Posts by sd-7

Such as? Since your people adopt a new doctrine every year it seems, which ones were true and which ones were false? Oh, right, they were just 'past truths', right?

Others have stopped caring about the public in general and no longer witness about God's truths as they used to before.

And how again is your ministry 'caring about the public'? You just shovel your literature at them. You don't help the poor or the sick, sometimes not even amongst your own people.

And as for the Christian command of meeting together, they don't.

And you would know this how? You follow them around? Or do you just assume that they must start another organization because you happened to be part of one?

Millions of people have stopped attending religious services in many different denominations, because they have had a change of heart. But the fact that it happens does not prove their former faith to be wrong.

Correct! In fact, it proves nothing at all about their former faith in itself, right or wrong. So your statement successfully makes no point whatsoever. What proves something about a religion is actual facts about its teachings, methods of operation and basically how they treat people. Those are the relevant issues here, not whether or not someone merely had a change of heart.

1 John 4:1 or somewhere around there tells us to do more than just "hope" we have found the real truth, it tells us to test the inspired expressions to see whether they come from God. That involves actual effort on our part beyond mere hope.

So yeah, this was just a continuation of an ad hominem argument. You didn't sink my Battleship.

--sd-7

15

Does anyone have a screen shot of the jw FAQs on shunning?

by l p in

jw
friends

this is in response to the article in "the age" newspaper in australia this morning.

the bethel elder solicitor vin toole quoted the page and lied.

but alas no one can get onto the jw website bec google wont let anyone on it.... .

sd-7

http://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/shunning/

Do You Shun Former Members of Your Religion?

Those who were baptized as Jehovah’s Witnesses but no longer preach to others, perhaps even drifting away from association with fellow believers, are not shunned. In fact, we reach out to them and try to rekindle their spiritual interest.

We do not automatically disfellowship someone who commits a serious sin. If, however, a baptized Witness makes a practice of breaking the Bible’s moral code and does not repent, he or she will be shunned or disfellowshipped. The Bible clearly states: “ Remove the wicked man from among yourselves. ”—1 Corinthians 5:13.

What of a man who is disfellowshipped but whose wife and children are still Jehovah’s Witnesses? The religious ties he had with his family change, but blood ties remain. The marriage relationship and normal family affections and dealings continue.

Disfellowshipped individuals may attend our religious services. If they wish, they may also receive spiritual counsel from congregation elders. The goal is to help each individual once more to qualify to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Disfellowshipped people who reject improper conduct and demonstrate a sincere desire to live by the Bible’s standards are always welcome to become members of the congregation again.

--This is a subtle change. They start by avoiding a direct answer to the actual question, by throwing out the red herring of a person who is clearly inactive, not a former member as the question clearly states. This misleads the reader at the beginning to think that the answer is no, when of course...

"If, however, a baptized Witness makes a practice of breaking the Bible’s moral code and does not repent, he or she will be shunned or disfellowshipped."

--So the direct, true answer is put in the second paragraph. However, a lie is coupled with this true answer, in that "the Bible's moral code" is expanded to include every rule in the Watchtower's moral code. Including disagreeing even in a small way with any of the Watchtower Society's teachings, even if you never teach anyone else your opinion and continue to teach their doctrines. Other rules include taking blood transfusion, getting in vitro fertilization, working on an army base as a barber or putting a ceiling on a church, giving your wife oral sex, and the list goes on.

"We do not automatically disfellowship someone who commits a serious sin."

--Not entirely true, as a person who doesn't meet with the elders will be automatically disfellowshipped whether he's actually guilty or not, so long as there is enough circumstantial evidence for the elders to act on.

"What of a man who is disfellowshipped but whose wife and children are still Jehovah’s Witnesses? The religious ties he had with his family change, but blood ties remain. The marriage relationship and normal family affections and dealings continue."

--This is a lie. Neither the normal, loving marriage relationship nor normal family affections will continue with a disfellowshipped person. I know this from personal experience. The treatment a disfellowshipped mate receives from their spouse is typically emotionally abusive. This statement also conceals the fact that despite those "blood ties", children or parents who do not live in the same home are to be totally shunned.

"Disfellowshipped people who reject improper conduct and demonstrate a sincere desire to live by the Bible’s standards are always welcome to become members of the congregation again."

--The definitions of "improper conduct" are broad enough to render this statement decidedly vague. A person's "sincere desire to live by the Bible's standards" has absolutely nothing to do with their becoming members of the congregation again; living by "the Watchtower's standards" is what must be demonstrated. The welcome will only be given based on meeting attendance and absolute acceptance of all Watchtower teachings, plus the submission of a letter requesting reinstatement, plus a meeting with three elders, who may decide a person is not "sincere enough" no matter what he or she does.

So...there are about 3 or 4 lies and one misleading statement to open the answer to the question.

--sd-7

7

A quote that sums up my thoughts on the truth about 'the truth'

by sd-7 in

jw
friends

"we never make assertions, miss taggart.

that is the moral crime peculiar to our enemies.

we do not tell--we show.

sd-7

But all apostates seek to draw followers after themselves!

Really? News to me!

--sd-7

11

Can anyone help?

by Pink sapphire in

hi, i'm doing some research, which many here have participated in and could do with some help.. on another forum some months ago someone commented that in a july 1992 watchtower it said that the emotional effects of disfellowshipping may last far beyond reinstatement.

i thought this a really interesting statement and would like to include it in my assignment, acknowledging the harm done by disfellowshipping and its not just a protective and disciplinary process.

i don't know if i believe they would actually go that far.. my problem is that i have no access to wt literature (i dont really want fo visit my old congregation library) and the online library on www.jw.org only goes back to 2000. does anyone here have access to bound volumes and a bit of time that they could check this out for me?.

sd-7

Not at the moment but hopefully someone else will answer before I can. If not, I'll be sure to look into that tonight.

--sd-7

26

In All Honesty Would You Have NOT Given Blood To Your Child If He or She Needed it?

by minimus in

jw
friends

as a "faithful witness", i never had to deal with this on a personal level.

i imagine the pressure must be extreme with the elders and others "supporting" you to do the right thing.. do you think you would have given blood to your family member, especially your child if you were in that situation..

sd-7

Haven't had to face that yet. I expect it'll be hell from the Mrs. if such a scenario came up. But I'd do what I had to do to save the kids' lives. Ironic. Without a blood transfusion, my wife would not have survived infancy herself, yet I suppose I'd have to fight her to give the same chance to her own children. On the other hand, she has the advantage of claiming her apostate husband overruled her, bastard that he is. So...there you have it.

--sd-7

2

AWWW the Joy of the Resurrection!

by hamsterbait in

imagine the heartwarming scene.. a mother who died of cancer in the wicked old system is resurrected.. oh joy, oh rapture!!.

"where is my husband?

"he didn't want the truth, so he died in the great armageddon storm.".

sd-7

Right. I was wondering, since sin is supposed to be removed gradually over a thousand years, shouldn't that mean that people with deformities wouldn't heal completely at first? Or that people would still get sick?

I assumed that either 'great crowd' survivors would have some serious, SERIOUS Post Traumatic Stress Disorders or that Jehovah would go all 'Men In Black' on them all. But if he was going to do that, why not just wipe Satan's memory and the memories of everybody who ever saw the big 'universal challenge'?

Who says he hasn't? Maybe this is our fifth iteration of a 'Matrix Revolutions'-style system of things...

--sd-7

43

"They went out from us, but they were not of our sort..." - worst ever scripture to lead an anti-apostate talk?

by cedars in

the program for the 2013 convention series has been drawn to my attention.

here is a link to it.... http://www.jw.org/download/?fileformat=pdf&output=html&pub=co-pgm13&langwritten=e&option=trgchlzrqvnyvrxf&txtcmslang=e.

there is a saturday morning symposium on "apostates.

sd-7

I love to underline.

LOL! And who doesn't, really? Some people actually used rulers all the time. I preferred to have my lines a little squiggly.

--sd-7

7

A quote that sums up my thoughts on the truth about 'the truth'

by sd-7 in

jw
friends

"we never make assertions, miss taggart.

that is the moral crime peculiar to our enemies.

we do not tell--we show.

sd-7

"We never make assertions, Miss Taggart. That is the moral crime peculiar to our enemies. We do not tell--we show. We do not claim--we prove. It is not your obedience that we seek to win, but your rational conviction. You have seen all the elements of our secret. The conclusion is now yours to draw--we can help you to name it, but not to accept it--the sight, the knowledge and the acceptance, must be yours."

--Hugh Akston, from 'Atlas Shrugged' by Ayn Rand.

And that ultimately sums it up. I have no need to assert any position of authority or repeatedly demand that people obey me. I just want to present the proof and let a person think about that proof and decide what they will.

I don't want JWs to obey or follow me. They don't even have to listen, if they don't want to. I wonder if they can say the same thing about the 'faithful slave'?

--sd-7

43

"They went out from us, but they were not of our sort..." - worst ever scripture to lead an anti-apostate talk?

by cedars in

the program for the 2013 convention series has been drawn to my attention.

here is a link to it.... http://www.jw.org/download/?fileformat=pdf&output=html&pub=co-pgm13&langwritten=e&option=trgchlzrqvnyvrxf&txtcmslang=e.

there is a saturday morning symposium on "apostates.

sd-7

Well, this is the usual thing, isn't it? One isolated verse after another. On the plus side, no coherent, detailed argument will be given during that part--warnings not to listen to 'apostates' and name-calling will be the order of the day. This, if anything, is good for us, as it will impress upon the minds of the audience that we are dangerous in some undefined way. For the thinkers among them, this will stick, and maybe it won't matter today. But on the day when they're at their wit's end, they'll remember the fear as I did, and decide to open the door they were warned not to open.

On the other hand, it will enable them to continue their abusive speech. To paraphrase Awake!, a good educator presents both sides of an argument and encourages discussion. Propagandists hammer hard on their point of view and discourage discussion. I, on the other hand, totally recommend for people to read The Watchtower in its full context and determine for themselves whether the writers of its contents are good educators, propagandists, or somewhere in-between.

--sd-7