Posts by passwordprotected

12

Blondie's Comments You Will Not Hear at the 02-22-09 WT Study (JESUS PURPOSE)

by blondie in

jw
friends

comments you will not hear at the 02-22-09 wt study (december 15, 2008, pages 12-16)(jesus purpose).

review comments will be in red.

(a) why can we say that jesus is unique in his role as the only-begotten son?

passwordprotected

The contrast in tone in this Watchtower with the church service we've just attended is incredible. The theme of the sermon at church was "A Different Class" and it covered Luke 8:40-46. The preacher said, "The greatest thing about Christianity is Jesus". The message, as it was in the 1st C, was very simple; Jesus.

Yet, this WT article is cloudy and muddy on the issues of Christ's primary role. The WTS say Christ's primary purpose in living and dying on earth was to 'vindicate Jehovah's universal sovereignty', yet not one single scripture can be produced which Biblically backs this core teaching up. The Bible does, however, speak about Christ demonstrating God's love for people by dying for them, dying so that they aren't condemned for their sins. How much of the WT article is taken up with that? Not much. The reason? That would be too much like what 'Christendom' teaches in her churches.

And where in the Bible does it explain two classes of people; one class who have Christ as mediator and are forgiven as a result, and another class who don't have Christ as mediator but are forgiven due to being 'friends of God'. No, sorry, it doesn't work like that. The 'friends of God' are those who have Christ as mediator and are forgiven in God's sight as a result.

I'm pretty surprised the WTS are, in such a bald way, outlining that the R&F don't have Christ as their mediator. They don't usually talk about that much. I wonder how many JWs today at the meeting will be thinking, "Whaaaaaa'? Christ isn't my mediator??!". For example, I didn't learn that until March 2008 and it contributed to my eventual exit from the WTS.

20

Fade vs. Disassociation - What's your reason?

by Nellie in

jw
friends

after sending my disfellowshipped sister-in-law a valentine's card last week, she sent me an email.

imagine my surprise!

after 15 years of being disfellowshipped, she told me that she reinstated one month ago.

passwordprotected

We DAd because we'd starting going to church. We've got two young kids who we knew would at some point, in innocence, tell JW family that they go to church on Sundays etc. (They're now pretty active in our local church's community, they've made new friends there, my son plays football in the church hall on Friday evenings.)

As it turned it, I actually told my dad that we go to church. That set in motion the typical 'loyalty to Jehovah's Organisation' kick whereby he felt his duty was to report this to the elders. My mother called me and asked us to just DA so that he wouldn't have to do that. I refused.

As a result of that, I spoke to my wife's brother-in-law, a local elder, and told him what I'd told my dad, to save my father having to report us to the elders. We then got a call from the PO asking to meet with us, which I agreed to (Gail didn't want to meet with them). Gail wrote a short DA letter, I didn't. I met with two elders, the PO and the secretary, they asked me if it was true that we now go to church, I said it was. They asked me for a letter of DA, I said no, but I gave them Gail's. They asked me if I understood that through my actions I'd DAd. I replied, yes I did.

We parted on good terms, handshakes/man hugs. That was it. Less than 48 hours later the announcement was made. We'd gone from active JW family (elder, wife, 2 kids) in July, to DAd 'born again' Christians in October.

53

What Got YOU Out Of The Organization?

by minimus in

jw
friends

how did you come to the final decision to get out of her (the organization, "mother")?

?.

passwordprotected

Realising that the WTS was not what it claimed to be, that they shouldn't be claiming divinely revealed knowledge of Christ's return etc.

However, the final straw was sitting through the 3 days of the district convention, Perth, Scotland, 2008. The baptism talk in particular where Bro Parsons stated that the the FDS the mediator between the us and the deep things of God (when the Bible says it's the Holy Spirit who teaches us) and that we should give credit to the FDS to teaching us truth (when the Bible says it's God's love and grace that draws us to him through Christ).

The convention was the WTS's last chance to convince me they alone where 'the truth'. My hands were shaking during the baptism talk, I couldn't believe what I was hearing. I returned home from the convention and the following day I got up early, read over my research notes from the previous few weeks, re-read parts of the Proclaimers book and decided that I was never going back to the meetings.

76

I think this camel's back is broken (the final straw)

by JimmyPage in

jw
friends

i got home from work last night and guess what happened while i was gone?.

my wife tells me she called the presiding overseer to set up a time for all of us to talk about our premarital no-no's.. "really?

" i asked her.

passwordprotected

I'm pretty surprised your wife has done this, is it to shock you to remain loyal to the Org? While I don't agree with WC's tone, I think you'd be well within your rights to tell the PO that it's none of his business.

Sorry things are this way for you, must be very frustrating.

20

elders: oath of allegiance ?

by KAYTEE in

when a brother takes the office of eldership, does he have to give an oath of allegiance to the organisation, ...........if so what is it.

kt.

.

passwordprotected

There's a 3rd question that is only a requirement to ask if the bro hasn't been appointed before, and that question asks if he's ever been involved with the abuse of children. I mean, as if a pedophile would answer in the affirmative anyway.

However, as an elder it troubled me that this 3rd question wasn't a requirement. Why only ask it if the bro hasn't served previously? Do they wish to protect those who've served previously and been involved in the abuse of kids?

389

WANTED ! JW Apologist

by wobble in

this must have been mentioned before,but now reniaa is back it could be fun.. if jw's are even part way to the truth,and all other religions are false, then they must have a doctrine that is unique to them,given by holy spirit, but plainly taught in the bible,without resorting to fancifull exegesis and bouncing around from verse to verse out of context etc.. what is that doctrine?.

love.

wobble.. .

passwordprotected

@ Earnest;

"They believe they have the truth because they believe that it is more in harmony with the Bible and the early Christian congregation than other faiths, not because of something that may or may not have happened in 1919."

Question - do you believe that JWs are more in harmony with the Bible and early Christians than other faiths?

Before you answer, it's probably important to differentiate between faith and religion. In the 1st C, the Christians (as they were then known - not 'Jehovah's Witnesses') had a faith, not a religion. The Bible also promotes, particularly in the New Testament, a faith not a religion. Remember, Jesus fulfilled the Jewish religion and replaced it with himself ("take this cup, it means my blood...take this bread, it means my body", etc). Followers of Jesus had faith, not religion.

So, which of the following do Jehovah's Witnesses have in common, or are in greater harmony, with the early Christian congregation than other faiths (and I assume you mean other Christian denominations such as Baptists, Methodists, Brethren etc)?

followers of Christ became known as 'Christians', not Jehovah's Witnesses (Acts 11:24)
followers of Christ declared the good news of 'the Lord Jesus' (Acts 11:21), this good news was all about Jesus' death and resurrection (Acts 4:33, 1 Cor 2:2), not about billions of people being snuffed out by Jehovah at Armageddon [sidenote: Armageddon is only mentioned once in the Bible and never in the Gospels or in any of the epistles to the the 1st C Christian congregations, therefore how important was Armageddon to Christians in the 1st C?]
followers of Christ gave him the same honour as they gave the Father (John 5:22,23) and went so far as to call Jesus God and even gave him worship, as do the angels in heaven (John 9:38, John 20:28, Heb 1:6)
followers of Christ realised that the Holy Spirit would teach them all they would need to know about God (John 14:26, Acts 1:8)
followers of Christ understood, believed and preached that there is only one mediator between God and men and that through this mediator alone can one receive forgiveness of sins and that this mediator is accessible to all (1 Tim 2:5,6)
followers of Christ put faith in his name, extolled his name, preached his name, believed in his name and cried out in his name. They bore his name and preached his name. They did not put faith in, extoll, preach, believe in or cry out in/to the name 'Jehovah'. They recognised that the name Jesus was elevated above every name and in that name alone could one receive salvation and eternal life (see previous point about only one mediator) (John 14:34, Acts 3:16, Acts 4:12,Acts 4:18, Romans 10:9,10)
followers of Christ saw him as 'the Truth'
followers of Christ did not claim to have knowledge of his return. Yes, they wondered when it would be, but Jesus put them straight in Acts 1:7

Taking the above 8 points alone, would you agree they accurately reflect the faith and beliefs of the early Christian congregation? If so, which of them do Jehovah's Witnesses harmonise with the most? Using the name Jesus above any other name? Actually being allowed to have Christ as their mediator? Perhaps giving Jesus honour and worship? Or maybe relying solely on the Holy Spirit as their teacher and counsellor? Or maybe in not claiming 'divinely revealed' knowledge of Christ's return?

I think these are important points to chew over, especially if in a public forum a person is intent on defending the beliefs of JWs while comparing them to the beliefs of the 1st C Christian Church.

29

Did you like the name "Jehovah's Witnesses"?

by JimmyPage in

jw
friends

or did you wish the religion had a more mainstream name?

i can remember a "worldly" schoolmate telling me he wouldn't object to the religion so much if the name didn't sound so weird..

passwordprotected

It's a terrible name. I never once in my life remember being comfortable with it and I know other xJWs who felt the same way. What's wrong with being known as Christian? Too much emphasis on Christ?

If it was good enough for Paul, Timothy, Titus, John etc, why not good enough for Rutherford? And as Stephen said, Acts 1:8 says it all.

389

WANTED ! JW Apologist

by wobble in

this must have been mentioned before,but now reniaa is back it could be fun.. if jw's are even part way to the truth,and all other religions are false, then they must have a doctrine that is unique to them,given by holy spirit, but plainly taught in the bible,without resorting to fancifull exegesis and bouncing around from verse to verse out of context etc.. what is that doctrine?.

love.

wobble.. .

passwordprotected

Reniaa, what you miss the fact that the WTS, in it's publications that become the source of doctrine for JWs, paints itself is a being better than all other religions.

So, when I point out that the WTS is a billion dollar publishing corporation, yes, I do use that as a criticism of them, and here's why.

While many other religions are wealthy and own massive amounts of land, JWs are the only religion, as far as I'm aware, who very publicly condemn these religions for their perceived wealth.

For example, in studying the Revelation..Climax book, JWs are indoctrinated to believe that the Catholic church is part of Babylon the Great and one of the identifiers is the wealth and property it possesses. However, the writers of this book patently ignore the fact that the WTS - the legal entity of the religion Jehovah's Witnesses - has huge wealth, land and buildings...worldwide.

You also state;

If you are going to say Jw's are bad for 'such and such' please use something unique to them not a factor of all christianity otherwise I reserve the right to say as much as I did with money etc.

OK, this is unique to JWs; they insist that unscriptural (i.e. it can't be proved or even remotely hinted at via the Bible) teachings like 1919 be unquestioningly believe or else you are cut off from your family and friends and condemned to eternal destruction.

That makes JWs bad. (Actually, it makes the people who decide these teachings bad.)

So, while having wealth doesn't make JWs unique, what makes having wealth "bad" is that they use the wealth of other religions to condemn them.

49

For Valentine's Day I made my wife cry

by JimmyPage in

well the fit hit the shan today.. i was lying in bed and my wife was trying to get me up for service.

i kept telling her no.

she kept asking why not.. when i felt the moment was right i talked to her calmly.

passwordprotected

That's a good point, rebel8, it may show she's got more doubts re. the Org than you're giving her credit for, Jimmy.

9

LAST WEEK'S WATCHTOWER... COMMENTS ANYONE?

by Billy the Ex-Bethelite in

the comments for this week's watchtower are already posted for your consideration.

i'm just getting back on the interwebs and wasn't prepared to consider last week's mish-mash of a "lesson" this week.

so, i'll at least put the text from last week out there for your consideration.

passwordprotected

Thanks Billy.

Re. this;

9 Jehovah's sovereignty does not depend on our integrity. His sovereignty is just, eternal, and universal. It will always be so, regardless of what any creatures say or do. However, God's sovereignty has been grossly maligned in the heavens and on the earth. His rulership thus needs to be vindicated—confirmed as right, just, and loving—before all intelligent creatures. As Jehovah's Witnesses, we love to discuss God's universal sovereignty with anyone who will listen. How, though, can we take our own stand on the issue? How do we show that we choose Jehovah as our own Sovereign? By keeping integrity.
Ah, yes, the "issue of universal sovereignty". Something so important that it doesn't even appear in the Bible. The phrase "issue of universal sovereignty" doesn't appear in the NWT. The two words "universal sovereignty" don't appear together either. Actually, neither "universal" nor "sovereignty" appear in the NWT scripture text. Although the word "issue" does appear in the Bible, it's not used in relation to anything directly about God's "right to rule".

Is this verifiable? I'm going to blog about this for FreeMinds, but I don't have access to the WT Library right now.