use unfermented grape juice and believe each participant should break the loaf, others either break the loaf before distribution or insist on wine" (p. 14). Such foolishness is the tragic result of a patternistic mindset. The result will always be division in the family of God. Additional insight into such sectarian squabbling may be found in the following articles: Reflections #47 -- The Lord's Main Meal: Legalistic Wrangling ..... Reflections #142 -- The Wheat Grain Patternists ..... Reflections #147 -- Practicing Pared Patterns.
Breaking Bread in the Bible
"Breaking bread" was an idiomatic phrase among the people of Israel. Indeed, it is an idiomatic phrase among a great many peoples of the world, both primitive and modern, both biblical and non-biblical. It is a phrase fraught with richness of meaning, both spiritually and culturally. Yet, at the same time, we must not overlook the reality that originally, and in its most common and frequent usage, it simply referred to people eating a meal. Any deeper significance to be associated with the partaking of food would come from the depth of relationship of the participants and the motivation underlying the meal itself.
For example, at the feeding of the 4000 (Matt. 15:36; Mark 8:6) we see that Jesus "directed the multitude to sit down on the ground; and taking the seven loaves, He gave thanks and broke them, and started giving them to His disciples to serve to them." We also see the same at the feeding of the 5000 (Matt. 14:19; Mark 6:41; Luke 9:16), where "He blessed the food and broke the loaves ... and they all ate and were satisfied." At the town of Emmaus, following His resurrection, Jesus dined with a couple of disciples, and "it came about that when He had reclined at the table with them, He took the bread and blessed it, and breaking it, He began giving it to them" (Luke 24:30). Later on they came to realize that they had been dining with the Lord. They went to Jerusalem, found the eleven and some of the other disciples, and "began to relate their experiences on the road and how He was recognized by them in the breaking of the bread" (vs. 35).
- Most scholars regard the meal at Emmaus as being a common meal. However, some feel this was clearly an example of the Lord's Supper. After all, wasn't it referred to as "the breaking of the bread"?! Two definite articles are used in the expression, which the patternists declare is what separates a common meal ("breaking bread") from the Lord's Supper ("the breaking of THE bread"). Well, since definite articles are used here in the account of the Emmaus meal, then according to their theory this must be the Lord's Supper ... right?! Or, does the definite article in the phrase only make it the Lord's Supper sometimes? And which times would those be? When they say so?! Isn't that "pick and choose" patternism?! The Pulpit Commentary, for example, states that "this resembles too closely the great sacramental act in the upper room, when Jesus was alone with His apostles, for us to mistake its solemn sacramental character. The great teachers of the Church in different ages have generally so understood it. So Chrysostom in the Eastern, and Augustine in the Western Church; so Theophylact, and later Beza the Reformer all affirm that this meal was the sacrament. In fact, this Emmaus 'breaking of bread' has been generally recognized by the Catholic Church as the sacrament" (vol. 16).
Another incident of "breaking bread" is seen when Paul was aboard a ship that was in danger of being driven upon the rocks (Acts 27). The crew was becoming disheartened, and Paul encouraged them to eat. So, "he took bread and gave thanks to God in the presence of all; and he broke it and began to eat. And all of them were encouraged, and they themselves also took food" (vs. 35-36). Most regard this as a common consumption of food; nothing sacred. However, not all feel that way. Again, some believe this to be the Lord's Supper. "It would appear as if the apostle had also partaken of the Lord's Supper, together with his Christian companions, on board the ship toward the close of his fateful trip on the Adriatic" (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia).
All of this confusion just illustrates the problem! When exactly do we know for sure that the concept of "breaking bread" has reference to the Lord's Supper? It might surprise some disciples to discover that nowhere in the New Covenant writings is the specific phrase "breaking bread" ever directly linked to the Lord's Supper commemoration. Brother John W. Wood wrote, "There is no place in the Scripture that identifies 'breaking bread' as specifically being the Lord's Supper. It has become a tradition originating out of the minds of men as far back as the third century, and has since been accepted by all men as truth" (The Examiner, vol. 4, no. 5, September, 1989). The reality is that, at best, we are simply making an educated guess; each passage is a judgment call, and disciples have differed over those judgments for centuries. Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible declares the phrase "could designate a common meal or the Eucharist" (p. 199), and this "has been vigorously debated" for well over fifteen hundred years (Expositor's Bible Commentary, vol. 9, p. 289).
http://www.zianet.com/maxey/reflx168.htm
this is more complex than I expected it to be hmmm interesting
Also from what I remember there have been Jw memorials using scriptures in acts etc presumably breaking breads ones you used so they don't just keep to the main gospel ones, If i remember correctly?
-
223
Diary of a thinking to return ex-Jw
by reniaa ini thought long and hard about posting this but the mis-information on this site finally persuaded me, i already accept many may not accept what i say on face value and get their appologist pens ready for making sure no pro-witness propaganda slips through the net on this site but here goes....... i've been on this forum for a few months my first post was about how i was thinking of returning to jw's and at my sisters recommendation to look at this site for both sides of the story before taking that step.. i faded from jw's 10/11 years ago now i left my hubby at the time divorced him to going on to have more relationships and kids, i was definately given the impression after asking on this site and with what i read that if i tried to return i might face df or at least a jc but definately a couple of elders questioning me over what i've been upto these last few years - none of these have happened.
i talked with an old jw friend (yes i do have then and she never shunned me quite happily accepted an offer of coffee from me and my asking for a chat) i told her i was interested in going back and was very frank about what i done in the last 10 years but not sure how returning was done now, she quite happily said she go ask for me to find out.. result!
she came back this week and said "all i had to do was goto meetings again" and an offer of a study was there for me if i wanted it to explore the open doubts that i had expressed i now had.. not quite the fire and brimstone welcome this site led me to believe would happen.. i will keep you posted with further updates if i feel the need to put them in future.. .
-
-
reniaa
you are right he did give me a list unfortunately most are not very good because of other reasons i'll show you what i mean here is the original list....
certainly I have looked but they are all tied up with the 3-1 trinity.
You haven't looked very hard. Here is a start of religions that do not teach a trinity.
• Christadelphians
• Christian Science
• Iglesia ni Cristo
• Jehovah’s Witnesses
• Mormons
• Some Seventh Day Adventist groups
• United Church of Christ
• United Church of God
• Worldwide Church of Godlet me update them bear in mind that the reason I don't like trinity is it makes out jesus is God which still then disqualifies some of the list.
• Worldwide Church of God - Deity of Jesus: Jesus is the Word, by whom and for whom God created all things. As God manifest in the flesh for our salvation, he was begotten of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary, fully God and fully human, two natures in one Person. Jesus is the Son of God and Lord of all, worthy of worship, honor and reverence. For more information about Jesus, click here.
• United Church of God -http://www.ucg.org/about/fundamentalbeliefs.htm actually this isn't a bad alternative and i will be researching them more
• United Church of Christ -The United Church of Christ acknowledges as its sole Head, Jesus Christ, Son of God and Savior. It acknowledges as kindred in Christ all who share in this confession. It looks to the Word of God in the Scriptures, and to the presence and power of the Holy Spirit, to prosper its creative and redemptive work in the world. It claims as its own the faith of the historic Church expressed in the ancient creeds and reclaimed in the basic insights of the Protestant Reformers. It affirms the responsibility of the Church in each generation to make this faith its own in reality of worship, in honesty of thought and expression, and in purity of heart before God. In accordance with the teaching of our Lord and the practice prevailing among evangelical Christians, it recognizes two sacraments: Baptism and the Lord's Supper or Holy Communion. [6]
hmmm this one may still be a trinity one.
• Some Seventh Day Adventist groups - Jesus is the one who never changes in a universe that always does. Jesus is Creator, Sustainer, Saviour, Friend, God's Son, and God Himself!
I looked but couldn't find ones that didn't still support the trinity
• Mormons - In "The Living Christ: The Testimony of the Apostles," modern-day prophets and apostles bear witness of the divinity of our Savior Jesus Christ. You can also learn more,
They still follow jesus is god policy and the book of mormon itself definately puts me off.
• Jehovah’s Witnesses - they use jehovah's name uniquely
• Iglesia ni Cristo - ok till you view history - Political Influence
Ever since former Philippine presidentManuel L. Quezon created a lasting friendship after asking Felix Manalo for advice, the INC has been known for its strong politicalinfluence. While it strongly maintains a close "friendship" with incumbent administrations, the INC also sees to it that they do not lose "discreet connection" with the opposition. [22] It was well-known for its support of President Ferdinand E. Marcos until his ousting during the EDSA Revolution of 1986. [22]
INC members are noted for their bloc voting in Philippine elections, [23] [24] [25] [26] although INC has the biggest conversion turn-out, between ninety-five and ninety-nine percent of their members voting for candidates endorsed
• Christian Science - Healing - The basis of Christian Science healing is the view that "man" (the male/female spiritual being who appears as an individual human being) is the reflection or expression of wholly good and perfect God, and therefore is perfect. Christian Scientists believe that God loves every individual, because God is the Creator of all.
Christian Scientists also believe that sickness is the result of fear, ignorance, or sin, and that when the erroneous belief is corrected, the sickness will disappear. They state that the way to eliminate the false beliefs is to replace them with true understanding of God's goodness. They consider that suffering can occur only when one believes in the supposed reality of a problem; if one changes one's understanding, the belief is revealed as false, and the acknowledgement that the sickness has no power since God is the only power, eliminates the sickness.
Christian Scientists regard the material world as a kind of consensual illusion which is due to a misperception of the true spiritual world. Such a misperception can, they believe, be changed by reorientation of thought, or prayer in Christian Science terms. Thus the illusion can be dispelled, revealing the present spiritual reality. The result is healing.
They really are only about healing and prayer not much else, if you are stumbled by Jw blood issue this lot don't do any medicine etc thinking you can heal through prayer.
• Christadelphians - Practices
Christadelphians are organised into local congregations, that commonly call themselves ecclesias. [5] Congregational worship, which usually takes place on Sunday, centres on the remembrance of the death and celebration of the resurrection of Jesus Christ by the taking part in the "memorial service". Additional meetings are often organised for worship, prayer, evangelism and Bible study.
Most ecclesias are involved in evangelism in the form of public lectures on Bible teaching, [34] college-style seminars on reading the Bible, [35] and Bible Reading Groups. Correspondence courses [36] are also used widely, particularly in areas where there is no established Christadelphian presence. Some ecclesias, organisations or individuals also preach through other media like video, [37] podcasts [38] and internet forums. [39]
Only baptised believers are considered members of the ecclesia. However, the children of members are encouraged to attend Christadelphian Sunday Schools and youth groups. Interaction between youth from different ecclesias is encouraged through regional and national youth gatherings.
these are another group worth looking into but they are very wide spaced as achurch with not much cohesion within there group.
Of all the options offered only 3 inc the JW, christadelphians, United church of God themselves fit the criteria and bear further study.
-
223
Diary of a thinking to return ex-Jw
by reniaa ini thought long and hard about posting this but the mis-information on this site finally persuaded me, i already accept many may not accept what i say on face value and get their appologist pens ready for making sure no pro-witness propaganda slips through the net on this site but here goes....... i've been on this forum for a few months my first post was about how i was thinking of returning to jw's and at my sisters recommendation to look at this site for both sides of the story before taking that step.. i faded from jw's 10/11 years ago now i left my hubby at the time divorced him to going on to have more relationships and kids, i was definately given the impression after asking on this site and with what i read that if i tried to return i might face df or at least a jc but definately a couple of elders questioning me over what i've been upto these last few years - none of these have happened.
i talked with an old jw friend (yes i do have then and she never shunned me quite happily accepted an offer of coffee from me and my asking for a chat) i told her i was interested in going back and was very frank about what i done in the last 10 years but not sure how returning was done now, she quite happily said she go ask for me to find out.. result!
she came back this week and said "all i had to do was goto meetings again" and an offer of a study was there for me if i wanted it to explore the open doubts that i had expressed i now had.. not quite the fire and brimstone welcome this site led me to believe would happen.. i will keep you posted with further updates if i feel the need to put them in future.. .
-
-
reniaa
thank you sarah :) i will read kings
I shouldn't have let their comments upset me, most people have been nice and give me good info to follow up :)and you understand how hard it is when you seek the god of the bible but a major teaching flaw like trinity really spoils other christian religions for me.
-
223
Diary of a thinking to return ex-Jw
by reniaa ini thought long and hard about posting this but the mis-information on this site finally persuaded me, i already accept many may not accept what i say on face value and get their appologist pens ready for making sure no pro-witness propaganda slips through the net on this site but here goes....... i've been on this forum for a few months my first post was about how i was thinking of returning to jw's and at my sisters recommendation to look at this site for both sides of the story before taking that step.. i faded from jw's 10/11 years ago now i left my hubby at the time divorced him to going on to have more relationships and kids, i was definately given the impression after asking on this site and with what i read that if i tried to return i might face df or at least a jc but definately a couple of elders questioning me over what i've been upto these last few years - none of these have happened.
i talked with an old jw friend (yes i do have then and she never shunned me quite happily accepted an offer of coffee from me and my asking for a chat) i told her i was interested in going back and was very frank about what i done in the last 10 years but not sure how returning was done now, she quite happily said she go ask for me to find out.. result!
she came back this week and said "all i had to do was goto meetings again" and an offer of a study was there for me if i wanted it to explore the open doubts that i had expressed i now had.. not quite the fire and brimstone welcome this site led me to believe would happen.. i will keep you posted with further updates if i feel the need to put them in future.. .
-
-
reniaa
Bizzybee i hope they do read it! you do yourself no credit by getting personal and calling me names, I will not respond to anymore people that are nasty like that, you are not worth responding too.
If being pro-witness is stirring, then I stand by my original statement that you control this forum by browbeating and making offensive remarks to put people like myself off coming on this forum and so are guilty of the things you accuse witnesses of.
-
223
Diary of a thinking to return ex-Jw
by reniaa ini thought long and hard about posting this but the mis-information on this site finally persuaded me, i already accept many may not accept what i say on face value and get their appologist pens ready for making sure no pro-witness propaganda slips through the net on this site but here goes....... i've been on this forum for a few months my first post was about how i was thinking of returning to jw's and at my sisters recommendation to look at this site for both sides of the story before taking that step.. i faded from jw's 10/11 years ago now i left my hubby at the time divorced him to going on to have more relationships and kids, i was definately given the impression after asking on this site and with what i read that if i tried to return i might face df or at least a jc but definately a couple of elders questioning me over what i've been upto these last few years - none of these have happened.
i talked with an old jw friend (yes i do have then and she never shunned me quite happily accepted an offer of coffee from me and my asking for a chat) i told her i was interested in going back and was very frank about what i done in the last 10 years but not sure how returning was done now, she quite happily said she go ask for me to find out.. result!
she came back this week and said "all i had to do was goto meetings again" and an offer of a study was there for me if i wanted it to explore the open doubts that i had expressed i now had.. not quite the fire and brimstone welcome this site led me to believe would happen.. i will keep you posted with further updates if i feel the need to put them in future.. .
-
-
reniaa
Well I wasn't going to reply on this topic anymore but if this is how you treat honest people who come on this forum and show the slightest pro-witness leanings then I am happy to make sure others read this topic, just to see how biased and twisted the forum is.
I should have been able to explore my doubts and issues on here but instead I just get vilified for even thinking of being a JW again, this is not the place for freedom of speech unless I am prepared to "Tickle the ears" and say the anti-witness expressions you want everyone to say, you talk of witness mind control well since you guys are browbeating anyone vaguely pro-witness making offensive remarks on the personal info they put on here (I'm talking to you on this particular point sirona, you nasty remarks on personal info i revealed show you to be not a very nice person) means you control very effectively the information people see on this site to make sure it's mostly anti-witness!
I know one thing you guys have lost a lot of credibility with me, only a few like Eyes Open, real one and Jgnat have proved to be truly nice people taking me on face value, I will tell my sister to read these latest entries so she can see for herself what the majority on here are like.
Actually I'm hoping it may just be a core group of nasty ones inc sirona, whitedove, bluesbreaker59, nomoreguilt and quentin and possibly mrsjones
If i hadn't met some genuinely nice caring people who understood my struggles and offered me good info, book and websites to check i'd have left this forum a long time ago. So thankyou to those who have not judged me and helped me :)