Posts by bluecanary

45

Talking points for reasoning with JWs

by bluecanary in

i've emailed this to several people now so figured i might as well post it and share with all.

the following information has been compiled from various sources on the web, including jwfacts.com and free minds.

a fraction of it is from my own mind.

bluecanary

When Jesus inspected the Watchtower Society in 1919, what did he find?

"On inspecting the remnant of his anointed disciples in the year 1919 C.E., the reigning King Jesus Christ did find the appointed "slave" faithful and discreet in the feeding of his "domestics." Accordingly, he appointed this "slave" class over all his belongings."" God's Kingdom of a Thousand Years Has Approached pp.350,355

What did Jesus find during his inspection?

They predicted that Armageddon would occur in 1914 and 1918, respectively.-[Zion's Watch Tower 1894 July 15 p.226 W 10/1/17 p.292,293]

President C.T. Russell was teaching pyramidology and astrology.-[ Watchtower 1922 June 15 p.187; Zion's Watchtower 1905 October 1 p.293]

They celebrated Christmas, New Years and birthdays.-[ Zion's Watch Tower 1904 December 1 p.364; Watchtower 1940 Jan 1 p.16]

They prayed for victory in war and honored the flag.-[ Watchtower 1918 June 1 p.174; Watch Tower 1917 May 15]

They taught that the white race was superior and blacks could change their skin color in the new system.-[Watchtower July 15 1902 p.215;Watchtower 1904 February 15 pp.52-53]

They worshipped Jesus.-[1945 yearbook]

They accepted blood transfusions.-[Consolation 1940 December 25 p. 19]

They served in the military.-[ Zion's Watch Tower 1898 Aug. 1 p.231 (see also jv p.191)]

If the teachings were correct in 1919, when Jesus chose the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society, Jesus would have to abandon them now because their belief system is totally reversed.

If the teachings are correct now, they were therefore wrong then, so on what basis would the Watchtower Society have been chosen?

45

Talking points for reasoning with JWs

by bluecanary in

i've emailed this to several people now so figured i might as well post it and share with all.

the following information has been compiled from various sources on the web, including jwfacts.com and free minds.

a fraction of it is from my own mind.

bluecanary

Is it acceptable to question what the Watchtower Society teaches?

What the Watchtower Society says:

We need to examine not only what we personally believe, but also what is taught by any religious organization with which we may be associated ... if we are lovers of the truth, there is nothing to fear from such an examination."

Truth that Leads to Everlasting Life, pg. 13

Reasonable persons agree that the only fair method is to examine the evidence on both sides, both for and against a disputed theory. That is how one arrives at the truth.- Awake!, 10/22/1973, pg 6

It is not a form of religious persecution for anyone to say and show that another religion is false. Why should anyone practice a religion unless he is convinced that it is true and right? - Watchtower, 11/15/63, pg 688, 689

Why, then does the Watchtower contradict itself with the following statements?

"Avoid independent thinking...questioning the counsel that is provided by God's visible organization." (Watchtower, Jan. 15, 1983 pg. 22)

Why is it that when Witnesses study with a newly interested person, they encourage that person to question everything, both about their current religion and what the Witnesses are teaching-but once that person is baptized they are no longer allowed to question the Witnesses? Why do we ask others to examine their faith using independent resources, yet Witnesses are banned from doing this very thing?

"What will you do if you receive a letter or some literature, open it, and see right away that it is from an apostate? Will curiosity cause you to read it, just to see what he has to say? You may even reason: 'It won't affect me; I'm too strong in the truth. And besides, if we have the truth, we have nothing to fear. The truth will stand the test.' In thinking this way, some have fed their minds upon apostate reasoning and have fallen prey to serious questioning and doubt." (Watchtower, March 15, 1986 p12)

If you plan to make a purchase on the internet, do you read only the product description given by the manufacturer or do you read personal reviews? Do you read only positive reviews or do you also read negative ones? Why?

If, as the previous Watchtower said, examining BOTH sides of a matter is how one arrives at the truth, how can one know that the Watchtower Society teaches truth unless one examines evidence from those who have become convinced that it does not? In a court case, if one listens only to the defense counsel, how will one ever know if the prosecution might not have been in the right?

45

Talking points for reasoning with JWs

by bluecanary in

i've emailed this to several people now so figured i might as well post it and share with all.

the following information has been compiled from various sources on the web, including jwfacts.com and free minds.

a fraction of it is from my own mind.

bluecanary

I've emailed this to several people now so figured I might as well post it and share with all. The following information has been compiled from various sources on the web, including jwfacts.com and free minds. A fraction of it is from my own mind. But I've compiled this information in a way that I feel is organized for me to use with a JW. I will post the talking points for each question as a new comment on this thread. The questions are as follows:

Is it acceptable to question what the Watchtower Society teaches?
When Jesus inspected the Watchtower Society in 1919, what did he find?
Do Witness teachings come from the Bible or from the Watchtower Society?

Why does a religion claiming to be the only group to have truth revealed to them by Jehovah require ongoing changes in doctrine? Does truth change?

Is the Watchtower Society inspired by God's holy spirit?
Does the Watchtower Society encourage people to read the Bible?
Does the Bible really support the teaching that God disapproves of blood transfusions?
Is the Watchtower Society's practice of disfellowshipping consistent with the Bible?
Should a minor child be allowed to make a baptismal vow?
Is belonging to an Organization a requirement for salvation?
Who is your mediator?

This is a resource thread, rather than a debate thread. If you would like to argue on some of the information posted here, I invite you to begin a new thread on that topic. If you have furthur points to add, I invite you to share them here.

Apologies; some of the formatting is not translating well onto this forum. If anyone would like me to email them this info in a word document, just shoot me a pm.

7

Congregation "Bible Study" Comments - Week Commencing 10 August 2009

by LUKEWARM in

jw
friends

.. *** lv chap.

8 pp.

86-96 god loves clean people ***.

bluecanary

Huh. I heard they once taught that homosexual acts were not considered grounds for divorce, but I didn't realize it was as recent as 1972. What utterly ridiculous reasoning. It's hard to believe that people with half a brain between them would reach that conclusion, much less ones operating with God's spirit.

117

Imperfection is irrelevant. Who has the right to rule?

by bluecanary in

we started this discussion on another thread, but i didn't want to derail the topic at hand.

here's where we stand so far:.

reniaa:.

bluecanary

Thank you Spike. I don't wish this to become a discussion on whether birthdays are, in fact, acceptable to God. I accept your feeling on the matter. I've also heard the arguments to the contrary and understand why other believe that birthdays are acceptable to God. I chose birthdays as an example because many of the witneses I have known do not think that birthdays are necessarily evil; they eschew them merely because the GB tells them to. Obviously, this is not true of all witnesses, but that does make it a good example of something that is not a hard Biblical truth.

In regards to the narrow door, do few go through it because they do not want to or because they do not accurately understand that it's the correct door?

In the illustration of the vine, Jesus is the vine. John 10:5 says:

"I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.

Would it be appropriate to reword the scripture in this way:

"The Organization is the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in the Organization and the Organization in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from the Organization you can do nothing.

Is that different than what the GB teaches?

117

Imperfection is irrelevant. Who has the right to rule?

by bluecanary in

we started this discussion on another thread, but i didn't want to derail the topic at hand.

here's where we stand so far:.

reniaa:.

bluecanary

reniaa and PSacramento: I think that research, especially without bias, is a fine thing. Do you think that it's reasonable for salvation to be that complicated? If God loves us and wants for us to be saved, why not make the correct information easier to identify and understand.

If someone can so easily dismiss the truth because there's no clear command about something like, for example, celebrating a birthday, what do the big doctrines even matter? In other words, let's say I believe that it's important to preach earthwide and believe in a non-trinitarian God. But I am presented with a religion that believes a lot of other things that I find non-sensical and unBiblical. We're talking about eternal salvation here. Does God expect us to choose to practice restrictive rules and behaviors that he himself did not command because a certain group agrees with us on a few doctrines? If I do and believe everything else that witnesses do, and choose to celebrate my birthday because I can't see Biblically that God would disapprove of it, does that mean I will be judged as unworthy of him?

If God wants for as many humans as possible to be saved, would he want us to associate with a group that puts rules onto us to make it more and more difficult to be saved?

117

Imperfection is irrelevant. Who has the right to rule?

by bluecanary in

we started this discussion on another thread, but i didn't want to derail the topic at hand.

here's where we stand so far:.

reniaa:.

bluecanary

But the big doctrinal stuff doesn't change. Which is important to me.

reniaa, I can understand and respect your choice to be a witness by this criteria. Do you, in turn, understand why that criteria would not be enough for someone else?

For example, let's take the blood doctrine. Now, I don't wish to debate whether or not it's biblical; there are other threads for that. Suffice to say, persons such as yourself believe that it is necessary to avoid blood transfusions to please God. Whereas other persons believe that sacrificing a human life for the sake of avoiding blood is a great affront to God. To this person, that is a major doctrine which would convince them that the Witnesses do not have God's backing. To a witness, perhaps this doctrine isn't that big a deal. They have found other teachings they agree with, so they go along with this one as well. To someone for whom the doctrine is a big deal, there is no overlooking it.

If someone were to find this doctrine morally repugnant, and search for a religion that more closely matches their beliefs of what God has laid out in the Bible, is it reasonable to consider this one wicked?

It's obvious atm we have the bible and holy spirit as guidance

This is not obvious at all. It may be the conclusion you have reached based on your perceptions, but others have reached different conclusions they believe just as firmly, that are also reasonable given the evidence.

I did think of an example of change in the bible not bought about by God and that was moses giving authority to leaders among the tribes to judge in his place his father-in-law gave him that advice and God back it up afterwards.

My contention wasn't that God's human servants could never make decisions without his direction. It was that if God gave his direction, that should be readily apparent, at least some of the time.

117

Imperfection is irrelevant. Who has the right to rule?

by bluecanary in

we started this discussion on another thread, but i didn't want to derail the topic at hand.

here's where we stand so far:.

reniaa:.

bluecanary

Spike, I won't be starting a new thread. I certainly can't force anyone to reply to questions, but I will say that I'm disappointed that you no longer wish to engage in this discussion. I've done my best to make sure this thread is a place where all parties can have a civil discussion. Your presence on it will be missed.

117

Imperfection is irrelevant. Who has the right to rule?

by bluecanary in

we started this discussion on another thread, but i didn't want to derail the topic at hand.

here's where we stand so far:.

reniaa:.

bluecanary

Spike, my question is relevant to the question of whether people in general should be accept the GB's authority. If you have a response I would be interested in hearing what you think.

117

Imperfection is irrelevant. Who has the right to rule?

by bluecanary in

we started this discussion on another thread, but i didn't want to derail the topic at hand.

here's where we stand so far:.

reniaa:.

bluecanary

Thank you very much for your thoughtful replies reniaa. I respect that you have chosen a religion that fits the criteria you believe is important. I am still curious how people are supposed to have the same criteria when the same scripture can give two people opposite yet firm convictions. I am also curious how one would choose between two religions that meet that same set of criteria.

Another question: In the past when God's chosen leader acted without his blessing, God corrected the individual/group in an obvious and miraculous way. Why does it appear, then, that when the GB is "adjusted" it comes from external sources, such as the 1914 generation dying off, or races integrating nationwide. If God was making the refinements, wouldn't it clearly come from him, rather than be a reaction to circumstances in the world?