Posts by pirata

31

I have a question for you all......

by its_me! in

my sister visited me a few months ago, and she was on a holy roller, 'save my soul' kick.

she told me that i needed to get back to the meetings because armageddon was so near.

i told her that if i serve jehovah, it will not be because i am afraid of dying at armageddon, it will be because i love him and have a personal relationship with him.

pirata

For all practical purposes enduring till the end to get the reward is most talked about as the goal. Almost every public talk ends with "if you do this, this and this, then you can survive armageddon and live in the paradise earth".

At the latest Circuit Assembly the CO, drawing a parallel between death from a physical heart attack and death from a spiritual heart attack, said "If you don't want to live forever, then you don't need to listen to this". To me, that sounded kind of like, "If you don't want an inheritance from your parents, then you don't need to care for them in their old age".

8

Is the vindication of God's name taught in mainstream Christianity?

by pirata in

i always found it odd that god would be so fixated on his good name that so many others would have to suffer so that he could say "see, i was right!

i told you so!"..

is the vindication of god's name/sovereignty a teaching unique to jw's, or is this also taught in mainstream christianity?.

pirata

I always found it odd that God would be so fixated on his good name that so many others would have to suffer so that he could say "See, I was right! I told you so!".

Is the Vindication of God's Name/Sovereignty a teaching unique to JW's, or is this also taught in mainstream Christianity?

12

Why does Acts 15:29 differentiate "things strangled" from "blood"?

by pirata in

acts 15:29 says to "keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from flood and from things strangled and from fornication".. a study the relevant mosaic laws indicates that blood was to be poured out, and not eaten, when an animal was killed.

if the animal had already died, then it was okay to eat the unbled meat of the animal if you went through the ceremonial cleansing.

thus blood only needs to be poured out when a life was purposefully taken.. however, one could counterargue that since abstaining from "blood" and "things strangled" are listed as seperate items, the "blood" prohibition covers more than just the eating of improperly bled meat.. some have suggested that abstaining from "blood" means to abstain from bloodshed, but i haven't seen any strong arguments/reasoning to support this.. any thoughts on why this distinction is made?

pirata

Mad Sweeney: A very good point. Any blood consumed outside of meat at that time would have to have come from an animal purposefully killed. This seems to be the most straightforward reasoning point.

Terry: Thanks for raising this point. This (or a similar point) was raised in an earlier post and that was the instant turning point to realize that it is not wrong to take a blood transfusion biblically. No life (either of an animal or human) was lost to provide the blood for the transfusion.

Thanks again, I now feel confident in the scriptural points to back up the "yes blood" policy. Now here's hoping it become's the new light this summer! :)

44

Charles Taze Russell: His Life and Times: The Man, the Millennium and the Message

by RR in

jw
friends

charles taze russell: his life and times: the man, the millennium and the message by fredrick zydek is the latest biography on pastor russell, and i must say i am very impressed.

i have read other historiees on the pastor russell by zydek (all unpublished manuscripts) but this one is far better than the last one authored by charles redeker aq few years ago.

zydek is a catholic.. the author is neither a bible student or a jehovah's witness.

pirata

RR, I would love to hear your thoughts on the rest of the book if you've finished it.

64

Did leaving the WT build greater appreciation for or kill your reading of the Bible?

by lepermessiah in

jw
friends

i am really on the fence on this issue right now and would love some opinions.. i find that i dont sit down and read the bible for long periods since becoming inactive, but on the other hand, individual scriptures mean much more to me now.. i will sit down and look up some favorite passages from time to time and feel like its the first time i really "got it" - without the jw goggles on.

i love matthew chapter 23, since i think it describes to a tee the situation in jw congregations.

i think if jesus returned today, he would blast the elders and "leaders" of the borg in a similar fashion (along with most religious leaders) .matthew 24 is actually more interesting to me now, simply because my whole life was waiting for the 1914 generation to end sometime during the reagan era!

pirata

For the most part, I would keep up with the weekly Bible reading schedule to cover the pages.

Once I started to realize that what I was taught that I must believe did not necessarily jive with the Bible, it renewed my interest in reading the Bible. It feels like I am really reading the Bible for the first time in my life. Doing a "Borean" and "testing the inspired expression" has been a real eye-opener.

12

Why does Acts 15:29 differentiate "things strangled" from "blood"?

by pirata in

acts 15:29 says to "keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from flood and from things strangled and from fornication".. a study the relevant mosaic laws indicates that blood was to be poured out, and not eaten, when an animal was killed.

if the animal had already died, then it was okay to eat the unbled meat of the animal if you went through the ceremonial cleansing.

thus blood only needs to be poured out when a life was purposefully taken.. however, one could counterargue that since abstaining from "blood" and "things strangled" are listed as seperate items, the "blood" prohibition covers more than just the eating of improperly bled meat.. some have suggested that abstaining from "blood" means to abstain from bloodshed, but i haven't seen any strong arguments/reasoning to support this.. any thoughts on why this distinction is made?

pirata

Acts 15:29 says to "keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from flood and from things strangled and from fornication".

A study the relevant mosaic laws indicates that blood was to be poured out, and not eaten, when an animal was killed. If the animal had already died, then it was okay to eat the unbled meat of the animal if you went through the ceremonial cleansing. Thus blood only needs to be poured out when a life was purposefully taken.

However, one could counterargue that since abstaining from "blood" and "things strangled" are listed as seperate items, the "blood" prohibition covers more than just the eating of improperly bled meat.

Some have suggested that abstaining from "blood" means to abstain from bloodshed, but I haven't seen any strong arguments/reasoning to support this.

Any thoughts on why this distinction is made? Any commentaries that may shed some light on this matter?

54

For born ins- what tipped you off it was wrong

by teela(2) in

jw
friends

at a young age i remember watching tv and commenting why is the red cross always helping people and we don't.

the second big one is if the witnesses only started up in 1890 - 1900 did jehovah not have anyone else doing the preaching work?.

as a child i don't think we think about theological problems so what tipped you off?

pirata

For me it is purely doctrinal. I have been in (and am in) really good congregations with lots of great, sincere people who feel that they are trying to serve God. I am fine living by the moral restrictions as a lot of have good scriptural support.

For most of my life I never thought too hard about what I was taught to see if it really made any sense. One day, though, I was on wikipedia and was curious as to the entry on JWs. I read a lot of history there that I never had heard of before. Most importantly, it was backed up by quotations taken from the society's publications. As well, it cross-matched with the Proclaimers book, but did not gloss over the less glamorous aspects of the history. I thought about some of the things in our history, and I decided to "make the truth my own" and convince myself of the teachings that I had always accepted at face value all my life.

I also prayed to God to help me know if I was really in the true religion. Don't know if it's coincidence, but that very week The KM article came out strongly discouraging getting together in a group to study the Bible independent of WT publications. That didn't make much sense to me since the scriptures say that if 2 or 3 christians meet together that Jesus would be in their midst. I decided that if we REALLY have the truth, then it can stand up to outside scrutiny.

So I started to research. Although I confirmed that there are JW teachings that I feel are solidly grounded in the Bible, I was rather disturbed to find many official teachings that conflict with the scriptures, history, and science:

The "Global" flood of Noah
Dissallowance of blood transfusions
Allowing fractions that come from disallowed blood
Dead witnesses because the spirit-directed organization incorrectly disallowed organ transplants
Jesus is Michael
607/1914
That I am dooming people to death if I talk to them about the Kingdom but they don't believe me
The spirit-directed governing body deciding important scriptural matters by means of a vote
Double standards in regards to freedom of religion
Meaning of the "other flock" and "last days" (in conflict with what the 1st C. Christians understood them to be)
Not allowing scriptural discussion different from official teachings. Testing the "inspired expressions" does not apply to the "Faithful Slave".
Putting down other christian groups for failed predictions, but calling own failed predictions "eager expectation"
Requiring us to accept the latest "scriptural refinements" as truth whether or not they make sense. Overuse of the word "evidently" (evidently means "well it's evident that we were wrong, so let's change our understanding to fit the evidence")
The generation changes, destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah flip-flops (Why does the spirit keep changing what is "true", unless of course it's perfect men taking their best guess based on what they know at the time)
That the generation, anointed and faithful changes were all clearly made necessary to circumstances showing that the previous understandings were incorrect (as opposed to spirit guided "new light")
The annointed as the mediator between the "other sheep" and the mediator Jesus Christ
That the entire book of Revelation is symbolic expect for the number of the 144,000 (Plus there were more than 144,000 Christian martrys in the 1st C).
That the Bible's reference to Abraham, Issac, and Jacob in heaven doesn't really mean they're in heaven.
Pinatas and wedding rings are okay because even though they have false religious backgrounds they're not viewed as such today, but toasting is bad because "maybe" it has false religious background
Shunning of disfellowshipped ones (Similar to how the Scribes and pharisees treated other Jews as "amharets". Why do the interpretation of Paul's words take precedence over Jesus teaching to treat a brother who has left as a tax collector and a harlot. Jesus ate with the tax collectors and harlots and try to bring into the christian fold?)
Not allowing bestiality and homosexuality as ground for divorce for a long time (spirit-directed?)
Dictating sex policies between married individuals with no scriptural backing
Not providing references for quotes in publications (when I started to look up the individuals or articles quoted, I saw why. They were from "false religious" sources, or the quotes were taken out of context)
Calculating when the end would arrive even though Jesus said that no one knows the day or hour but the Father
That we serve God out of love, but almost every single public talk ends with "If you want to live forever on earth then you need to do this"
Non-biblical definitions of faith/spirituality (X hours of field service, meetings, commenting, preparing for meetings, etc)

The list continues to grow... During this whole time I honestly wanted to discover that the JW teachings are really the truth, but I just cannot come to that conclusion.

24

Watchtower 1974- Obviously a Bethelite writes all fat people who eat more than others will be destroyed!!!

by Witness 007 in

bethel lunchtime....their is always a young brother who eats more potatoes or chicken etc.

leaving the plate empty and others from his table scrounging from other "less hungry" tables.

so some writer with a chip on his shoulder writes this article.. watchtower 1974 p.167 "glutton...fails to show love for jehovah.

pirata

So why is obesity not a disfellowshipping offense?

Although rarely used, I have heard of one case many years ago where someone was DF'd for gluttony.

21

The New "Do More" Kingdom Song

by pirata in

inspired by the recent "do more!

" posts, i started putting together some verses for a "do more!

" kingdom song.

pirata

Inspired by the recent "Do More!" posts, I started putting together some verses for a "Do More!" kingdom song. I quickly discovered that I should never go into song writing, but here's what I came up with. Please post more verses! Best verses will be selected to make the final song. Remember to keep the WTS POV for verses.

Do More! Do More!

Go from Door to Door!

Babylon the Great

is a dirty old whore.

Do More! Do More!

Preach, comment and talks!

That way God does not have to

use lots of talking rocks.

Do More! Do More!

For everlasting life!

Or do you want to be destroyed

With your worldly Neighbor's kids and wife?

Do More! Do More!

Don't be a doubting one

Or else you're a DF'd apostate

Your family must shun!

Do More! Do More!

Keep up new light, mate

It may not make much sense to YOU

So you'll just have to wait

Do More! Do More!

Avoid Higher Ed

Cuz those who try to use their brain

End up spiritually dead

(But if by any chance you do go anyways and you're a male, make sure to apply at Bethel)

29

JW sister told my newly widowed mom that it would "look bad"if

by aquagirl in

if i took her to the memorial this year.im df'd for years,but out of love and respect for my parents i always gave them this one night.my mum dosent drive.i was going to drive her and sit by her.i promised my dad that i would always do this for him.he was pretty cool,even tho he was an elder.my "devout" sister {who has never lifted a finger to help my parents}told her yesterday that it "wouldnt look good" for me to show up w/my mum,altho everyone knows that i have done everything for my parents,both before my dad died in december and since.

is my sister just jealous that i have a fabulous life,am beautiful,rich,a guitar god,have excellent cool hair, xray vision,can communicate with aliens and have supernatural abilities?

or is she just mean?lol..btw,i am going.and im taking my mum and we are going to sit in the front row,and yes,im gonna wear velvet.....

pirata

How in the world could that look bad? JW's should be happy that a "lost sheep" is attending the memorial with their parents.