Posts by sd-7

13

Do Movie Ratings Make Any Sense to You?

by TD in

my wife and i have a "movie night" once a week where we watch two movies.

she picks one and i pick one.

here's the two movies we watched tonight and their ratings.. .

sd-7

Not really. There are some films that are PG-13 nowadays and you wonder how they got away with so much language or with some of the more violent scenes. It's like as long as the 'f-word' isn't used, they can have at it with the language, no problem. Why is that one word worse than all the others?

I was watching an old movie, 'They Call Me Mister Tibbs!' awhile back and didn't even know it was R; except for maybe one scene, it seemed like a PG-13 movie to me; the themes were a bit R-rated, though, so I can understand the rating. Nowadays I have a feeling that might actually get away with a PG-13 rating with only a minor edit.

--sd-7

17

The Truman Show, a movie that JW's must hate.

by moshe in

jw
friends

the truman show is on tbs tonight and i know, it's been mentioned before here, but it has to be a movie that gives jw's the creeps.

jw's know something is not right in the wt fantasy land, but until they have that epiphany, that the wt has lied to them, the jw is just left with a niggly feeling of "something is just not right" in the back of their mind.

now when jim carrey- truman burbank- figures it out and becomes self aware of the lie, everyone around him tries to redirect his focus away from his epiphany , then convince him he is the only one who see's a problem.

sd-7

I don't know what happened with 1984 and Netflix. I could swear that I rented it several years ago but now it is unavailable.

Really? I was just watching that on Instant Viewing with Netflix like, a few months ago. Is it gone now or something? (Also, Mad, was just listening to a recording of your radio show last night. Good stuff! If I was smawt enough, I'd totally want to be on there...but I's nawt...)

I remember watching 'The Truman Show' as a teenager, and finding it to be somewhat interesting. I'm sure I wondered, why can't this guy figure out that something is wrong, that things are just too choreographed to be real? I don't think I was conscious of just how many 'think outside the box' kind of stories I'd seen in the past; it only more recently started to hit me. I was trying to watch this again recently but my computer was on the fritz at the time so I didn't get to finish watching it. I did see enough to realize it was just great to be watching again at this time in my life.

I don't think any JW would be able to make the connection. In my experience, even being fully aware that the Society was making stuff up, there was just a tendency to trust them, and a fear to do otherwise, despite knowing you probably wouldn't die of AIDS or get beaten to death in a bar if you left the religion. So I don't think JWs would hate it; they'd never comprehend its relevance to their lives, more than likely. Something gigantic usually has to happen to bring you to your senses about that sort of thing.

--sd-7

83

Examples of Bias/Discrepancies in the New World Translation

by Londo111 in

to be fair, translating the bible is a huge undertaking, and in doing so, there are bound to be mistakes, or even limits to a committee's knowledge.

obviously, we cannot read the hearts of the four translators of the new world translation committee to know when they consciously or subconsciously altered renderings in to support doctrinal bias.

but more and more, i do come across things that feel askew to me.

sd-7

A surprising thing I found--well, encountered it on a website--it was Revelation 20:4: "And I saw thrones, and there were those who sat down on them, and power of judging was given them. Yes, I saw the souls of those executed with the ax for the witness they bore to Jesus and for speaking about God, and those who had worshiped neither the wild beast nor its image and who had not received the mark upon their forehead and upon their hand. And they came to life and ruled as kings with the Christ for a thousand years."

In the original Greek, Revelation 20:4 reads more like "And I saw thrones, and there were those who sat down on them, and power of judging was given them. And I saw the souls of those executed with the ax for the witness they bore to Jesus and for speaking about God, and those who had worshiped neither the wild beast nor its image and who had not received the mark upon their forehead and upon their hand. And they came to life and ruled as kings with the Christ for a thousand years."

The New World Translation presents this as if to say that the ones who have authority to judge are the same as those who partake in the first resurrection, thereby giving the anointed (the Governing Body and the like) authority to judge. But the "And" in the original language means that those given the authority to judge are a separate group, most likely God and Jesus, I would think, since the resurrection is being discussed. Taken for what it says, one would almost think the anointed are suggesting that they will partake in the decision as to whether or not to resurrect themselves!! There can be no greater arrogance than that, I would think.

--sd-7

32

Why I Left Jehovah's Witnesses--a 10-page essay by sd-7

by sd-7 in

jw
friends

why i left jehovahs witnesses.

they can be painful to bear, but sometimes that is part of life in a setting with many people and their various personalities.. it was my examination of evidence that did lead me to leave jehovahs witnesses.

they, of course, had failed to bear proper witness to his name.

sd-7

JuanViejo, you've got another PM.

--sd-7

32

Why I Left Jehovah's Witnesses--a 10-page essay by sd-7

by sd-7 in

jw
friends

why i left jehovahs witnesses.

they can be painful to bear, but sometimes that is part of life in a setting with many people and their various personalities.. it was my examination of evidence that did lead me to leave jehovahs witnesses.

they, of course, had failed to bear proper witness to his name.

sd-7

Band on the Run, I'm a little confused. Did you intend to post your anecdote here?

--sd-7

32

Why I Left Jehovah's Witnesses--a 10-page essay by sd-7

by sd-7 in

jw
friends

why i left jehovahs witnesses.

they can be painful to bear, but sometimes that is part of life in a setting with many people and their various personalities.. it was my examination of evidence that did lead me to leave jehovahs witnesses.

they, of course, had failed to bear proper witness to his name.

sd-7

But if I had to offer a guess, the timing of the relationship with the non-JW was somewhat recent, at that time, and maybe they were concerned that she might show up at the Kingdom Hall and potentially cause a disturbance. All the more reason to disfellowship me, after all, one of their few questions about fornication was "Did anyone see you going into/coming out of the house?" Since it embarrasses the brand name, if you will, they have to hammer you about it. If it was just with a JW, and nobody saw you, they might be more inclined to consider leniency...

--sd-7

32

Why I Left Jehovah's Witnesses--a 10-page essay by sd-7

by sd-7 in

jw
friends

why i left jehovahs witnesses.

they can be painful to bear, but sometimes that is part of life in a setting with many people and their various personalities.. it was my examination of evidence that did lead me to leave jehovahs witnesses.

they, of course, had failed to bear proper witness to his name.

sd-7

You mentioned that elders asked you about non-JW participants in your situation. I had a similar experience.

Yeah, it was strange to me. I had committed fornication one time with that particular woman--first offense for me, I'd never done that before in my entire life. But I interrupted it because I didn't feel right about it, emotionally. The elders just wanted to know her name, and I said to them, "Why is that relevant? Isn't this supposed to be about my sins, not someone else's name?" The chairman's reply was, "We're not going to go after her or anything, we just want to know her name." I remained silent. It was then that one of the other elders said, "Do you want to be disfellowshipped? 'Cause we can do that Wednesday." I'm not sure when refusing to give the name of a non-JW that you sinned with became a disfellowshipping offense, but...there you have it!

I did actually post all about my judicial committee almost two years ago on here, three sessions of what I called 'Borg Court'.

I'm wondering if I should include the links here. If anyone wants me to, just say so. But folks who have been here awhile certainly remember all the ridiculous posts I used to make back then...as opposed to the ridiculous ones I make now, lol....

--sd-7

152

To garyneal and Others, Evidence that the anointed remnants represented by the GB were selected in 1919.

by mankkeli in

1st evidence: the release of loyal jews from exile, made possible by the fall of babylon, foreshadowed the release in 1919 of anointed christians from spiritual exile.

2nd evidence: that year marked the beginning of the period when the anointed remnants were released from a form of spiritual captivity to the ideas and practices of false religion.

although having rejected such false teachings as the trinity and the immortal soul, they were still tainted by babylonish practices.

sd-7

Paul is definitely not against leadership arrangement, He even played a substantial role in ensuring the organization of the first century christain congregation.

That's a clever rephrasing of the issue, mankkeli. I didn't mention "leadership arrangement", I said "Governing Body". Scripture certainly confirms that Paul gives the qualifications for "elders" and "ministerial servants", and in that sense, he is clearly supporting a "leadership arrangement". But the sort of "leadership" he describes is a far cry from Jehovah's Witnesses, who largely appoint elders and servants based on how many hours in field service they get per month and how well they can carry a microphone, read the Watchtower, and carry out whatever other assignments the elders give them. It is also unrelated to the issue of the Governing Body, which was the original issue I presented.

With all of that said, you have still not provided scriptural evidence that the anointed remnants represented by the Governing Body were selected in 1919.

--sd-7

73

What did Jesus mean at Matthew 10:34-36?

by serenitynow! in

"do not suppose that i have come to bring peace to the earth.

i did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

for i have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.".

sd-7

So true. What gets lost in the sauce is the fact that Jesus did not deny being King of the Jews when questioned by Pilate. That in itself was punishable by crucifixion. The Jews were simply not allowed to have any king other then Caesar. There's no way that Pilate was able to wash his hands of it. The implication of that is, even if the Jews had unanimously accepted Jesus as King and Messiah, he would have still been crucified.

Maybe, maybe not. If this was a private conversation between Pilate and Jesus, it could be argued that there was no actual proof beyond dubious accusations from people who were just jealous. Either way, clearly the Jews' response to Pilate, "We have no king but Caesar," did almost seem like a veiled threat to Pilate, that if he refused to execute Jesus, they would bring report of it to Caesar, and Pilate himself might be at the very least removed from power, if not executed himself. But I've always felt that it's odd people don't hate Italians for killing Jesus, but always the Jews. Shows you how misinformed people are. It was humans who did it, regardless of where they were from, and that's really all that matters; both Jews and Romans were amongst the first Christians anyway, so if Jesus forgave 'em, so can everybody else.

Serenitynow, the thing about the JW use of that scripture is, as usual, the JW ability to make assumptions about the world around it. JWs seem to have an inflated sense of their importance, especially given that the very New Testament was written only to their anointed ones... Anyway, they automatically treat those who disagree with them as "enemies". But this is not the case. It doesn't have to be. Enemies are people I would consider as quite likely to try to kill you. People who would turn you over to the authorities just for your beliefs, or abandon you to dangerous situations. I can't imagine most decent people doing that. I don't think you would do that, therefore, you're not their enemy.

Jesus was highlighting the fact that faith in him could potentially cost us everything, even the love of our family members. The idea is that even bonds that close may have to be sacrificed in order to hold onto one's faith in the Christ. This is a general statement not confined to a 19th/20th/21st century religious group that claims to be true Christians; this is about anyone who wants to follow the Christ.

Hey, remember, they said it themselves--they're witnesses of Jehovah, so...strictly speaking, it kinda doesn't even apply to them at all. For them, Jesus is just that guy who sits next to the anointed in the pictures.

--sd-7

152

To garyneal and Others, Evidence that the anointed remnants represented by the GB were selected in 1919.

by mankkeli in

1st evidence: the release of loyal jews from exile, made possible by the fall of babylon, foreshadowed the release in 1919 of anointed christians from spiritual exile.

2nd evidence: that year marked the beginning of the period when the anointed remnants were released from a form of spiritual captivity to the ideas and practices of false religion.

although having rejected such false teachings as the trinity and the immortal soul, they were still tainted by babylonish practices.

sd-7

As much as I approach this thread with serious hesitation, I think I at least wanted to offer a straightforward response here.

The title of this thread says it will provide "evidence". So, at this point, what needs to be posted here is SCRIPTURAL PROOF that the agents of the Watchtower Society--Joseph F. Rutherford and his associates--were chosen by Jesus Christ in the year 1919 to provide spiritual food for God's household, to the exclusion of all other Christians on the face of the earth.

However, the problem is that this is an assumption based on an understanding taught by the very people claiming to be the "faithful slave" class. Matthew 24:45-47 makes no mention of the year 1919 as having any significance or pertaining to the prophecies made in Matthew 24. Jesus said, "Who really is the faithful and discreet slave?" There is a question mark there, indicating that this is not a statement. Jesus did not say, "There will be a faithful slave CLASS, CHOSEN BY ME IN 1919 TO PROVIDE SPIRITUAL FOOD". That would be a prophetic statement. Jesus names no person or group of persons as definitely fulfilling this role; he asks a question. Only the master can appoint the slave over his domestics. Thus, any human informing others that he and his buddies fulfill this role is really only a group of humans saying it; it does not actually prove anything. What makes it worse is that immediately after this supposed appointment in 1919, Rutherford and his associates commence a worldwide campaign of disseminating a message that is demonstrably false, a message no longer taught and hardly spoken of today. Jesus Christ would have given any such "slave class" clearer instructions and a definite message from the start.

The context, Matthew chapter 24, demonstrates that Jesus had already transitioned from giving specific details about the sign of the end to giving illustrations highlighting the need for obedience, sharing the good news, and watchfulness. The "faithful slave" is a term used metaphorically, not a term used to convey authority to a group of men who would be members of a governing body.

"Governing body" is a term not used in scripture, like "organization", "John class", "theocracy", and quite a few others. To govern is to rule. Paul warned first-century Christians who thought they had started ruling without the rest of the Christians back then. (1 Cor. 4:8) As of today, only Jesus Christ rules as king, so far as any human can verify. And even that is verifiable only by eyewitnesses who lived 2,000 years ago. Any other claims regarding the resurrection of 'anointed' ones are even less verifiable. The apostles made their decision regarding circumcision in Acts 15 in conjunction with the older men in the congregation of Jerusalem. It was a decision that had already been made by holy spirit; the evidence was undeniable. The apostles were only informing the congregations of what had already been determined by an authority far higher than they--the holy spirit. Unlike the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses today, they involved the older men and probably the entire congregation in the discussion they were having; there were no closed-door sessions where they had to wonder what was being discussed. The fact that this sort of meeting is never mentioned again in scripture is an indication that it was more likely the exception and not the rule as far as the congregation back then. Paul spends Galatians 1-2 explaining that he didn't consider himself subject to the apostles at all, as his appointment came from Jesus Christ directly. The Governing Body of JWs would have summarily disfellowshipped him had he done something like that today.

Worse still is the fact that Jehovah's Witnesses actually denied the existence of a governing body over the early Christian congregation as late as 1929 in The Watchtower--10 years after the "slave class" was appointed!

Even the Society itself provides more evidence than you have thus far provided in this thread. As the final authority for Jehovah's Witnesses is presumably the Bible, you need to use the Bible to prove your points.

--sd-7