the october 15, 2009 watchtower has some interesting thoughts--some of which have already been discussed at length on the message boards.
i thought i might highlight my personal favorites for discussion.. page 4, paragraph 7:.
"it is necessary that we have self-respect and find joy and satisfaction in our kingdom service.
Had to add--and this, from the organization that claims to have gotten rid of the "clergy-laity" distinction. If you're a Jew and you become a JW, you're just trading one priesthood for another. One law code for another. It would be funny if it weren't so horrible.
SD-7
the october 15, 2009 watchtower has some interesting thoughts--some of which have already been discussed at length on the message boards.
i thought i might highlight my personal favorites for discussion.. page 4, paragraph 7:.
"it is necessary that we have self-respect and find joy and satisfaction in our kingdom service.
Page 4, paragraph 7:
"It is necessary that we have self-respect and find joy and satisfaction in our Kingdom service. However, being modest, or being aware of our limitations, will prevent us from becoming opinionated. Rather, we want to "think so as to have a sound mind." "
Jesus entertained the opinions of his apostles, "what THEY thought." The faithful slave, however, is not interested in hearing our opinions. Note, then, that the faithful slave is (1) not imitating Jesus in this regard and (2) definitely isn't our friend as Jesus was a friend to the apostles.
Humdingers, on the way,
Page 15, paragraph 14:
"How, then, can we be friends of Christ? One way is to obey the direction provided by the faithful and discreet slave class, which consists of Jesus' spirit-anointed brothers still alive on earth."
Nice. So being friends with someone means to obey someone else, even if that someone else is inferior to that person in rank and constantly puts words in the other person's mouth. Where does obedience fit into a friendship, exactly? Are we friends or slaves? I get confused a lot, forgive me.
Page 16, paragraphs 15 and 16:
"Jesus...said that the determining factor that would distinguish a sheep from a goat would be the way an individual treated even "the least of these [his] brothers." Therefore, the primary way that those with the earthly hope demonstrate their desire to be friends with Christ is by supporting the faithful slave class...First, by wholeheartedly sharing in the preaching work...The faithful and discreet slave class deeply appreciates this act of friendship, as does Christ."
So the primary way to be friends with Christ is to do whatever someone else tells us to do. The primary way. Let's just spell it out, why don't we? "No one comes to the Father except through Christ. And no one comes to the Christ except through us." They could have summed it all up with those words, but that might jar some more people back into reality.
Ray Franz would say, as he did in Crisis of Conscience, no bolder declaration of authority could possibly be made.
Let's add the way Christ is mentioned last in the sentence--oh yeah, the slave appreciates your work, and by the way, so does Christ. Yeah, whoever he is. The important thing is that you're supporting us. It just sounds more like the way a man talks to his dog for bringing him the newspaper. Yeah, good dog. Pat on the head.
I can't even finish--that's how much stuff bothered me in this one. I'm sure Blondie will cover it better in the weeks to come. But I found it disturbing to see that many demands for not just support, but outright obedience, even suggesting that our judgment will depend entirely on obedience to 9 men who make decisions for us in Brooklyn. Nothing in Matthew 25:31-40 suggests even a hint of obedience--Jesus talks entirely about expressions of heartfelt love towards others, going to them when they're sick or in prison, feeding them when they're hungry and thirsty. How, by obeying the slave class, can we do those things? Impossible. But they've restricted the application of this verse so that kind, loving deeds towards our fellow Christians are wiped away and it's all funneled down to obedience to the Governing Body's directives. What more evidence does one need of their arrogance and flagrant disregard for Jesus Christ's teachings?
That's enough out of me. Fire away.
SD-7
the october 15, 2009 watchtower has some interesting thoughts--some of which have already been discussed at length on the message boards.
i thought i might highlight my personal favorites for discussion.. page 4, paragraph 7:.
"it is necessary that we have self-respect and find joy and satisfaction in our kingdom service.
The October 15, 2009 Watchtower has some interesting thoughts--some of which have already been discussed at length on the message boards. I thought I might highlight my personal favorites for discussion.
Page 4, paragraph 7:
"It is necessary that we have self-respect and find joy and satisfaction in our Kingdom service. However, being modest, or being aware of our limitations, will prevent us from becoming opinionated. Rather, we want to "think so as to have a sound mind." "
Here, having an opinion is equated with not having a sound mind, maybe even equated with not thinking properly! Which means that the absence of an opinion--which is not thinking at all, just blindly following--is the right way to "think".
Page 5, paragraph 10:
"The 'other sheep' are not part of the composite body of Christ...the 'other sheep' are part of 'all things' placed by Jehovah under the headship of his Son. They are also among the 'belongings' that Christ has entrusted to his 'faithful and discreet slave'. Those with an earthly hope should, therefore, recognize Christ as their Head and be submissive to the faithful and discreet slave and its Governing Body and to the men appointed as overseers in the congregation."
First of all, if I'm not part of the body of Christ, then what the shell am I doing here? Whose body am I a part of, exactly? The 'other sheep' are described as 'things' and 'belongings'--not as people--entrusted to the faithful slave. So who really is the slave here? The 'other sheep'? Or the faithful slave? Hard to tell, since apparently the 'other sheep' were bought by Christ and essentially sold (or at least rented out) to the faithful slave, with the promise that, 'don't worry, I'll be back to give these guys even more control over you soon'. We might add that the notion of the faithful slave being separate from the Governing Body is some serious, serious malarkey. Why bother with the distinction? The Governing Body IS the slave, period.
Page 11, paragraph 15:
"In the revelation given to the apostle John, Jesus revealed that his anointed brothers have "conquered [Satan] because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their witnessing." (Rev. 12:11) This shows that the best way to conquer Satan...is to do good by our work of witnessing, preaching the good news of the Kingdom."
Bait and switch, anyone? We're not part of the body of Christ, but we sure as heck better do all the work that the body's supposed to be doing. Curious.
Page 13, paragraphs 1 and 2:
""I have called you friends, because all the things I have heard from my Father I have made known to you."--John 15:15. Those words of Jesus to his faithful apostles apply in principle to all anointed Christians today and, by extension, to their "other sheep" companions."
So we are friends of Christ only BY EXTENSION? How the shell do they justify that kind of reasoning? How can you be friends with some by extension? Either you are, or you're not. So much for modesty. "Only WE, THE ANOINTED, are friends of Christ. You guys? Only by extension."
Page 14, paragraph 7:
"Jesus looked past the faults of his loyal friends and acted in their best interests...Jesus showed consideration for their physical limitations...And he was interested not just in telling them what he thought but also in hearing and understanding what they thought and felt."
Compare this with what was just said earlier:
Page 4, paragraph 7:
"It is necessary that we have self-respect
[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:punctuationkerning/> <w:validateagainstschemas/> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables/> <w:snaptogridincell/> <w:wraptextwithpunct/> <w:useasianbreakrules/> <w:dontgrowautofit/> </w:compatibility> <w:browserlevel>microsoftinternetexplorer4</w:browserlevel> </w:worddocument> </xml><!
[endif][if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:latentstyles deflockedstate="false" latentstylecount="156"> </w:latentstyles> </xml><!
[endif] <!-- /* style definitions */ p.msonormal, li.msonormal, div.msonormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"times new roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"times new roman";} p {mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0in; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"times new roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"times new roman";} @page section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.section1 {page:section1;} --> [if gte mso 10]> <style> /* style definitions */ table.msonormaltable {mso-style-name:"table normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"times new roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif].
Well, the translators of the NWT have given three basic reasons for putting the name Jehovah in the New Testament: (1) there are several (roughly 70) quotes of the Old Testament that, in their original form, would have included the divine name. (2) There are some texts referred to as the "J" texts, a translation of the NT into Hebrew supposedly done in the 13th century or so, that included the divine name in the NT. (3) I don't remember, but "as true Christians, the apostles certainly used the divine name", or in layman's terms, because the first century Christians certainly believed what Jehovah's Witnesses believe, they therefore must have used the divine name.
Jason David BeDuhn, a Bible scholar that Jehovah's Witnesses have referred to as an "impartial observer", devoted an entire appendix in his book "Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament", to deconstructing the Witnesses' reasoning. He states, to paraphrase--and I actually did a post on this issue somewhat recently--that for one, the NWT is inconsistent in rendering the divine name even when an OT quote is involved. Two, the J texts are just translations; they serve only as proof that someone else agrees with the Witnesses, not as proof that the first century Christians used God's name. The original Greek texts are clear on this point. Three, to assume that early Christians believed the same as the Witnesses and then to 'translate' accordingly is to enter the realm of interpretation rather than loyally adhering to the original Greek text.
So, the Witnesses, while accurately restoring the divine name in the Old Testament, do not have a legitimate basis for putting it in the New Testament. They do it because of bias. They wanted to de-emphasize Jesus Christ and focus on the name of Jehovah--hence the change of the religion's name in 1931. They could have called themselves Jesus' Witnesses, but they chose to be called Jehovah's Witnesses. Clearly they were not convinced that the divinely provided name of being simply Christians was sufficient. (Translation: they were ashamed to be called by Christ's name. Sorry, needless jab...) Logically then, their translation would be in harmony with that emphasis.
SD-7
well, it seems like that the holy spirit is making its first mistake!
they want to appoint me as a ministrial servant!
i wonder if that means that apostasy while being apointed as a ms is okay?!
Well, as a double agent myself, I can see the dilemma. At most, what you're getting is the job of "assistant sales manager". I'm not sure you'll have access to any new, useful data. If you're nervous about this, I can think of only one easy way to decline, which worked for me back when I actually believed it. But that all depends on how much embarrassment you're willing to endure for it. Falling back on the uh, 'self-abuse' problem could work. But if you're uncomfortable with that, just respectfully decline.
I thought being an MS would be a great honor once. Now I see that it's nothing. You gain nothing by doing that unless your plan is to become an elder and thus get access to the book that only elders get. If that's not your plan, you're better off backing away from that, as humbly as possible. they'll want you even more if you're humble/obedient/give an appearance of loyalty. So that can backfire, but...just look for some non-embarrassing excuse to not accept it. I'm sure there's one out there in the WT Index.
SD-7
i will get to the big shocker that i read within the last year or two in a wt study article, so please bear with me... i am new to this forum and have been reading postings for several days now, and can relate totally to many of the issues that many ex-jw have.
i was raised "around" the truth and although my parents were never "dipped", they wouldn't allow us to celebrate holidays or stand for natl anthem (not that i care now).
so i basically had many of the pressures and stress that witness kids had growing up, but with no spiritual support, as we attended only a handful of meetings while my parents studied when i was 5or6.
20+Years Wasted, is it? Welcome! I, too, am a newly awakened individual. I was raised in, and believed it all, got baptized early, loved every bit of it. So to see the reality, it is extremely upsetting, infuriating.
But don't think you've wasted your life, because that's only partially true. Yes, you gave up opportunities to follow your dreams, and that, this organization does need to answer for. But the knowledge you've acquired gives you something that makes up for all of that--the knowledge that you're free, and you always were.
What you now know gives you the chance to increase your knowledge exponentially. Without fearing outside books, now you can learn endlessly. Use this opportunity to learn all you can about this religion and especially about the methods it uses--Steven Hassan's book was VERY enlightening on that issue. I can now read the WT literature and see the mind control working with ease.
Life may get harder because the more you learn, the more unsettling it will become. But it also gets much easier. The cloud of depression you've felt will start to fade, especially after you read Crisis of Conscience and really let it sink in. Ray Franz totally dunked on the Society, wrapped his legs around its head, and then appropriately landed with a stare of 'I can't believe you thought you could block my dunk'. That book had me really messed up once I read it, but in hindsight, I'm glad I did. I'm actually rereading it now.
But the good thing is, you're definitely not alone. Whatever path you walk on now, it'll be of your choosing. Make every step count. I wish you the best.
SD-7
*** lv chap.
13 pp.
144-159 celebrations that displease god ***.
Does it give undue honor or adulation to a human, an organization, or a national symbol?-
Has it occurred to them that Witnesses give undue honor and adulation to 'the visible part of Jehovah's organization and its faithful slave'? Doesn't that pose far more of a threat than worrying about whether I should accept a Christmas bonus?
The problem with creating rules like this is that it inevitably requires you to create MORE rules to further define the rules you already created. And then you get scared to repeal these new rules because you'll look like an idiot for making them in the first place. Such is their dilemma.
Oh, did they mention that ex-communication used to be considered pagan? January 8, 1947 Awake, was it? And the spiritually freed captives of Babylon the Great continued practicing Babylonish Christmas for several years after being chosen by Christ. But in typical 1984 style, no past agreement with one's enemies can be acknowledged.
But....whatever. After all the preaching to 236 lands, the only thing most people know about JWs is what they don't celebrate. That's the only good news they seem to have--we're different and therefore better, peon Christian imitations. Prepare to die at Armageddon for not reading this magazine.
Keep yourselves in the ark, people. We are in the final part of the end of the last days.
SD-7
i think it was blondie who just replied to chickpea's topic, saying that elders are told not to give people a letter when they are df'ed.
this sparked a matter of curiosity for me.
why is it that people wishing to be reinstated have to write a letter to the body of elders, but the body of elders will not write a letter to a person stating that they are df'ed?
By all means, feel free to hijack. That's what Internet forums are for! Anyway, very true--no scriptural basis whatsoever for writing a letter to ask for reinstatement. And why does the Society even care about telling elders not to write a letter about DF'ing? Don't they do everything possible to make sure JC's are legally separate from the Society anyway? They've already covered their faithful and discreet behinds.
The contrast, found in the Bible, is that of the apostle Paul writing a letter, not just to the body of elders alone, but to the entire Corinthian congregation, asking them AS A WHOLE to welcome back the man who had repented of his sins. Note that the man did not then have to write another letter asking for forgiveness. But this is just another example of the petty legalism that is common in this religion.
I can tell you one thing, I'll be [condemned] if I ever write a letter to any man asking to be reinstated, as if men could somehow magically restore my relationship with God. If they DF me, I'm done for good if I'm obligated to write a letter just to get back in. Now that I know that if anything, I'll be a free man once they do that, I've got nothing to lose or to gain by doing their paperwork.
I look forward to the time when that happens, and the COBOE wants me to get my 'publisher's card' to forward to my new congregation. "Why bother?" I'll reply. "I'm 'no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses', remember? You said it yourself. That being said, I don't HAVE a publisher's card!"
SD-7
i think it was blondie who just replied to chickpea's topic, saying that elders are told not to give people a letter when they are df'ed.
this sparked a matter of curiosity for me.
why is it that people wishing to be reinstated have to write a letter to the body of elders, but the body of elders will not write a letter to a person stating that they are df'ed?
I think it was blondie who just replied to chickpea's topic, saying that elders are told not to give people a letter when they are DF'ed. This sparked a matter of curiosity for me. Why is it that people wishing to be reinstated have to write a letter to the body of elders, but the body of elders will not write a letter to a person stating that they are DF'ed? What is the (and I know there is one) legal reason for this particular protocol? Anyone know?
I'm curious also because I'm 95% sure I'm going to be DF'ed soon, once the Thought Police catch up with me--and they've been very lazy about that, mostly because I've not spread around too many questions about the way the organization does things. That, and, well, what better "princes who rule for justice itself" than unskilled shepherds who routinely abuse their sheep, right? I love it. Any thoughts on my question would be welcome here. Thanks.
SD-7
truth in translation: accuracy and bias in english translations of the new testament by jason david beduhn, pages 16-17:.
"we return to our example, 1 thessalonians 4:3-6.... "n[ew] w[orld translation]: for this is what god wills, the sanctifying of you, that you abstain from fornication; that each one of you should know how to get possession of his own vessel in sanctification and honor, not in covetous sexual appetite such as also those nations have who do not know god; that no one go to the point of harming and encroach upon the rights of his brother in this matter..... "the kjv, nw, and nasb offer very literal translations...as a result,...the nw sounds stilted and wooden...[here, beduhn compliments the nw for using the term "nations" instead of "gentiles"...continues...see?
he's even-handed, whereas my idea of even-handedness involves slapping the wts with both hands an equal number of times...] the kjv and nw retain the archaic english word 'fornication', while the nasb uses the modern expression 'sexual immorality', which is generic enough to cover most possible meanings of the original greek term.".
Thanks, Cadellin. Moggy lover--very insightful response. I feel like once we get into the realm of translation, I'm a total novice--I still haven't learned even the basics of NT Greek yet, though I bought a book for that awhile ago. Pretty deep stuff we're getting into here. But still fascinating. Thanks!
SD-7
