Posts by garyneal

21

baby or no baby?

by Dudu in

that is the question for the next months ... i am 32 and i will turn 33 on december....i am freaking out!!!

my hubby and i have no children and we are not looking for one right now because im studying a masters.

i will finish subjects in june and after that i will write my thesis (6 more months).

I had my children fairly 'late' in life. First one at 29, second at 35, third at 39. Since the first one was not with my wife, she and I have only the other two together (we married when I was 32) and with the other two being girls my wife wants to try for a boy but at 43 I am very relunctant. Do I really want to have a teenager in my house in my early sixties?

I would wait until I at least had my Master's degree finished if I were in your shoes but the older you are when you have them, the older you'll be before they are grown. Sometimes I honestly can't say who is better off, the person who had his or her kids early in life and is now enjoying the freedom of an empty nest in his or her fourties or the person who put off family for college and career and is now saddled with small children in his or her fourties but better able to handle it financially.

38

The Present Truth is the Truth and the Old Truth is the Truth, even if they contradict.

by garyneal in

that is the conclusion you must accept if you are a jehovah's witness as my wife tries to explain to me that even if what they are teaching today contradicts what they were previously teaching, they had the truth then and they have the truth now.

the difference is, they (the witnesses and the governing body) simply believed that what they were teaching at the time was the truth but when they discovered new information they adjusted their thinking.

so since they formerly believed it to be the truth, they were in the truth.. an example she gave involved people who once believed the earth was flat.

garyneal

EdenOne: Nerve racking indeed.

jwfacts: Yes, that has been the point that I repeatedly make when she criticizes other churches. Strange thing is, I don't really attend church anymore and yet I find myself defending them when she makes broad generalizations about them. She claims to be an authority on church teachings and practices though she never actually examined church teachings outside of the WT teachings and have only attended a few services with me when I was attending more regularly. Everytime she attended I recall how she would almost always contradict whatever was being preached. Ironic considering how she and the other witnesses I was studying with expected me to be open minded to other points of view while they kept their minds closed to mine.

38

The Present Truth is the Truth and the Old Truth is the Truth, even if they contradict.

by garyneal in

that is the conclusion you must accept if you are a jehovah's witness as my wife tries to explain to me that even if what they are teaching today contradicts what they were previously teaching, they had the truth then and they have the truth now.

the difference is, they (the witnesses and the governing body) simply believed that what they were teaching at the time was the truth but when they discovered new information they adjusted their thinking.

so since they formerly believed it to be the truth, they were in the truth.. an example she gave involved people who once believed the earth was flat.

garyneal

Terry: Good points all of them.

I recall during my angst when I was attempting to find out what religion is really true, well what Christian religion since I never considered any others, I asked the elder who I was studying with to come to my house to talk about it. Specifically, I wanted to know how he knew the WT religion was the one true religion. The conversation was pleasant and I recall telling him that I used to watch Jack Van Impe Presents regularly and was actually impressed with him for a while. Then I commented that Jack made a mistake that costed him his credibility in my eyes when he attempted to estimate the year of Christ's return being somewhere around 1998 which obviously did not occur. It was then when the elder mentioned 1975 and how witnesses believed the end of this system was going to occur then. My response, "That did not shake your faith for it certainly would've shaken mine?" He responded by saying that it was the overzealousness of the witnesses that caused them to believe that 1975 was significant and nothing that the WT actually did. Granted I later found the WT or Awake article (Oct 1969 I do believe) that certainly gave the impression that there could be something significant about this year though it never actually stated (in print) that the old system would've passed away that year.

The CHIEF CLAIM (those four premises you lead with) were something that I had seen similarly before amongst the Independent Fundamental Baptists churches that I had been attending back in those years I was watching Jack Van Impe Presents. They too, made similar claims that they had the only true teachings that lead to everlasting life and required similar commitments to the church's teachings and practices. They lost their credibility when the preacher's hard line stances began encroaching on things like children living at home past the age of 18 (I was 21 at the time still living at home), preaching urban legends as biblical truths (like P&G being run by satanists or the BEAST of Revelations being a supercomputer in Belgium), or him preaching that visiting other churches that you weren't a member of was the same as committing adultery against your home church. He backpedalled on that one in a most hilarious way when I reminded him of that comment later when he invited me to visit his church after I had left it and joined a southern baptist church.

I guess I can say that being exposed to the IFB's and later seeing through their bullshit helped immunized me somewhat to the witnesses teachings though it did take me some time and research to recover from almost being pulled in by them.

38

The Present Truth is the Truth and the Old Truth is the Truth, even if they contradict.

by garyneal in

that is the conclusion you must accept if you are a jehovah's witness as my wife tries to explain to me that even if what they are teaching today contradicts what they were previously teaching, they had the truth then and they have the truth now.

the difference is, they (the witnesses and the governing body) simply believed that what they were teaching at the time was the truth but when they discovered new information they adjusted their thinking.

so since they formerly believed it to be the truth, they were in the truth.. an example she gave involved people who once believed the earth was flat.

garyneal

Thanks for the responses everyone:

OneEyedJoe: Good for him that he discovered (or seemed to discover) the truth about the TRUTH and was willing to contradict the WT on its hardline stances.

clarity: They make their god out to be an idiot! He just can't get it right.

http://youtu.be/b0Sdh239AII?list=UUt0F0Z8zgodYfIEKMvzXW6w

That's what they do with their ever changing doctrine rather than admit that they are wrong and 'stumble' witnesses who hold the GB in such high esteem. Helps keep them in power for after all if the governing body was wrong about something, what else are they wrong about? If THEY can be wrong about some things, why rely on them for Bible interpretations when I can simply read and interpret it for myself? Witnesses questioning like that are dangerous to the organization. Therefore, suppress it by saying that it was Jehovah revealing his new light and the GB doing research while maintaining that the GB are not inspired in anyway.

http://youtu.be/nTvT7Cdveto?list=UUt0F0Z8zgodYfIEKMvzXW6w

OneLastKiss: I made a similar point when I questioned whether or not truth is simply what someone believes to be true. But, when it comes to the churches of christendom, they must examine and accept the evidence like the witnesses do. Therefore, it is hard to nail down whether or not truth is subjective or objective by her reasoning.

Theredeemer: Sounds a little like confirmation bias to me but from what I gather in the reviews from here of the WT printing stuff that lead up to any doctrinal changes it may be systematically planned and intended by the GB. It is easier for the new light to go down if they have been priming their followers for it in very subtle and subliminal ways. Just my two cents.

Crazyguy: That would've been the gist of what I was leading the conversation to if truth is merely as subjective as she was heading until she pulled that switcharoo when I asked if truth is merely what someone believes. Then she had to throw in the 'follow the evidence' thing for other churches.

Ucantnome: Well, that reasoning can apply to anyone who claims to be a part of the body of Christ. Therefore, perhaps witnesses would be wise to follow Crazyguy's advice and stay home on Saturday mornings since Christians claiming to be part of the body of Christ are also in the 'truth.'

Heaven: So true, and also keep in mind that Charles Russell would even disagree with my title for this thread:

"A new view of truth never can contradict a former truth. "New light" never extinguishes older "light" but adds to it." Charles Russell in Zion's Watchtower, Feb. 1881, p.3

"It is a serious matter to represent God and Christ in one way, then find that our understanding of the major teachings and fundamental doctrines of the Scriptures was in error, and then after that, to go back to the very doctrines that, by years of study, we had thoroughly determined to be in error. Christians cannot be vacillating - 'wishy-washy' - about such fundamental teachings. What confidence can one put in the sincerity or judgment of such persons?" WT 5/15/76 p.298

3rdgen: It does negate its claim to having the truth for any rational person who has not bought into it.

Darth Fader: The whole concept is a laugh riot. Glad you got a good laugh from it.

38

The Present Truth is the Truth and the Old Truth is the Truth, even if they contradict.

by garyneal in

that is the conclusion you must accept if you are a jehovah's witness as my wife tries to explain to me that even if what they are teaching today contradicts what they were previously teaching, they had the truth then and they have the truth now.

the difference is, they (the witnesses and the governing body) simply believed that what they were teaching at the time was the truth but when they discovered new information they adjusted their thinking.

so since they formerly believed it to be the truth, they were in the truth.. an example she gave involved people who once believed the earth was flat.

garyneal

That is the conclusion you must accept if you are a Jehovah's Witness as my wife tries to explain to me that even if what they are teaching today contradicts what they were previously teaching, they had the truth then and they have the truth now. The difference is, they (the witnesses and the governing body) simply BELIEVED that what they were teaching at the time was the TRUTH but when they discovered new information they adjusted their thinking. SO since they formerly believed it to be the truth, they were in the truth.

An example she gave involved people who once believed the earth was flat. Was what they believed true? It was true as far as they can tell, therefore it was true. Now that we know the earth was round, they were still believing in things that were true simply because they did not know any better. After all, encyclopedias that I consult for 'accurate information' are only true as far as the limits of human knowledge. So they are PRESENTLY true.

This kind of nonsense double talk is like nails to a chalkboard to me. The people who believed the earth was flat were not believing truth as the earth was not flat and their believing so does not make it so. If someone believed something to be true and later found evidence that contradicts that belief would be honest by simply saying, "I thought it was true, but I was wrong." That's the whole failure of the Watchtower's Governing Body when they hide behind concepts like 'new light' and 'progressive truth' to justify their doctrinal changes, they never want to admit that they are wrong.

Yet, my wife claims that the Watchtower never proclaimed that what they were teaching is TRUTH even though witnesses use phrases like, "Are you in the truth?" Instead, they are simply seeking truth unlike OTHER churches that wish to wallow in their own ignorance because they LIKE certain teachings even if they are false. I mean, nevermind the stubborness they show by holding onto 1914 CE and 607 BCE when not a single source outside the WT supports those dates due to pesky things like EVIDENCE.

In the end, when she has no more wiggle room to justify her answers she resorts to threats (be careful about how you talk about God), character assassination, and simply saying things like "one day you'll get it if only you allow yourself too." This same maneuvering I've seen in other theists (mainly Christians) when confronting atheists have caused me to call them out for being dishonest as well. It's like nails to a chalkboard for me.

43

From A Bublical Point Of View Did You Ever Think The Trinity Doctrine Made Sense?

by minimus in

jw
friends

i see no logic in it.

i see what appears to be some scriptural contradictions but i see no merit in a trinitarian view of god.. .

.

garyneal

I would say, yes it made sense but at the same time I was never able to explain it without, as cofty pointed out, resorting to a heresy. My own personal explanation was kind of a mix of modalism and the oneness doctrine. That is until I was confronted with the fact that there were contradictory scriptures by the Jehovah's Witnesses. It wasn't until I later began seriously studying the scriptures and the christian teachings that I learned about the nicene creed and the orthodox view of the teaching.

Upon learning this I began to wonder why churches do not seriously explain this doctrine as I've even seen ministers who would use a modalistic view to explain it.

24

For fans of older PC games

by glenster in

for fans of older pc games:.

http://glenster1.webs.com/freepcpinballmodsforlo.htm.

it includes carmageddon 1 and 2.. http://www.carmageddon.com/.

garyneal

LOL! Yeah, it needs an update... Froggie should be able to swim and try to avoid the logs and crocs.

Have you ever played Frogger 2: Three Deep? He swims in that game.

PC Dos Games

Doom

Doom 2: Hell on Earth

Kings Quest

Space Quest

Willy Beamish

Electro Body aka Electro Man

Flashback: The quest for identity

Out of this World

The Lost Vikings

35

Question for those converted to JW as adults

by DaleRivers in

jw
friends

why did you become a jw, what particular teachings attracted you to 'the truth' ?.

.

in my case (baptized at 20/21) it was the only religion i knew; my mom, her mom, and favorite sister were jw; and the teachings of no hellfire or immortal soul made sense to me.. .

garyneal

I think today's leaders of the Cult realise this, and in the future it will all be fuzzy warm emotion, with doctrine right in the background.

In other words, like most churches I've attended. This is a problem for those witnesses who believe that this is the churches primary failing. That is, they are all about emotion and not enough about learning the true teachings. Why else do you need to answer over 80 questions concerning Watchtower doctrine before becoming a candidate for baptism? Just accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior and get baptized in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Oh wait, you must accept Jehovah and get baptized to the Organization.

35

Question for those converted to JW as adults

by DaleRivers in

jw
friends

why did you become a jw, what particular teachings attracted you to 'the truth' ?.

.

in my case (baptized at 20/21) it was the only religion i knew; my mom, her mom, and favorite sister were jw; and the teachings of no hellfire or immortal soul made sense to me.. .

garyneal

Did not actually convert but did come pretty close to converting after 6 years of study with my wife and other witnesses. They could very easily use the Bible to refute some of my personal beliefs or at the least some of my understandings of the doctrines I accepted. They alone (seemingly) taught that Jesus was not born on Dec 25 and the idea that many of their doctrines did seem to line up more closely with the Bible than the doctrines I came to believe in. They alone seem peaceful in that they wanted no involvement in the military and they seemed to rely on God more by not preaching about politics or even participating in government. They were not nationalistic like so many other churches were as they believed more in a worldwide brotherhood which I found appealing. By claiming these were the things found in early Christianity they claimed that they were the closest to the original Christians both in belief and practice.

What they don't tell you is their false prophesying in the past concerning the years 1914, 1925, and 1975 for example. They also fail to tell you about their past teachings concerning the years 1799, 1874, and 1914 and how they refined them due to the passage of time rendering them false and not by some divine revelation. That fact alone puts them more in the camp of other preachers and religious institutions that falsely prophesy only to later make up more bullshit to cover up their previous bullshit.

How can anyone take this religion seriously once it has been revealed that back during the time of Jesus' inspection the Bible Students were teaching false prophesy and various ludicrous teachings like Michael the Archangel being the Pope, the Leviathan being a steam locomotive, the distance of 1600 furlongs in the Bible describing the distance between Scranton, PA and the Watchtower headquarters in NY, and that the great pyramid of Giza predicting 1914? Especially when the pyramid teaching was later debunked as satanic by the Watchtower society sometime later. None of this is ever mentioned during any Bible study and most JW's are woefully ignorant of their own history.

Their excuse that they were refining their teachings and correcting their errors does not hold much water as at best many Christians I come across also refine their beliefs (some more dramatically than others) upon the presence of greater evidence or due to a more intense Bible study. So, no special award to the witnesses for that one. Also, considering that their teachings concerning pyramidology, Michael the Archangel being the Pope, and the Leviathan being a steam locomotive were truly unique to them they cannot claim (as they often try) that they simply inherited their errorneous teachings from apostate christendom that they had to later refine after they learned the truth about them as they reason for why they originally celebrated Christmas.

3

"Not Doubting at All . . . "

by Terry in

what happens when you have doubts?.

1. you ask questions and demand answers.

2. you investigate.

garyneal

Yep, sounds like my life currently. I ask questions and my wife sneers at me for it.