djeggnog

Joined

• started 0 topics
• posted 660 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by djeggnog

• 
  269

  Have your JW Relatives Explained about Generation/Overlap Change to You ?

  by flipper in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  after reading on the way out's thread about his mom explaining the generation overlap to him it kicked this idea into my head to make this thread .

  i thought it would be helpful to see if anybody here has had jw relatives or friends try to explain this " generation overlap " theory to you as a faded or inactive witness and what happened in the conversations.

  so please feel free to post your experiences.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @allelsefails:

  Dont mean to [butt] in, however dont you see that [Jesus'] prophecy in the first century was amazing. He said that the end would come within a generation of those who saw him. And it DID! 37 years later! A biblical generation has ALWAYS been 40 years.

  (IE ... Moses proclaimed God's judgement on Israel as this generation shall pass away .... 40 years of wandering in the wilderness.)

  I don't agree that a biblical generation has always been 40 years. You yourself just pointed out that the generation about which Jesus spoke lasted less than 40 years (37 years I believe you said), but here's where intelligence comes in: Jesus uttered those words to folks that were living at the time, did he not? He also stated in the minor fulfillment of his words that that generation would "by no means pass away" until all those things he foretold occurred, correct? Jesus was 33-1/2 years old at the time he made this statement, was he not? How long was this generation of that sign? It was at least 33 years plus the 37 years that you mentioned, for a total of how many years? You do the math and tell me how long that generation really was that was affected by the "great tribulation" of those days, ok?

  (FYI - Annaias and Saphira LIED and were put to death by God even tho [their] sin was not a great one.

  I disagree. Ananias and his wife's motives were deceptively wicked in that they had made this pretense of having sold a property that they had owned and of having donated all of the proceeds from the sale to the congregation while knowing that they had retained some of the proceeds of the sale for themselves in order to gain special honor in the congregation, for in what they had schemed in that they were seeking, not God's glory, but the glory of men, they were really playing false to the holy spirit, for the apostle Peter was God's representative on earth, and by lying to Peter, they were lying to the holy spirit, and by their dishonesty in this regard, what they did would have brought about the same judgment of death had they attempted to deceive one of Jehovah's angels since when they are sent here to earth, they speak to us as God's representatives, in God's name, just as Peter spoke in God's name.

  It was dishonesty that caused God's disfavor.

  To you, dishonesty is not a great sin, but Ananias and Sapphira died for more than dishonesty, but for playing false to the holy spirit. I suppose you missed that part of the account at Acts 5;1-6. Jehovah didn't give them a slap on the wrist, did he? A little leprosy to punish them for telling to little fib, did he? Read the passage at Acts 5:1-6 and I would ask you to pay particular notice to the words at verse three, where Peter tells Ananias that "Satan [had] emboldened [him] to play false to the holy spirit." Grieving the holy spirit is quite serious; it is not a little sin, but a grave one.

  Most people I've read have the same problem with JW's Org. They hide their mistakes and blame Jehovah for their changes in "understanding". The real problem is a group of men who are guessing at truth and unwilling to admit they have no divine direction,)

  I've never seen that, but, then again, I'm not a cynical individual. Jehovah's Witnesses are not "guess at truth," and the direction we receive is through the pages of the Bible, for holy spirit itself directs our understanding of the Scriptures. The things we read in the Bible are God-breathed, so when we are studying God's word, the holy spirit -- the Holy Scriptures themselves -- is what provides direction to us, for our being led by holy spirit means conforming our lives so that they are in harmony with Bible and if we "keep walking by spirit, [we] will carry out no fleshly desire at all." (Galatians 5:16, 18)

  Never has the word Generation been defined the way the JW's define it now. Not in scripture or the English language could a generation be more than 80 years. Stuff to think about.

  Well, we know that isn't true, for at Exodus 1:6, the life of Joseph, who lived for a period of time that amounted to 110 years, is referred to there as a "generation," which is 40 years longer than the "generation" about which Jesus first spoke that passed away in 70 AD. If you did the math, you found that that "generation" was at least 70 years in length and Joseph's was 110 years in length.

  You're right. You have much to think about.

  @The Finger:

  I think your bottom line so to speak is that it doesn't really matter what is taught or preached as long as you join in with the "anointed" in preaching whatever they are proclaiming at the time as this is the truth on the day.

  The way you describe my position on speaking in agreement "in the same mind and in the line of thought" (1 Corinthians 1:10) with the F&DS can be described in a manner similar to what you have said here, @The Finger. I don't say that expressed by point of view perfectly, but you're close enough. What many folks don't realize is that it is intentional that Jehovah's Witnesses use terminology quite different than is used by other so-called Christian denominations, and our keeping up with and not lagging behind the truth will enable us to communicate scriptural truths and organizational matters in fewer words than it would otherwise take to convey our thoughts.

  When dealing with Judas-like individuals, it is expected that they will seek to betray us using what information they have learned while they were in the truth, but without success since Jehovah's Witnesses speak a "pure language" that prevents us from going "to the right" or "to the left" (Zephaniah 3:9; Isaiah 30:21). This pure language of ours serves to help us to distinguish a faithful "Israelite" from a rebellious "Ephraimite" (that is, a false brother or a false sister) that either doesn't attend or doesn't listen to the meetings so that he or she knows his or her left hand from his or her right hand. Such Ephraimites fail the "Sibboleth/Shibboleth" test since they tend to think and reason in terms of our past and beliefs that we once held, but have abandoned, and so they say "Sibboleth" instead of "Shibboleth." (Judges 12:5, 6)

  So how do you identify the anointed?

  As Paul stated about the anointed: "We have boldness for the way of entry into the holy place by the blood of Jesus, which he inaugurated for us as a new and living way." Also, "the spirit itself bears witness with [their] spirit that [they] are ... joint heirs with Christ." (Hebrews 10:19, 20; Romans 8:16, 17) Why do you feel you need to identify the anointed when they identify themselves every year at the Memorial of Christ's death as those that are in the New Covenant inaugurated by the Lord Jesus Christ.

  So, really, why the distrust? If someone should partake unworthily, that is not our business. "Whoever eats the loaf or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty respecting the body and the blood of the Lord.... For he that eats and drinks eats and drinks judgment against himself if he does not discern the body." (1 Corinthians 11:27-29)

  Because they preach the 2nd coming as invisible and that we are in it?

  No, they don't. The anointed preach what all Jehovah's Witnesses preach as to Jesus' second coming being visible, where everyone on earth will see "the sign of the Son of man ... in heaven." (Matthew 24:30) It is Jesus' presence that began in 1914 that is invisible, which is why Jesus gave to his followers a composite sign that would be visible to us so that we might discern when his presence and the conclusion of the system of things had begun. (Matthew 24:3)

  If i disagree with you on the presence of Christ and will not preach it will I be saved?

  I don't know. I do know that the Bible says that Christians "should all speak in agreement." (1 Corinthians 1:10)

  Russell wanted the churches of his day to join him in preaching Christ invisible return in 187something. What if you refused to join him? Couldn't agree with that rubbish. How about the (lol) picture in the proclaimers book of the hut with the millions now living will never die, What if you walked past and said "Tripe" and continued to believe that Christ died for you?

  I don't know. I do know in hindsight though that if you had lived in Russell's day through Rutherford's day until Knorr's day, you would have been exposed to many adjustments and had you kept abreast of these adjustments you would likely believe what Jehovah's Witnesses believe today as to Jesus' return or presence being invisible to human eyes for the only thing that will be visible to human eyes will be Jesus' coming at Armageddon, for then "all the tribes of the earth will beat themselves in lamentation, [as] they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." (Matthew 24:30) Let me be clear here: Jesus' presence is not the same as Jesus' coming; these are two different events.

  I don't need you to answer. I was a strong JW for over 30 years. But you should think about what has been preached in God's name.

  But you do! You are no different than most of Jehovah's Witnesses with whom I study and give counsel. I'm here to listen and I'm going to help those that do not wish to lose their lives and want to be helped so that they may be among the survivors of Armageddon. I'm here to help people, Witnesses or non-Witnesses that want help. Depending upon your health situation and you age, I see no reason why you cannot be among those millions now living that will never die. Absolutely none!

  @dysynergy:

  on my visit to Bethel last week, someone who has regular contact with the GB explained it to me and stated that the FDS was being careful not to be date setters, because that get's them into trouble. But that there was a need to clarify the meaning of "generation" and that it referred to a group of people who shared an experience and that it did NOT infer an unending period of time.

  Indeed! That was the purpose of the article, "Holy Spirit's Role in the Outworking of Jehovah's Purpose," which stated, in pertinent part, the following:

  [Jesus] evidently meant that the lives of the anointed who were on hand when the sign began to become evident in 1914 would overlap with the lives of other anointed ones who would see the start of the great tribulation. That generation had a beginning, and it surely will have an end. [w10 4/15, p. 10, ¶14]

  There is but one generation of the sign with the anointed that saw the beginning of this sign and the anointed that will not pass away when the great tribulation comes toward the end of the sign. There is no reason for anyone to be attempting to force two [generations] into becoming a single generation since Jesus specifically spoke of "this generation," which is not two generations, but only one.

  The only significant change here between the viewpoint of Jehovah's Witnesses back in 1952 Question from Readers [w52 9/1, pp. 542, 543] and the viewpoint of Jehovah's Witnesses today is that we have come to realize in 2010 that the "generation" to which Jesus referred at Matthew 24:34 referred to the period of time that spanned the length of the sign of Christ's presence, which generation began in 1914 and will eventually come to an end, during which generation the lives of Jesus' anointed brothers as a group overlap.

  @letsslatejws:

  The Faithful & discreet Slave are there to provide food at the proper time...

  And they are doing the work that no other group of persons on earth are doing, an ingathering work that needs to be done before the end of this system of things comes.

  They havent & instead they have dished up Dog food in that they have continually had to change the very core teachings of the WBTS organisation.

  I hear you, but here's what you do: Join one of Christendom's churches, if you haven't already done so, and wait and see what happens while you wait for progressive teachings to be brought forward through your church. You will soon know before the end arrives whether or not Jehovah is blessing your church and whether or not His spirit is there. They may or may not mention his name although you should know that Jehovah is the true God (Jeremiah 10:10), but many churches do marginalize Jehovah and exalt and praise and glorify God's son, Jesus Christ, except when Jesus comes, he will arrive, not just in his own glory, but in "that of the Father and of the holy angels. (Luke 9:26)

  Of course, by then, the proverbial door of the ark will already have been shut by Jehovah, but you will be one of those 'beating themselves in lamentation' over your stubbornness and impatience with Jehovah. As the apostle Peter stated at 2 Peter 3:9: "Jehovah is not slow respecting his promise, as some people consider slowness, but he is patient with you because he does not desire any to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance." The only consolation for you is that you will then know that about which you are in doubt today, namely, that Jehovah is the true God and that when He said in His word at 1 Thessalonians 1:7-9, that His Son would 'bring vengeance upon those who do not know God and those who do not obey the good news,' He kept His promise, and, as I patiently await the fulfillment of all of God's promises, Jehovah knows me well, and He knows that I'm personally holding Him to it, for He is may not be your God, but He certain is my God!

  Prophesy after Prophesy has been written about in the WT and each time what has been written has failed to come true.

  I've never seen any prophesy written or authored by the WTS in any magazine, tract, book, booklet or other publication. Bible prophesies are all authored by Jehovah God and it is only these predictions that Jehovah's Witnesses care anything about. If as the result of anticipatory anxiety on the part of one or more of Jehovah's Witnesses a rumor should start that spreads like wildfire (e.g., 1975), this does not mean that this was one of Jehovah's prophesies that had either failed or was unfulfilled, for Jehovah's prophesies never fail. Keep this in mind whenever you can take stock of this nonsense about "prophesies" written by the WTS: Jehovah's Witnesses do not author prophesies; Jehovah does, and if you are foolish enough to believe such "hype" when you know full well that Jesus clearly stated that no one knows the "day and hour" when the end will come (Matthew 24:36), then that foolishness would be all on you, would it not?

  Each time this happens the WBTS suddenly states we have got new light and changes everything all over again! If we were in the very last days (as we are so meant to be), then dont you think that Jehovah would have made sure that the WBTS had got the very core teachings right ????

  No, I don't. Jehovah does things in His own time, so what things are taking place in His organization are evidently not such a big deal to Jehovah, for He not just interested in your concerns and mine, but He's interested in the message about the kingdom that He has put into the capable hands of His son being spread by us to as many people as humanly possible before He pulls the plug on this old system of things. Jehovah's servants have made many mistakes over the years, and I'm not just talking about Jehovah's Witnesses or their predecessors like Russell, but Moses made mistakes, David made mistakes, Solomon made mistakes, but Jehovah managed to use these men to accomplish His will despite their inherited imperfections. Don't worry about Jehovah; let Jehovah worry about Jehovah. You worry about where you are going to hide from Jesus' executional forces when they come at Armageddon if it should turn out that you are still bitching and moaning about failed prophecies that the WTS never made!

  The King of the North? JW's had so much interest in this but now its never mentioned in the WT....

  So what? I'm one of Jehovah's Witnesses and if you should have any questions at all about the kings of the north or south, start a new thread, hit me with a PM and I'll join it. There's presently nothing really new to discuss about the kings of the north and the king of the south, but released in 2006 was Pay Attention to Daniel's Prophecy!, and I suppose, if you wanted to do so, you could go back as far as the "Your Will Be Done on Earth" book, first released in 1958, for both of these WTS publications contain excellent information in them regarding this subject you mention. Frankly, I do not understand why you are griping about this. Maybe if I had a bit more information as to what the real problem you are having is, I could maybe help you toward resolution.

  What about whenever they are crying True peace and Security - The international cry of Peace & Security was in 1986 ... Again no WT comments just continued speculation...

  No, it wasn't; you're mistaken. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the announcement of peace and security is a reference to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the Middle East, or that the announcement will not be made until the conflict has been resolved, so that many Jehovah's Witnesses are following closely the discussions currently underway regarding the Obama Administration, the Palestinian Authority (currently in a vaccum without Hamas' involvement in the talks) and Israel, for when Hamas is invited to the Oval Office, that event will definitely be given global coverage, for peace and security in the Middle East could obtain thereafter. Not true peace and security, mind you, but that of the world's peace and security, at which time the expectation is that the end will likely come after such an announcement has been made.

  The 1914 Article that stated Millions Living Will Never Die.... It should have read Millions Living Now Will All Die...

  Ok.

  All of the failed prophesies that the WBTS have made, makes them clearly the False Prophet. Blind Leading the Blind. Jesus Warned against these. Unfortunately you sit there week after week and have become brainwashed by WBTS teachings. Jesus said that many would say lord lord did we not prophesy in your name, and Jesus would say get away from me you workers of lawlessness.

  You are repeating yourself here, and, yes, Jesus, did say exactly what you say he said, but Jehovah's Witnesses are not the "workers of lawlessness" to whom he was referring at Matthew 7:22, 23.

  Since everyone in the KH sits there like nodding dogs you have no ability left to question what you hear. You accept it as Fact !!!! In fact if you were [to query] / question [anything] then you would immediately be called apostate. They would belittle you inferring that you are a babe who hasnt gotten off the milk onto the solid food because you are questioning the elementary things!!!

  As I read your post, I don't think you are ready for solid food, but that's my preliminary opinion. I could be wrong, but I'm not often wrong about people. You are a murmurer and there is no future for murmurers any more so than Dathan and Abiram had a future when they thought more of themselves than it was necessary for them to think and received divine judgment for grumbling about the human leader (Moses) that God had assigned to be such over Israel.

  You need to sit up and become a true [Berean] and research and question everything. To start with use all the Old WT articles, that way you wont think you are being hood winked by Satan ! Unfortunately the WBTS doesnt want you to do this because if you did you would actually wake up and find out the real Truth....

  That's just nonsense. If you want to study and do research on any topic of your choice, you are free to do so. I'm listening to you now and I'm not an elder in your local congregation, so why don't you try talking to me. I don't know your name, but I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses, so if you are serious, then ask me those questions and I'll answer them.

  I pray one day that you wake up and realise that you are in a CULT.

  I'm not in a cult, but your prayers don't matter since prayers are a form of worship, and any worship not based on truth doesn't go to Jehovah, but goes to Satan, and so I don't need you to pray for me. The prayers of the wicked are detestable to Jehovah and He has no desire at all to hear them. (Proverbs 28:9)

  By the Way I care for nothing that my [grammar] is wrong. Nor care that what Ive written is incorrectly punctuated. All I care about is that the content of what I have written is listened to and not brushed under the carpet, and filed in the bin.

  Believe me: I listened to you and will listen to you further should that be your desire. I don't judge you on your grammar; I write for a living so my use of English grammar should be noticeably better than those that have no reason to be concerned about such things, but grammar and punctuation aside, I believe I understood your every word. I trust despite any typos you may find in this post that you understood all that I have been saying to you here.

  I lost 21 years to JW's / WTBS, my husband 43 years. I truly hope you wake up soon and realise that you have been lied to year in year out.

  I am awake, but the question is, why aren't you? (Mark 13:33; Luke 21:36)

  Love to you & big hugs because your going to need it..... xxx

  Thanks. I believe I'm going to need love, big hugs and my God, Jehovah, to get me through. Jehovah knows that I depend heavily upon Him.

  @djeggnog
• 
  50

  JW's came to the door

  by pr0ner in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  ha i love it when they come to the door.

  two dub females came to the door.

  one of them seemed pretty intelligent and down to the earth.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @Aussie Oz wrote:

  Oh crap, i just cant put into words what your post did to me.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  You might want to drink something sweet if [something] I said in my post turned out to be somewhat bitter in your mouth, and then come back and tell me exactly what my post did to you. Say what you feel. (I can take it.)

  @Aussie Oz wrote:

  Ok. you made me write a big reply and then delete it because i felt it was a waste of time, and would be totally lost on you, as is proved by the responses from you to other posts.

  Well, maybe it's good that you didn't bother to post that "big reply."

  You think your words were bitter to me? You self righteous little shit I wont be reading your dribble anymore... you are perhaps the most ignorant person i have come [across] so far on here.

  Bitter, no. The truth is that I really didn't know what to make of your "Oh crap, i just cant put into words what your post did to me" statement. It was so open to interpretation, so I thought perhaps you wanted to help me see the light as you have managed to see the light (or some such nonsense like this). I also thought something I said might have triggered a memory in your mind that you didn't quite know hot to "put [your thoughts] into words." I thought it possible that you had become flabbergasted over the audacity of me to have said to @sabastious, @wasblind, @3Mozzies or @Steve2. (Then, again, maybe not anything I said to @sabastious, but to the other three posters whose posts came before yours.) What I said was if [something] I said in my post turned out to be somewhat bitter in your mouth....

  Your "Oh crap, i just cant put into words what your post did to me" remark could have meant anything, but what I did say was meant to move the discussion along and I don't care that you are now indignant over what I actually did say. I cannot control what you might think after reading what things I write here, nor do I care what mental process you use to determine whether you like something said by someone or don't like something said by someone.

  Now I know that you don't know me at all, so I cannot take your"angst" seriously, but since you apparently wanted to draw attention to yourself in this thread, at my expense, you've succeeded; you now have my attention as well as the attention of all of your friends here. Apparently you want to be a clown, so go ahead, attach the red nose and be that clown, and maybe I'll buy a ticket, but here's the point I would make but for your threatening to not read any more of my "dribble":

  When Jehovah's Witnesses visit folks at their homes, they do so for the same reason that Jesus and his apostles visited people: Because people are walking in the unprofitableness of their minds, in spiritual darkness, some of them in spiritual bondage to false religion, and they have never really heard the good news about Jesus Christ. Jehovah's Witnesses truly believe that if given an opportunity to do so, that some of the people that we visit at their homes would, upon hearing the good news of God's kingdom, make the same choice that we made to conform their lives in such a way that they and those that listen to them (including their own families) might realize the same hope as we in harmony with God's will, and thus form the nucleus of the new earth under the millennial reign of God's kingdom with the prospect of living forever.

  It is because of the Bible and our faith in God's promises contained in it that Jehovah's Witnesses are making our faith manifest to all, not just in our ministry, but in how we have chosen to live our lives. Jehovah's Witnesses know that there is absolutely nothing that we can personally do to earn everlasting life, but we have been persuaded that God will grant us with it as a reward for our faithfulness toward Him in our doing the work that His son has given us to do, sharing what things we have learned with others and warning folks as to what's on the horizon.

  It does bother me that many of the people here (like @pr0ner) would make sport of jeering Jehovah's Witnesses that have done absolutely nothing to any of you, except to come to your door to share the very same message contained in the Bible, the same message that Jesus and his apostles taught, that many of you have already heard, but rejected, which, mind you, is certainly your right to do.

  Telling these Witnesses that you've heard the Kingdom message and that it is a waste of their time sharing with you their message when you have no interest whatsoever in it would be the right thing to do, not to lead on any of these Witnesses as your "victims" so that you might sow the seeds of contempt that you feel about Jehovah's Witnesses generally, and the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses specifically, in your hatred for anything at all having to do with the WTS.

  So because my God is Jehovah, and you have chosen to worship the god of this system of things, why the bitterness toward me when you don't know me and I've done nothing to you? Again, I didn't say I believed you thought my words were bitter to you, did I? What I said was "if [something] I said in my post turned out to be somewhat bitter in your mouth [that you should] come back and tell me exactly what my post did to you." Of course, I could be lying, but I suspect that you could very easily go back a few posts and review mine to see whether or not I'm lying to you.

  THATS what your post did to me.

  I don't care.

  now go and post how Oz is a horrid nasty person who derides people and is sensitive or something.

  Now, now. You're not a horrid nasty person, but it is true that in what you said to me in your post that you treated me contemptuously, but your jeering of me pales in comparison with what I anticipate will be a grueling test of my faith before Jesus puts down this rabid system of things. I'm ok with that.

  bugger off.

  In case you don't know, I'm in the States, in Los Angeles, California, so "bugger off" doesn't faze me. Now if what you wanted to do was insult me, such that I might want to come through this monitor and "pummel you" (which is as wimpy as saying "bugger off" to an American) or "kick you ass" (which is a less wimpy way to say the same thing), then the very next time you feel like being a show off (or a clown), please don't hesitate to tell me to "piss off" or to "fuck off." I won't really react negatively to your saying any of these things, but your friends here (like @pr0ner and @wasblind) will no doubt laugh and want to "fist bump" you, and even have your baby for deriding yet another Witness. (One thing though: @pr0ner thought it important to tell me today that he is mammary-less so you might want to keep that in mind.)

  @djeggnog wrote:

  So in less than five minutes the householder learns from the Bible that Jehovah is the true God, that Jesus is God's only-begotten son, that God sent Jesus to give his life as a ransom and that the very fact that Isaiah recorded this prophecy concerning Jesus some 730 years before Jesus' birth is proof that God exists.

  @moshe wrote:

  egggnogg, you and the rest of the JW blind ilk have confused opinion for fact here. The householder was told of your opinion, but it is not a proven fact. Jesus has been a no-show for almost 2000 years and every year that goes by, proves that the Jews were right all along- Jesus was not a Messiah.

  So if Jesus existed, then you would agree that God exists, correct? I fear this may be a waste of time, but many people believe that Jesus was the Messiah, for the Bible tells us how people felt about the sayings of John the Baptist at John 10:41, 42: "'As many things as John said about this man [the Messiah, Jesus Christ] were all true.' And many put faith in him there." At John 5:46, Jesus said "that one [Moses] wrote about me," and he told Peter at John 21:22, "If it is my will for him [John] to remain until I come, of what concern is that to you?"

  Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, 1.1 million Jews perished in 70 AD, but Christians escaped when Jerusalem was first besieged by Roman armies in 66 AD, for when the siege was lifted, they obediently left Jerusalem as Jesus told them to do, four years before the Romans besieged Jerusalem a second time and destroyed it. (Luke 19:43, 44; 21:20-22) According to John 6:14, after seeing the many miracles that Jesus performed, people were saying about him, "This is for a certainty the prophet that was to come into the world," and at John 7:31, "When the Christ arrives, he will not perform more signs than this man has performed, will he?"

  Really there is abundant evidence that Jesus was "the Messiah," or, as the Greek-speaking Jews would refer to him, "the Christ," but you probably won't believe any of it, and if you're not willing to believe what the Bible says, then you're right: It's just my opinion that Jesus was the Messiah, while as far as you are concerned, his existence is "not a proven fact."

  @wasblind:

  Christmas Cheer

  Why should Jehovah's Witnesses run from anyone?

  Because they might actually find the "TRUTH"

  This is just to acknowledge having read your post. Otherwise, no comment.

  @djeggnog
• 
  50

  JW's came to the door

  by pr0ner in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  ha i love it when they come to the door.

  two dub females came to the door.

  one of them seemed pretty intelligent and down to the earth.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @sabastious:

  Holy sh*t eggnog, that is a WALL of text.

  And...?

  @djeggnog wrote:

  Who knows, @wasblind? Sister Odd and Sister Nice could well make that return visit. Why do you need a return visit? Have you been considering making a return to God's organization or what?

  @wasblind wrote:

  Maybe, if they came back with the actual "TRUTH " they are not coming back, the real truth don't run !!!!!!! make it so bad they are running from their own works (literature)

  Why should Jehovah's Witnesses run from anyone? They have the truth and are now themselves entrants in the race for life.

  @3Mozzies:

  When I left the JWs, I felt liberated, I didn't have to listen to long boring fairy tales of them having the truth and the long round about way they would use 67 scriptures to prove one point. Now I'm here on this forum and I see some JW type so much they might as well write a novel from one post. They can call it: "Millions of words now that never end (die)"

  Well, it's like this: I was not posting a reply to just one post, as you are here doing, but a reply to 15+ posts, which ends up being a small novel. If you don't want to read a lot of words contained in a single post, then you should just skip my posts. I mean, why unnecessarily cause yourself such aggravation and angst?

  @steve2:

  Modern-day JWs are such limp-wristed pushovers; they fumble through the Bible like bumbling fools.

  You've never met me. I'm neither a "limp-wristed pushover," nor do I "fumble through the Bible like a bumbling fool." I hope this doesn't adversely impact your worldview though.

  Where are the fearsome, old-timer JWs who would fiercely lock horns with a flailing householder and slowly wear her down? Guess they're all dead now; waiting for the system to end is an [aging] business.

  I'm an "old-timer," and I'll lock horns with anyone, except the deliberately belligerent. I've waiting patiently for the system to end and am especially looking forward to seeing the talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians re a two-state solution go forward, since "whenever it is that they are saying: 'Peace and security!'.... (1 Thessalonians 5:3)

  Say what you like about those old-timers: They thoroughly knew their stuff and held to it with brutal force.

  Actually, unlike you, I know my "stuff."

  None of this feeble, "We didn't come here to argue with you..." Imagine if Judge Rutherford ever heard that kind of puffery from any of the rank and file!

  That's a myth. There is no "rank and file" in Jehovah's organization. All of us are brothers and sisters.

  @Aussie Oz:

  Oh crap, i just cant put into words what your post did to me.

  You might want to drink something sweet if someone I said in my post turned out to be somewhat bitter in your mouth, and then come back and tell me exactly what my post did to you. Say what you feel. (I can take it.)

  @djeggnog wrote:

  Did she [do good]?

  @AnnOMaly wrote:

  Yes s/he did. And the older lady apparently knew that 'joining a religion,' even if it is supposed to be the 'right' one, will not guarantee salvation - hence her hesitation to answer directly.

  That's not true and is utter nonsense where the religion practiced by Jehovah's Witnesses is concerned.

  @AnnOMaly wrote:

  You never know what's going on in this younger lady's head!

  @djeggnog wrote:

  Meaning what? That she might have become stumbled over the way in which the older woman (Sister Odd) conducted herself at @pr0ner's home? I don't believe so, but I'm wondering what it is you mean.

  @AnnOMaly wrote:

  Meaning, you never know what's going on in the younger lady's head for her to smile like that.

  Ok.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  Why were you thrilled when a householder "stumped" this "older JW sister 'sister'"? Were you and this sister at odds with one another for some reason so that you were looking for circumstances to arise that would make her more humble or what? Although you were "young and green," as you describe yourself as being, why didn't you help the sister instead of seeming to take sides against her with the householder "to smooth things over"?

  @AnnOMaly wrote:

  If you remember, I said she was a very overbearing know-it-all. Therefore, she got people's backs up - including householders' sometimes. It was thrilling to see her taken down a peg or two by someone who knew his stuff. And I've always been one to side with 'the facts' - no matter where they come from. The householder was correct; and the JW, in this instance, was arrogant in her ignorance which was giving a 'bad witness.'

  Yes, I recall what you said, but how in your mind did any of this (about Beth Serim) constitute a "bad witness"?

  @djeggnog wrote:

  This situation you describe here must have been rather uncomfortable for this older sister to have found herself, so what exactly did you say to this interested person about Beth Sarim that was all a ... matter of the "historical WT record" ... From what as to this Beth Sarim topic did this sister to whom you are referring here dissent from and so need to save face??

  @AnnOMaly wrote:

  No, the householder brought up the subject and my older JW partner was even vehemently denying that there ever was a Beth Sarim, let alone any of the story surrounding it.

  Ok.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  What was it that happened to you "years later"?

  @AnnOMaly wrote:

  Quite simply, I woke up.

  I think I set myself up for that response. <g> Ok, Ann!

  @Ding:

  You really amaze me when you tell me that JWs KNOW they have the truth.

  And...?

  Do you not realize that if you stood up in the Kingdom Hall today and proclaimed as truth things the Watchtower USED to require Jehovah's Witnesses to embrace as truth only a few years ago, you'd be disfellowshipped?

  That's a ridiculous notion you just suggested. The beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses are progressive, and not static, which means that there are things that we may have believed just five years ago, even a year ago, that was rejected and is not among what things we believe and teach others, since Jehovah's Witnesses do not try to hold on things they know to be falsehood, but they are always seeking to "make sure of all things [that they might] hold fast to what is fine," something that other Christian denominations simply do not and are unwilling to do since these other Christian denomination seem to have an interest any longer in studying the Bible, which is their choice. (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

  In fact, I challenge you to find any other religious organization that has changed what it teaches as truth more than the Watchtower has in the short 150 years or so of its existence.

  I don't care what other Christian denominations do or are doing. I'm only interested in what Jehovah's Witnesses are doing in furtherance of proclaiming the established heavenly kingdom of God by Christ Jesus. You are free to make a statistical analysis of such tripe if that is want you choose to do.

  Want some examples? Please don't gloss over these.

  Nope. I read them all (didn't gloss over any of what you listed in your post), but I don't care about things that were being taught before I became one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and I also do not care about what things were being taught since I became one of Jehovah's Witnesses that, through adjustments that were made over the years, Jehovah's Witnesses no longer believe nor teach.

  @pr0ner:

  LOLOLOLOLOLZZZZZZZZ TL;DR but what I did read. I love when they come to my door because I like to troll IRL and make them feel like idiots. Successful trolls are successful you can understand that right?

  A "successful troll"? Sounds like an oxymoron to me. I don't believe a troll can be successful, can he/she?

  @ziddina:

  And for DJ Eggnogg... Dude, your egg is CRACKED!!

  Ok.

  Even your on-board NAME is hypocritical!!! Grow some gray cells!!

  My name here is my "DJ" name on Live365.com (Eggnog Radio). Tell me this: What could possibly be "hypocritical" about my name?

  @pr0ner:

  Also for the record I am a guy, but if it helps eggnog to imagine me with tits I'm fine with that.

  I'm fine thinking of you as a guy, ipso facto guys just don't have mammaries. <g> I don't know why I thought you were female, but ok.

  @djeggnog
• 
  269

  Have your JW Relatives Explained about Generation/Overlap Change to You ?

  by flipper in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  after reading on the way out's thread about his mom explaining the generation overlap to him it kicked this idea into my head to make this thread .

  i thought it would be helpful to see if anybody here has had jw relatives or friends try to explain this " generation overlap " theory to you as a faded or inactive witness and what happened in the conversations.

  so please feel free to post your experiences.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @yknot:

  Gee DJEggnut, still pretending to be a JW?

  If I've been pretending, then you've not been paying attention.

  Really you aren't fooling anyone, they see you for the tool you chose to be.....

  Well, I have no comment, but just so you know, @yknot, as in that other thread, I will not in the future be responding to any more of these kinds of impertinent comments in this thread either.

  I want to like you DJ, but you are so out of touch with reality it is scary...... I have rarely met persons with such a lack of discernment of BASIC WT application!

  That you want to like me seems rather "scary" to me. By now, you must think me to be a mean person:

  (1) You made some comment to me about prayer, and I pointed out to you that God doesn't hear the prayers of trinitarians. I didn't think that you would take offense over my remarks, but I didn't care.

  (2) You made some remark about "divine nature" as if you understood the discussion that @Undisfellowshipped and I were having. I didn't much care to hear your comments on that topic because you know even less about what divine nature is than @Undisfellowshipped.

  (3) You chided me for not knowing that there was no letter "j" in Hebrew language, primarily because you thought you knew something that I didn't know. I've been so looking forward to your proving a negative though.

  (4) You charged that I didn't know the "organizational" definition of truth, and I suppose you are of the opinion that the truth is actually defined by an organization (one of your favorite words seems to me to be "organization").

  (5) You had been noticeably disturbed over my seeming disconnectedness with the organizational history of Jehovah's Witnesses (there's that word you like again, "organization").

  Now here you are again, @yknot, off-topic and saying absolutely nothing. If only you had something of substance to say to me....

  @The Finger:

  Thank you for taking the time to post Russell's views on the resurrection. I didn't mean to give the impression that JW's should be embracing the teachings of Russell however I do believe they should be honest as we all should be as we remember ananias and [sapphira] who were also imperfect.

  I don't see the relevance of Ananias and Sapphira here, but ok.

  The Watchtower I believe 1966 I'll just quote page 40

  "By means of this visible, composite sign, over a million persons in all parts of the globe today acknowledge that they have been enabled to "see" "the sign of the Son of man" and to recognize its meaning.

  I think the following to be a more complete quote:

  By means of this visible, composite sign, over a million persons in all parts of the globe today acknowledge that they have been enabled to "see" "the sign of the Son of man" and to recognize its meaning. They have witnessed the way in which the evidence has piled up year after year for more than half a century, which evidence testifies to the fact that as of the year 1914 "the sign of the Son of man" appeared in heaven.

  Jehovah's Witnesses no longer are of the belief that these million Jehovah's Witnesses in 1966 have ever seen "the sign of the Son of man" in heaven, or anywhere else for that matter. What is true though in the article from which your quote came is the following:

  This visible sign follows after and results from the invisible "sign of the Son of man," since it is composed of the many events and conditions that the Bible foretold would follow and result from the establishment of Christ’s Kingdom rule.

  There has been an adjustment in our view, for we now know that "the sign of the Son of man" will not appear in heaven until Jesus' second coming, which follows the great tribulation.

  @Mad Dawg:

  Eggnog, [Russell] did not predict an invisible coming of Christ in 1914. You know it and I know it. Right?

  You're right and I acknowledged this very point (and my error) the other day.

  Presumably, if you and I know it, the WTS knows it today as well. Agree?

  Agreed.

  If the WTS knows that Chuck did not predict the invisible coming of Christ in 1914, why don’t they correct this error among the R&F JW’s?

  Can you post here a citation from any of the WTS' publications that specifically indicate that Russell predicted "the invisible coming of Christ in 1914"? I'm not sure I've ever read anything that even comes close to such a statement.

  This matters for two reasons:

  · The WTS uses words they put in Chuck’s mouth to give themselves [legitimacy].

  · If they can’t be trusted to tell the truth on such a basic level, how can we trust them with anything else?

  These things you say here are just allegations, opinions that you believe to be true with which I disagree. I'd like to read one of these WTS publications wherein it is stated how Russell actually made a prediction as to "the invisible coming of Christ in 1914." Do you have anything like that?

  @DaCheech:

  the simplest of children can understand that jesus was talking about the 1st century "end of ............" jewish system. there is no 19th, 20th, 21th, or 2xxth century fullfillment

  Well, children will pretty much believe anything you tell them and draw whatever conclusion you tell them they must draw, but only a simple adult would buy into this viewpoint that you're sharing with me here. (I'm not a simple adult so you're going to have do better.)

  @djeggnog
• 
  50

  JW's came to the door

  by pr0ner in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  ha i love it when they come to the door.

  two dub females came to the door.

  one of them seemed pretty intelligent and down to the earth.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @pr0ner:

  Ha I love it when they come to the door.

  I was "surfing" the various threads when I came upon this one that you started, and what an interesting read I found it to be! I especially like @Ding's contribution to your thread, to which post I'll be responding in this post momentarily. I was curious as to why it was you "love it" when Jehovah's Witnesses come to your door when I believe you know that these folks are not motivated to visit people because they are paid to visit people at their homes, and when I also believe you know that Jehovah's Witnesses are volunteering of their time in advance of Jesus' second coming -- something about which non-Witnesses hardly know anything, although you, of course, would have heard about Jesus' second coming since you were formerly one of Jehovah's Witnesses -- to inform folks as to why it is they should be interested in what the Bible says people ought to be doing, and how what the Bible says will impact not just their life, the lives of their family and the people they know, but the lives of every human being alive today.

  Two dub females came to the door. One of them seemed pretty intelligent and down to the earth. The other one was well quite frankly a disaster. Firstly she pulled out a English WT and a Spanish Awake and was about to hand them to me. Not sure what I could do with the Spanish Awake but I stopped her. She was trying to place a WT \about what JWs believe.

  So, as I understand your description here, you kinda bonded with one of these two sisters -- I'll call her "Nice Sister" -- but you didn't bond so well or approve of the other one -- I'll call her "Odd Sister." Isn't it true though that first impressions can often cause us to make judgments about people that we may have only just met so that we oftentimes find ourselves making immediate assessments of someone's character within less than a couple of minutes' time.

  You seem to be indicating that you though Odd Sister to be rather "uncoordinated," or something to this effect -- I don't want to be here putting words into your mouth, as it were -- in that she tried to place in your hands a copy of what you describe in your post as a Watchtower about what things we believe. Well, actually, it was probably the August 2010 Awake! for on the cover of that English language magazine are the words "Jehovah's Witnesses-Who Are They?" Because this particular issue also contains the article, "What Do Jehovah's Witnesses Believe?" I suppose either Odd Sister or Nice Sister mentioned and/or showed this article to you since you mention it here.

  As to why Odd Sister may have been handing you a Spanish language Awake! I have no clue, but perhaps you seemed to her to have been of Hispanic descent or she was nervous at the door and mistakenly pulled out two Awake! magazines instead of a Watchtower and an Awake!, one of them being the Spanish language magazine you saw. Who knows?

  I told her I knew all to well who they were and what they believed. So she asked and I told her that while their individual members probably have good hearts they kind of just ambush people and quickly throw scriptures at them with out giving them time to think or actually debate.

  That's interesting, but perhaps you were not someone that was nervous at the door so that you quickly threw several scriptures out at the householder when you would visit people at their homes in the door-to-door ministry as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, but not all Jehovah's Witnesses are able to maintain a steady composure when working certain neighborhoods, or after a few minutes they manage to regain their composure at one door only to lose it again at the very next door. I'm comfortable speaking to one individual as I am in addressing 100 or 1,000 people, but I was raised in a Christian household and many of the folks that have such difficulties at the door may have only been baptized for less than five years having been a baptized publisher before getting baptized for less than a year!

  You say that you have found individual members to have "good hearts," but that they tend to "ambush people" when they "quickly throw scriptures" at the folks to whom they are speaking without giving the householder "time to think" or to "debate," but, you, being a former Witness, would know that the economy of the time we're spending at people's doors is important since we are often covering the assigned territory with other brothers and sisters, five minutes -- ten minutes top -- is all we can afford to spend at a single door if the plan for the group is to visit all of the homes on a particular street or in a particular area.

  I have to set an the example for others who are as inclined, as I am, to convert the householder's front door into a barber shop or a coffee shop, and allow themselves to be Q&A'd by one householder for 15, 20, 30 minutes' time with brothers and sisters kinda forced to stand around near or in front of the house listening to the Q&A because the brother and the sister at the door have totally forgotten that the people that rode with each of them in their cars expect to catch a ride back to their own cars, which they left at the Kingdom Hall when forming car groups to the territory.

  Over the years I've heard some fine public talks given by some of our sisters at the front door, some of them pioneers, some of them not pioneers, and not one of them were tied to any notes, and, of course, many of the brothers find someone that wants to talk to us in the territory, and they could be at that door for at least an hour giving a public talk although talks are now limited to about 30 minutes.

  We've got territories here in Los Angeles, Beverly Hills, West Hollywood and in the San Fernando Valley (Van Nuys, Encino, Woodland Hills) where it might seem the doors are wide open to us with no one trying to hide from us by pretending that they are not home, with people that warmly greet us anticipating our imminent visit to their respective homes, even promising (some of them) to see us in a moment as we get to them, only to have a phone planted to their ear as we finally arrive at their doors. Of course, we make the "see you later" motion with one of our hands, but it isn't an "ambush" when on way back to our cars we should catch them in front of their own homes without a phone to their ears, is it?

  I keep it short and remind the householder that we have found many folks over the years were stunned to learn that Jesus is the proof that God exists. That I'm sure that he or she had heard more than once how God's love for the world led Him to give his only-begotten son as a ransom for our sake, but where most people that scripture at John 3:16 with the scripture in Isaiah that proves that God exists. I don't tell the householder from where in Isaiah I'm going to be reading because I want to leave the householder with something to think and I want to be brief, so I just read four verses -- Isaiah 42:1, 5-7:

  Look! My servant, on whom I keep fast hold! My chosen one, [whom] my soul has approved! I have put my spirit in him. Justice to the nations is what he will bring forth. 5 This is what the [true] God, Jehovah, has said, the Creator of the heavens and the Grand One stretching them out; the One laying out the earth and its produce, the One giving breath to the people on it, and spirit to those walking in it: 6 "I myself, Jehovah, have called you in righteousness, and I proceeded to take hold of your hand. And I shall safeguard you and give you as a covenant of the people, as a light of the nations, 7 [for you] to open the blind eyes, to bring forth out of the dungeon the prisoner, out of the house of detention those sitting in darkness.

  I tell the householder that what I just read to him or her was a prophecy concerning God's only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ, "the light of the world," about whom the prophet Isaiah wrote 730 years before he was born, and that Matthew's gospel confirms that Jesus is the one that the prophecy refers to as "my servant," the one who 'gave his life as a ransom' for us, which proves not only that God exists, but that is stands to reason that anyone that could predict 730 years in advance the exact year when mankind's savior would be born would have to be the true God.

  I then tell the householder that I meet a lot of people and some of them are atheists, so the very next time you should hear one say there is no God, you can ask the person to explain to you how a prophet could have written about Jesus' birth some 730 years in advance if it were really true that God doesn't exist? See what he says and tell me about it the next time I come through here.

  So in less than five minutes the householder learns from the Bible that Jehovah is the true God, that Jesus is God's only-begotten son, that God sent Jesus to give his life as a ransom and that the very fact that Isaiah recorded this prophecy concerning Jesus some 730 years before Jesus' birth is proof that God exists.

  Notice that I referred to John 3:16, John 8:12, Matthew 1:25 and Matthew 12:18-21, but I only quoted one scripture: Isaiah 42:1, 5-7. Would you regard that as me "ambushing" someone?

  Immediately I was asked if I had studied with JWs. lol I wasn't born yesterday so I told them, "no but I've done religious studies and one of the groups I focused on were Jehovah's Witnesses". She then asked if she could read me a scripture. So I obliged. Well she went to Romans, then before I could even say anything she tried to jump to some scripture in Luke or something. So I stopped her right there and said, "see you just tried to throw a scripture on before we could even discuss the scripture in Romans". So I basically derailed her which she was none too pleased about. Anyways I kept derailing most of their arguments.

  So Sister Odd quoted something from Romans and you stopped her from quoting something from Luke, because you wanted to discuss the scripture in Romans with her, right? What exactly were you discussing with Sister Odd and Sister Nice that led to your "derailing most of their arguments"? If you can remember any of these arguments of hers that you derailed, I'd be curious to know what they were.

  BTW, did you think that had you told her that you had once been one of Jehovah's Witnesses that she would not have talked to you? If not, then why did you lie and tell her that you had been a religious student and that your focus had been on Jehovah's Witnesses?

  This of course led to them leaving on the basis that I was being hostile. Even though she was being very rude to me by trying to over talk me and accuse me judging [sic]. How surprising. Her partner who was much younger and cute I might add seemed to be a little bit embarrassed by her. So she would chime in and try to calm her down. She is supposed to be coming again probably on Saturday morning to "discuss" things. If she even comes. She told me to read John 6:44 and think about it. lolz.

  So Sister Odd quoted some from Romans, she mentioned something from Luke and then, before she and Sister Nice left, Sister Odd asked you to read John 6:44, correct? Are you saying that they did not give you any time to think about or to debate the Romans scripture that was used? At any rate, I might suggest, if the two sisters do come back on Saturday morning as you and they agreed, maybe at the outset you should let them both know that if either of them is rude to do that you will have to show them to the door, that you only agreed to "'discuss' things" with them and that you did not agree to let them be mean to you. Just a suggestion.

  I also got to try one of the things I've thought about recently. Which is I asked, "can you 100% without a doubt say that if I join your religion I will be saved?". She then started back peddling and trying to avoid. So I asked again, to which her friend chimed in and said, "well of course not we can't judge your heart".

  Well, I don't know what "back peddling" was done, but Sister Nice didn't respond to your question. Your question was, "Can you 100% without a doubt say that if I join your religion I will be saved?" Whether you were formerly one of Jehovah's Witnesses or actively one of Jehovah's Witnesses or had been an atheist I would have answered your question with a "Yes." I have no doubt whatsoever that anyone that believes on the Lord Jesus Christ will be saved. (Acts 16:31) I see no problem with your question as phrased, @pr0ner.

  So then I quickly said, " then why are you here? What reason do I have to join your religion?".

  Well, one's own salvation would be the reason that one would join our form of worship, that one would begin to regularly associate with Jehovah's Witnesses in worship of the only true God. What other reason could there be?

  The young one just had no answer at all and the older one brought up the, "look we are not here to argue with you". To which I said, "excuse me you came to my door. I didn't come to yours. You came here trying to convince me that YOU are right and I am wrong. So by default you did come here to argue". Again that kind of stopped her in her tracks and she had to go on to another point.

  I would have told you that it isn't true that "by default" (whatever that means!) my talking to you at your home to discuss the Bible does not mean that I'm there to convince you of anything. Jehovah's Witnesses seek to make disciples, followers of Christ Jesus, and are not about making proselytes. IOW, we don't seek to force anyone to convert to our religion, so obviously we don't visit folks at their home to argue with them over religious viewpoints.

  I really think the younger one might have been a little bad or something cause [she] had a smirk on her face like she was happy I was putting this older woman in her place when it came to bible stuff. It was all too easy as the older one wasn't too smart and was even making up her own words.

  I'd really like to know what all of this is supposed to mean about Sister Nice having a smirk on her face because you had put Sister Odd in her place when it came to the Bible. You also say that Sister Odd "wasn't too smart and was even making up her own words," but I have no idea what this means so if you could just elaborate a bit on this, I'd appreciate it.

  @Meeting Junkie No More:

  You done good! DERAIL - excellent! Will be my new tactic as well...

  Why?

  @thetrueone:

  Reverse psychology , I like it.

  I didn't see anything in @pr0ner's post akin to "reverse psychology." What do you mean by this exactly?

  One thing you can do that would really make a JW head spin is show by the WTS. own literature how commercially false they are about their doctrines. They are completely indoctrinated with end time prophecies

  I'm one of Jehovah's Witnesses and I think having my head spin around could be rather delightful? Delight me with proof that I have been "indoctrinated" with anything.

  when you pick their supposed dates such as 1914 they nervously back off and crumble.

  Let's see: The year 1914 is the year when Jesus' invisible presence began, which is when the visible sign of Jesus' presence began with the outbreak of World War I. Is there anything in particular about the year 1914 that you believe I should, as one of Jehovah's Witnesses myself, "nervously back off and crumble"?

  Its a disingenuous book publishing cult that programs people what to think and how to think all pretentiously set as if they were being spiritually guided .

  Are you attacking Jehovah's Witnesses or is your attack really directed at the WTS, the publishing arm of Jehovah's Witnesses? If not both, then which?

  @cantleave:

  Great work. I hope she does come back, so you can update us.

  In what respect did you find @pr0ner's "work " to be "great"?

  @pr0ner wrote:

  It was all too easy as the older one wasn't too smart and was even making up her own words.

  @Justitia Themis wrote:

  You did a great job 'refudiating' her arguments. :)

  How exactly did @pr0ner's do what you say she did?

  @pr0ner wrote:

  "no but I've done religious studies and one of the groups I focused on were Jehovah's Witnesses

  @Justitia Themis wrote:

  I'm going to use this line/thought if you don't mind.

  What 'line of thought,' if you don't mind?

  @looloo:

  nice one i liked the one about the young sister smirking !

  Now why is that? You thought that part of @pr0ner's tale to be funny, did you?

  @pr0ner wrote:

  I asked, "can you 100% without a doubt say that if I join your religion I will be saved?".... So then I quickly said, " then why are you here? What reason do I have to join your religion?"

  @Heaven wrote:

  Classic! You nailed this one.

  Nailed what one?

  This is one of my biggest issues with any religion claiming they are the only 'true' one.

  Well, if Jehovah is the true God (and He is!) and Jesus is the truth (and He is!) then those of us that listen to Jehovah and follow the truth in connection with Christ Jesus would have to be associated with "the only 'true'" religion. There's only one "narrow gate" and just one road that leads off into life; there is also just one way, and Jesus is "the Way." (John 14:6)

  Regarding the WTS and JWs, no where in the Bible does it say handing out Watchtower and Awake! magazines ensures your eternal life. My Mom tried this one on me when I was a kid so I checked out the Bible. It simply isn't there. So if it's not guaranteed, why join? There is absolutely no point.

  Not one of Jehovah's Witnesses has ever been taught that their handing out Watchtower and Awake! magazines would ensure anyone of gaining eternal life. Jehovah's Witnesses do not teach things that the Bible does not teach, and so you should not have expected to find such a false "doctrine" contained anywhere in the Bible. The guarantee, however, is that if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and exercise faith in your heart that God raised Jesus up from the dead, that you will be saved, that is to say, that you will 100% be saved. (Romans 10:9) Jehovah is the God of the entire earth, and the promises of Jehovah, including life here on an earth made new, "is the hereditary possession of the servants of Jehovah, and their righteousness is from [Jehovah]." (Isaiah 54:5, 17) This is a promise that comes, not from Jehovah's Witnesses, but from they true God. (Jeremiah 10:10)

  @Open mind:

  I loved your response to "We didn't come here to argue"! Good job.

  What was so lovely about @pr0ner's response? Why do you think the way she handled things on that occasion to have been such a "good job" in your opinion?

  @pr0ner wrote:

  I also got to try one of the things I've thought about recently. Which is I asked, "can you 100% without a doubt say that if I join your religion I will be saved?". She then started back peddling and trying to avoid. So I asked again, to which her friend chimed in and said, "well of course not we can't judge your heart". So then I quickly said, " then why are you here? What reason do I have to join your religion?"

  @AnnOMaly wrote:

  LOLOL! You did good!

  Did she?

  @pr0ner wrote:

  I really think the younger one might have been a little bad or something cause had a smirk on her face like she was happy I was putting this older woman in her place when it came to bible stuff. It was all too easy as the older one wasn't too smart and was even making up her own words.

  @AnnOMaly wrote:

  You never know what's going on in this younger lady's head!

  Meaning what? That she might have become stumbled over the way in which the older woman (Sister Odd) conducted herself at @pr0ner's home? I don't believe so, but I'm wondering what it is you mean.

  It reminds me of the situations I got into (when I was young and green) with an older JW 'sister' who had known me from year dot. She was a very overbearing know-it-all who would interrupt and talk over me when it was MY turn. Real annoying, but I was too in awe of her to make an issue of it. It thrilled me no end when householders stumped her or got the better of her. I tried to intervene between her and the householder too sometimes to smooth things over.

  Why were you thrilled when a householder "stumped" this "older JW sister 'sister'"? Were you and this sister at odds with one another for some reason so that you were looking for circumstances to arise that would make her more humble or what? Although you were "young and green," as you describe yourself as being, why didn't you help the sister instead of seeming to take sides against her with the householder "to smooth things over"?

  One time (and I was still a young, wide-eyed, loyal dubbie), there was this guy who went on and on about Beth Sarim. She puffed out her feathers and said he was talking garbage. I turned to her (in front of him) and said he was correct, that what he described really did happen, that it was a matter of historical WT record. She was almost clucking like a bewildered chicken trying to save face. Priceless.

  This situation you describe here must have been rather uncomfortable for this older sister to have found herself, so what exactly did you say to this interested person about Beth Sarim that was all a part matter of the "historical WT record"?

  There isn't anything sinister about Beth-Sarim where J.F. Rutherford came to live for some 13 years, where he lived during the winters from 1929 until his death on January 8, 1942, due to his health, after he had lost one of his lungs following his imprisonment back in 1919 where he developed a severe case of pneumonia, is there? Rutherford had been back in forth between Brooklyn, New York, and San Diego, California, under doctor's care until someone made a direct contribution for the purpose of constructing a house in San Diego for his use. It wasn't as if Beth-Sarim was built at WTS expense, and after Rutherford's death, the property was conveyed to the WTS, who eventually sold the property as was made clear in the Watchtower of December 15, 1947.

  Specifically, as to the zany idea that Jehovah's Witnesses had about the possibility of using Beth-Sarim to house Abraham, Joseph and David -- whose resurrection Jehovah's Witnesses had at that time anticipated to occur from Armageddon -- this notion as to these men being resurrected before the end of this system of things and serving as "princes in all the earth" (in fulfillment of Psalm 45:16) was abandoned as the Watchtower of November 1, 1950, which indicates that an adjustment in understanding occurred making it clear that pre-Christian men and women of faith would be resurrected after Armageddon. One must always keep in mind that Jehovah's Witnesses are neither perfect nor infallible, nor are any of the things printed by the WTS as aids to Bible study writings inspired by God. From what as to this Beth Sarim topic did this sister to whom you are referring here dissent from and so need to save face?

  And look what happened to me years later! So you never know.

  Did something that occurred when you were "young and green" cause you to leave the truth or were you disfellowshipped for some reason? What was it that happened to you "years later"?

  @Soldier77:

  rock on dude. great job!

  What is that "great job" that the "dude" actually do here? (I wonder if @pr0ner permits herself to be referred to as a "dudette" or not, but is might be a bit more appropriate than "dude.")

  @Ding:

  Since JWs think they have the truth and no one else does, it's almost impossible to tell them anything directly.

  Actually, Jehovah's Witnesses know that they have the truth.

  They think it's their job to explain "the truth" to ignorant people at the door, so I let them.

  No, they don't. We shouldn't be wasting our time trying to explain the truth to ignorant people, at the door or anywhere else for that matter. What you're saying here is not correct.

  I simply ask lots of questions and I do my best NOT to be sarcastic. That way, I'm not arguing and they have to grapple with the scriptures instead of with me.

  Oh, so you're among the "ignorant people" to which you were just referring. I didn't get that you might have been referring to yourself as ignorant.

  For example, if they tell me Jesus is "a god", I say, "Wow, that really puzzles me." They'll ask why and I'll say, "Well, there are some passages in the Bible that seem to me to say the opposite. Would you be willing to look at them and explain them to me?" Of course, they say yes, and I show them verses like Isaiah 43:10-11 and Isaiah 44:6 and Isaiah 44:24. I let them read out the verses.

  Well, what would you tell me? I'm one of Jehovah's Witnesses and, as it happens, I believe that Jesus is an immortal God and has been since his resurrection back in 33 AD (just as the apostle Thomas came to realize as can be gleaned by what he exclaims after Jesus' resurrection at John 20:28), and I, too, am familiar with Isaiah 43:10, 11, Isaiah 44:6 and Isaiah 44:24.

  At Isaiah 43:10, Jehovah states that even his "servant" (Isaiah 42:1-7; 43:10) whom he had chosen -- that "servant" being prophetically the Lord Jesus Christ -- is one of His witnesses, even as Jehovah has His Witnesses today. Maybe you missed that part of the verse, so I'm stressing this just for you. Also, the context of Isaiah 43:10, 11, is very important, for it is about who is a true God -- an almighty God that can predict future events -- and who isn't a true God, such as those graven idols of wood that Israel had made to worship, who were just "molten images are wind and unreality." (Isaiah 41:29) I don't know; maybe you didn't realize this. Let me continue:

  "Who is there among [these molten idols] that can tell this? Or can they cause us to hear even the first things? Let [these molten idols] furnish their witnesses.... The formers of the carved image are all of them an unreality, and their darlings themselves will be of no benefit; and as their witnesses they see nothing and know nothing, in order that they may be ashamed. Who has formed a god or cast a mere molten image? Of no benefit at all has it been.... He planted the laurel tree.... So he takes part of it that he may warm himself. In fact he builds a fire and actually bakes bread. He also works on a god to which he may bow down. He has made it into a carved image, and he prostrates himself to it. Half of it he actually burns up in a fire. Upon half of it he roasts well the flesh that he eats, and he becomes satisfied.... But the remainder of it he actually makes into a god itself, into his carved image. He prostrates himself to it and bows down and prays to it and says: "Deliver me, for you are my god." (Isaiah 43:9; 44:9, 10, 14-17)

  At Isaiah 43:11, Jehovah says, "Besides me there is no savior." Is that a problem for you that Jehovah should say this when you know other places in the Bible -- scriptures like Luke 2:11, Acts 5:31, 2 Timothy 1:10 and Titus 1:4, and John 4:22 and 1 John 4:14 -- that describe Jesus as being a "savior," or as being "the savior of the world"? And Jehovah is also our Savior, is He not? (Titus 2:10; 3:4; Jude 25), Of course, Jehovah can be a Savior and he can raise up someone else as a savior, too, can he not? (Judges 3:9, 15) I mean, Jehovah is the true God with prerogatives like these, isn't he? (Jeremiah 10:10)

  So while there might be to you a few Bible passages that seem to you to say that Jesus isn't a God, but if you were thinking to use Isaiah 43:10, 11, Isaiah 44:6 and Isaiah 44:24, well, if I were the Witness to whom you were saying these things, you would have another think coming!

  If they get really quiet, I DON'T break the silence. I pray silently for God to open their eyes.

  And to whom exactly do you pray? There is only one true God, whose name is Jehovah, and a Christian's prayers are properly directed to Jehovah through the Lord Jesus Christ, but I'm guessing that you don't believe in that God, so I'm wondering to whom do you pray and through whom if you aren't one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

  If they tell me about "lords many and gods many" or the "right" translation of John 1:1, I'll say, "I'm sorry, I just don't understand. This verse in Isaiah seems to me to be saying that although people may recognize all sorts of 'gods,' Jehovah doesn't recognize any as legitimate" or "Jehovah says he stretched out the heavens and earth by himself and I thought I heard you say he did it through Michael the archangel." Isn't that a contradiction?

  And as soon as you mentioned "Jehovah" and "Michael the archangel," which such a discussion between you and any one of Jehovah's Witnesses, your subterfuge would be over, for your having also used scriptures like Isaiah 43:10-11, Isaiah 44:6 and Isaiah 44:24 -- scriptures that trinitarians often use when seeking to support their viewpoint to Jehovah's Witnesses -- would "out" you as an apostate. I'm just telling you that in this you're not as smart or as covert as you might think yourself to be.

  If we come to an [impasse], sometimes I'll say, "Well, I hear you, but it just seems to me that this verse is saying... DO YOU SEE WHY I UNDERSTAND IT THAT WAY?" That's usually a key question. Honest dubs will say yes. Hardened dubs will say no but then they come across as real jerks while I am being a nice guy.

  You are just in your head with this. Like I said, covert this isn't, and if there is an "impasse," it's probably be in your head. (IOW, there won't be anything real actually taking place.)

  @thetrueone:

  When you turn a mirror on a JW at the door they usually get scared and run away.

  Turn a mirror on me at any time; I won't get scared or run.

  Truth and religion have never really met, even with the WTS. publishing corporation.

  What is that supposed to mean? Is this a secret about which you aren't permitted to tell anyone? If not, pray tell.

  But hey if I owned a religious publishing house I would self proclaim my organization as the one and only true religion too.

  This is just a ridiculous statement and totally meaningless. Come again?

  @wasblind:

  pr0ner, don't hold you breath, i'm still waiting on my return visits i just enjoy when they come to my door now, i make it a point to open my blinds and doors on sat mornings, for all those who live in fear of JW's knocking on your door, learn from this site , JWfacts, and Freeminds. And you will never be afraid again.

  Who knows, @wasblind? Sister Odd and Sister Nice could well make that return visit. Why do you need a return visit? Have you been considering making a return to God's organization or what?

  @ShirleyW:

  Good point Wasblind !!

  What did @wasblind say that was such a good point? I didn't discern one.

  Unfortunately/and fortunately, I live in a co-op building and they're not allowed to go door to door here. Sometimes I wish they did so I could give them a little "schooling" myself . . !

  Oh, well!

  @Justitia Themis:

  I'm going to use this line/thought if you don't mind.

  What line? This one from @pr0ner:

  I asked, "can you 100% without a doubt say that if I join your religion I will be saved?".... So then I quickly said, " then why are you here? What reason do I have to join your religion?"

  But why would you be using it? For fun and grins or for what purpose?

  Of course. I was glad I thought fast and said that. It forces them around just thinking you are "angry" at the religion. Even though she still tried to accuse me of only reading what I wanted to read. lol. I really hope she comes back.

  I think I missed something. Huh?

  @wasblind wrote:

  pr0ner, don't hold you breath, i'm still waiting on my return visits i just enjoy when they come to my door now, i make it a point to open my blinds and doors on sat mornings, for all those who live in fear of JW's knocking on your door, learn from this site , JWfacts, and Freeminds. And you will never be afraid again.

  @Justitia Themis wrote:

  Yea I wouldn't be too surprised if they she didn't come back. I really had her on the ropes and I suspect that she might assume I'm an "apostate" trying to use dirty tricks to get to her....which I am.

  Oh, I see. Ok.

  However I hope that she bought the whole "I'm just a scholar" argument. I tried to be cautious of not using much JW lingo. I would say things like, "If I go to you're church or what do you call it again? A Kingdom Hall?". Stuff like that. So hopefully it threw her off enough to where she will want to come back. If she does though I bet it's with an elder.

  You may be able to deceive one or more Jehovah's Witnesses into not realizing that you are "an 'apostate' trying to use dirty tricks" to get to them, but I hope you know that my God is real, and that you cannot deceive Jehovah. Have fun.

  @djeggnog
• 
  269

  Have your JW Relatives Explained about Generation/Overlap Change to You ?

  by flipper in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  after reading on the way out's thread about his mom explaining the generation overlap to him it kicked this idea into my head to make this thread .

  i thought it would be helpful to see if anybody here has had jw relatives or friends try to explain this " generation overlap " theory to you as a faded or inactive witness and what happened in the conversations.

  so please feel free to post your experiences.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @The Finger wrote:

  However it seems to me from reading Matt. 24. that Christ warned there would be those that said he was here when he wasn't. CT Russell seemed to be one who claimed that. It seems F Franz claimed he had seen the "sign of the son of man" when he hadn't. What am I to think?

  @djeggnog wrote:

  At Matthew 24:23-26, Jesus was telling his disciples about visible Messiahs, about "false Christs" that would rise up so as to mislead the chosen ones:

  "Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look! Here is the Christ,’ or, ‘There!’ do not believe it. For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will give great signs and wonders so as to mislead, if possible, even the chosen ones. Look! I have forewarned you. Therefore, if people say to you, ‘Look! He is in the wilderness,’ do not go out; ‘Look! He is in the inner chambers,’ do not believe it."

  Your question here cannot have anything at all to do with Jesus' warning his disciples in the first century AD about the emergence of "false Christs," especially considering that Jesus said these things would occur before the "great tribulation" that occurred in 70 AD as made clear at the very beginning of Matthew 24:29:

  "Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened...."

  The point is that Russell made no such claim at all....

  @The Finger wrote:

  In verse 26, It sounds to me that he is saying the "false Christ , false Prophet" is not visible to them as he says "do not go out" I'm assuming this to mean to the wilderness and they should not go out to see as he then goes on to say that his presence would be like [lightning] something which is very visible and clearly links this scripture to the presence.

  You are making no sense to me here; you don't seem at all to be familiar with the meaning of Jesus' prophecy as to his presence during the "conclusion of the system of things" in which we are now living. In referring to Matthew 24:26, you are guessing as to what Jesus was saying in this portion of his prophecy about "lightning."

  These ideas and teachings of CT Russell and others that you distance yourself from are the reason and basis for your preaching and message of 1914 and the generation.

  I do not discount the role Russell had in connection with the fulfillment of Bible prophecy, for in many ways he was like John the Baptist, except that Russell prepared the way for that "lightning" about which you were here speculating to "[come] out of eastern parts and [shine] over to western parts" just as Jesus said "the presence of the Son of man [would] be." (Matthew 24:27) Based on the groundwork done by Russell, Jehovah's Witnesses today have brought the light of truth like a flash of lightning to inform folks about the manifestation of the composite sign, which gives evidence of his invisible presence, and to urge them to get out of Babylon before Jesus' second coming, that these folks might flee from the darkness of antitypical Jerusalem (Christendom) during Jesus' presence before the great tribulation begins. (Revelation 18:4, 5; Matthew 24:21)

  A basis that as one can see how easy it was for Russell to be wrong when it comes to an invisible presence of Christ likewise today with the ever extending generation it would cause one to question the invisible presence especially as the WT has claimed millions have seen the sign of Matthew 24:30 only to realise again, they haven't.

  You said, "the WT," but assuming that you are here referring to what the WTS has claimed regarding "the sign of the Son of man" at Matthew 24:30, I can tell you at least two (2) things concerning this: (1) Pastor Russell was not wrong in his discerning that Christ's presence would be an invisible one, because the beginning of Christ's presence began in the year 1914, and (2) the WTS has never claimed that millions have already seen the "sign" to which Jesus refers at Matthew 24:30, for the "sign of the Son of man" involves the appearance in the skies of celestial phenomena of some sort which indicates Jesus' invisible second "coming" in which Jesus' comes "on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory," which "sign of the Son of man" causes "all the tribes of the earth [to] beat themselves in lamentation."

  What this celestial event will be, it will occur "immediately after the tribulation of those days" in 70 AD, meaning that there would be no intervening events that would occur between the "great tribulation" of 70 AD and the climax of the "great tribulation" during Jesus' presence when Babylon the Great ("antitypical Jerusalem") and the war of the great day -- Armageddon -- occurs bringing to an end this system of things. (Matthew 24:29)

  If you, as you claim are a JW do you think the WT is open and honest about [its] history, if you teach others and yet did not know what Russell taught?

  I've been one of Jehovah's Witnesses for many years, and I'm quite familiar with what things the Bible teaches as well as with many of the things that Pastor Russell taught that required some adjustment, and, since Russell, Rutherford and Knorr, Jehovah's Witnesses have abandoned many former teachings that we found to have been in error, just as Russell had to divest himself of many of the former beliefs he had held in common with Christendom. Keeping in mind that although an imperfect man, Jehovah blessed Russell's effort to uncover the truth and to expose doctrinal errors during his lifetime, which paved the way for Jehovah's Witnesses to do the same in our likewise proclaiming Jesus' presence and the imminent conclusion of this system of things.

  If you wish to believe that Jehovah's Witnesses ought to be embracing all of the teachings of Pastor Russell, it's your choice to believe whatever it is you wish, but knowing what I know today about the resurrection, for example, if you were to go back to Zion's Watch Tower, in the issue dated April 15, 1900, the article entitled, "Christ the First to Rise From the Dead" (pp. 2617, 2618), you might then understand why I would have no difficulty helping Russell to appreciate that the restoration of life back to Jairus' 12-year-old daughter by Jesus was nonetheless a resurrection, despite the fact that Jesus knew that the little girl would eventually die again. In this article, Russell argues that what Jesus did was merely awaken the 12-year-old girl from the sleep of death, or 'temporarily suspended life forces' (whatever that means!), for he says that Jesus left the girl "upon the same plane of death on which she had been born." (An excerpt from this article is appended to this post.)

  So what Russell had taught, in effect, back in the year 1900, was that what happened to Jesus' friend, Lazarus, didn't really constitute a resurrection either, for Russell would say that Lazarus was merely awakened from the sleep of death, but this idea of his was wrong then and it's wrong now, for such a view only tortures the poor word "resurrection," and I'd have to tell him so.

  Evidently, Russell believed that in order for Jesus to be the "firstfruits" of the resurrection, that no one could properly be said to have experienced a resurrection before Jesus, but this is not what "firstfruits" means. Jesus was resurrected in 33 AD as the first human being to have been resurrected to life as an immortal God with an incorruptible body, so while Jesus was the "firstfruits" of such a resurrection, those of Jesus' anointed followers would themselves experience the same resurrection to life as an immortal God with an incorruptible body as he, except their resurrection would not take place until sometime during Jesus' presence. (1 Corinthians 15:20, 23)

  Russell knew some of the truth, but Jehovah's Witnesses today know so much more of the truth than did Russell in his day, and there's no question in my mind that he loved God. But Russell's definition of "resurrection" as being lifted "up to the grand heights of perfection of mind and body" and "out of mental, moral and physical degradation," is not exactly how the Bible defines the word, which is why many Jehovah's Witnesses are being trained now how to handle someone with the personality of a Charles Taze Russell because tact will definitely be a requirement when speaking the truth to the resurrected dead with such cocksure personalities during Judgment Day.

  Again, I am familiar with many of the things that Pastor Russell taught, but I don't follow Russell nor do I care what he believed in 1900 or until he died in 1916. He was a God-fearing man and I respect the man, but I am a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ, and not Pastor Russell. If Jehovah's Witnesses were to become follower's of men, they would be a cult, but we do not follow men at all, so whether you should read something in the Watchtower magazine or in any of the WTS publications that you believe to be less candid about our history, maybe you're right, but human beings are imperfect, and so if someone were to judge any of us with a focus on our faults, no one could catch a break because we are all imperfect, aren't we? Jehovah's Witnesses are today concentrating on the work that we are now doing worldwide for a witness before the end comes, so we aren't as concerned about perfection right now, for perfection will come for us as well as the resurrected dead during the Millennium Reign of Christ Jesus.

  "Christ the First to Rise From the Dead"

  Zion's Watch Tower, April 15, 1900

  EXCERPT

  The selection of the narrative of the awakening of the daughter of Jairus as an Easter lesson was no doubt under the common but mistaken supposition that the miracle performed upon this child was similar to the miracle of our Lord’s resurrection, which Easter Sunday generally celebrates. We will examine the lesson on its own merits, and then see that the Scriptures distinctly and pointedly distinguish between the two miracles-and that the miracle performed upon Jairus’ daughter is nowhere designated a resurrection, nor was it such in fact.... Death would not have been even figuratively called sleep, except for the provision for a resurrection, nor would it have been appropriate had no awakening of the dead been intended.

  AWAKENING OF THE DEAD NOT RESURRECTION

  The maid awakened to life and consciousness. She did not come back from heaven or from hell, but merely awakened out of the sleep of death, and renewed the experiences of life as before. Such an awakening from sleep--such a restoration of the life forces that had been temporarily suspended, is of the nature of a resurrection, but is not a resurrection. We are to remember that the maiden was not alive before--that perfect life has not been enjoyed by any member of Adam's race since father Adam's fall into disobedience and under the divine sentence of death. As the Apostle declares, "In Adam all die," and again, "Death passed upon all," and this maiden was no exception to the rule. Our Lord, in speaking on the subject, implied that none have life in any sense of the word, except those who accept him, and they only in a reckoned sense by faith. His words were. "Let the dead bury their dead." "He that hath the Son hath life." As the maiden was therefore legally dead, without perfect life, and without the right to it, before she fell asleep, so likewise, when she awakened, in answer to our Lord’s command, she awakened merely to that death condition in which she previously was.

  To have resurrected her he would have meant to have lifted her completely out of death in every sense of the word, out of mental, moral and physical degradation, up to the grand heights of perfection of mind and body, as represented in the person of father Adam, and our Lord did nothing of this kind. He merely awakened her, leaving her upon the same plane of death on which she had been born, and had thus far lived for twelve years. The maiden will still have her opportunity of sharing in the general "resurrection by judgments" or restitution during the Millennial age--unless at some subsequent time she accepted the Gospel of the Lord Jesus, and became one of his followers, a member of the church of this Gospel age; in which event she would, if faithful, be accounted worthy of a part in the chief or first resurrection to glory, honor and immortality. But the point we here make is merely that this lesson does not treat of her resurrection, but of her awakening. [Id. at pp. 2617, 2618.]

  @flipper:

  Perhaps you will recall writing the following to me in one of your previous posts:

  You didn't show me the courtesy of answering my questions to you . I answered the ones you asked me ! Now show some fruitages of that holy spirit you're eagerly talking about !

  I believe I asked you a question similar to a question that I had previously asked you, but you have yet to reply to it for some reason. Maybe you do not intend to reply to it, and that's fine, but I just thought I would bring to your attention the fact that you have yet to respond to my post.

  For your convenience, here's the relevant portion of that post to which you have not posted a definitive reply in which you had stated the following:

  Jehovah's Witnesses are not God's organization led by [Holy] spirit . It's a magazine printing company taking advantage of people's false hopes.

  Now I understand that you don't believe Jehovah's Witnesses are being led by holy spirit, but with respect to what Jesus' meant at Matthew 24:34 by "this generation," are you saying that this latest adjustment regarding the meaning of "this generation" is proof that Jehovah's Witnesses are not guided by holy spirit or do you mean something else?

  @djeggnog
• 
  269

  Have your JW Relatives Explained about Generation/Overlap Change to You ?

  by flipper in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  after reading on the way out's thread about his mom explaining the generation overlap to him it kicked this idea into my head to make this thread .

  i thought it would be helpful to see if anybody here has had jw relatives or friends try to explain this " generation overlap " theory to you as a faded or inactive witness and what happened in the conversations.

  so please feel free to post your experiences.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @flipper:

  I just explained to you what this " field service time " is.... Am I clear ?

  It is clear that you aren't comprehending what it is I've been saying to you here. But that's ok. I believe I know what the problem is here.

  I've decided not to post any comment to the rest of your post, but I need to ask you a follow-up question based on something you stated in a previous post:

  Jehovah's Witnesses are not God's organization led by [Holy] spirit . It's a magazine printing company taking advantage of people's false hopes.

  Now I understand that you don't believe Jehovah's Witnesses are being led by holy spirit, but with respect to what Jesus' meant at Matthew 24:34 by "this generation," are you saying that this latest adjustment regarding the meaning of "this generation" is proof that Jehovah's Witnesses are not guided by holy spirit or do you mean something else?

  @djeggnog
• 
  269

  Have your JW Relatives Explained about Generation/Overlap Change to You ?

  by flipper in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  after reading on the way out's thread about his mom explaining the generation overlap to him it kicked this idea into my head to make this thread .

  i thought it would be helpful to see if anybody here has had jw relatives or friends try to explain this " generation overlap " theory to you as a faded or inactive witness and what happened in the conversations.

  so please feel free to post your experiences.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @flipper:

  You're a Jehovah's Witness and you don't know what " service time " is ? Since many of us are OUT of the organization, inactive, the WT society provides you the privilege of counting your pontificating to us as " sacred service " in which you report 20, 40, or however many hours you put in to your local congregation as field service time ! Isn't that grand ?!

  I don't pontificate to anyone. From where is this accusation coming? In your previous post you talked "pioneer service time" to which I responded by asking you:

  What "time" should I be turning [in]?

  I'm not clear on why it is you think me to be a pioneer. I never indicated that I was a pioneer, but I have said that I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses that studies the Bible with other Jehovah's Witnesses. Why don't you just explain what this "time" is that you believe I should be turning in?

  In your memory, when you were actively one of Jehovah's Witnesses, do you recall the terms, "auxiliary" and "regular" being associated with pioneer service? I ask because you mentioned "20" hours and "40" hours, and I'm not sure that you meant 20 hours per week (that is to say, 80 hours per month) or 20 hours per month, or 40 hours per week (that is to say, 160 hours per month) or 40 hours per month. I know you said you've been "out" for some seven years now, but if you would, please clarify what it was you meant since seven years ago would be 2003.

  And in regards to your Travolta/[Drescher] reference NOW I get it- you were comparing dates and years in a truly dazzling illustration. Got it.

  Really? As I indicated in my previous post, that "dazzling" analogy to which you refer was about "the futility of getting unimportant details right...." Tell me: Did you really comprehend my analogy or was this just wishful thinking on your part?

  @djeggnog
• 
  269

  Have your JW Relatives Explained about Generation/Overlap Change to You ?

  by flipper in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  after reading on the way out's thread about his mom explaining the generation overlap to him it kicked this idea into my head to make this thread .

  i thought it would be helpful to see if anybody here has had jw relatives or friends try to explain this " generation overlap " theory to you as a faded or inactive witness and what happened in the conversations.

  so please feel free to post your experiences.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @flipper:

  So did you get your pioneer service time in yet ? It's the end of August- time to turn your time in to the congregation.

  What "time" should I be turning it? I'm not clear on why you are asking me this question. Please clarify.

  Am I correct in assuming you are certifiably nuts ? Comparing John Travolta's Saturday Night Fever , and something about Fran Dresscher with Pastor Russell ? Now you're just sounding creepy. Have you been attending meetings lately ?

  I fear that you are not able to comprehend what things I write here, for it is evident from this last post of yours that you totally missed my point, so I'll repeat it here verbatim, but this time with emphasis on certain words that hopefully will help you:

  [M]y point here is that Saturday Night Fever was released 33 years ago and it makes no difference to me if you agree with me that Drescher looks like Diaz, or if this was Drescher's acting debut or if I've got the character names in the movie wrong, and since Russell died in 1916, it may make a difference to you, but it makes no difference to me what Russell may have believed before he died 94 years ago, or what he may have believed in 1874, or 42 years before his death, as to when Jesus' invisible presence began. Jehovah's Witnesses believe his invisible presence began concurrently with the composite visible sign that began to appear in the year 1914.

  As the apostle Paul admonished at 1 Timothy 1:4, Christians ought not be "[paying] attention to false stories..., which end up in nothing, but which furnish questions for research rather than a dispensing of anything by God in connection with faith." My question to you is, What meetings have you not been attending?

  Clearly my analogy as to the futility of getting unimportant details right has gone way over your head, @flipper, for you do not comprehend its meaning, and I'm sorry about that. But IMO it would really be wise were you to not comment before you understand the analogy, and maybe ask me (or someone else that you trust) a few questions that you think might help you to understand my analogy before speaking, for it is the one listening to counsel [that] is wise. (Proverbs 17:28; 12:15)

  @djeggnog
• 
  269

  Have your JW Relatives Explained about Generation/Overlap Change to You ?

  by flipper in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  after reading on the way out's thread about his mom explaining the generation overlap to him it kicked this idea into my head to make this thread .

  i thought it would be helpful to see if anybody here has had jw relatives or friends try to explain this " generation overlap " theory to you as a faded or inactive witness and what happened in the conversations.

  so please feel free to post your experiences.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @The Finger:

  You have not provided any evidence of CT Russell believing that 1914 was the start of Christ's invisible presence. You maybe right. You maybe uncomfortable that you are wrong and do not wish to talk about it but would rather talk of it as being unrighteous in discussing it. I don't know.

  It was after reading your post and checking my previous posts in this thread, that I came to realize that I had been mistaken in what I had written as to Russell's having made an adjustment in his viewpoint from the year 1874 to 1914 as to when it was the start of Christ's invisible presence would be. Thank you for pointing out this error of mine to me. In a previous post, I'm sure you will recall having asked me the following question:

  When did Russell make this adjustment to believing the invisible presence was in 1914? and could you show me a quote from the Watchtower of the time period that shows this adjustment. Was it before 1914 or after? I understand from your previous posts you have an extensive library of older publications.

  I told you that while I do have an extensive library of older WTS publications, that I had no interest in reviewing them just to answer your question because these older publications contain so many errors in them that one must read them while at the same time remembering what things we knew at that time in order to comprehend some of the statements that these older publications contain, since many adjustments have occurred since Rutherford's day, adjustments regarding some of the things that Russell had taught in his day. Over the years, Jehovah's Witnesses have obtained a progressive understanding of the Bible that makes some of the statements we read in older publications somewhat incomprehensible.

  Now @Mad Dawg had indicated in one of his posts how Russell had predicted 1914 --

  [3] How do I know they are God’s sole channel? They predicted 1914.

  -- and so, in my response. I pointed out to him that Russell didn't predict any dates, least of all make the claim that the world would come to an end in 1914, and any statements to this effect would be false. Russell hasn't predict 1914, but believed that the Gentile Times as to which Jesus spoke at Luke 21:24 would end in 1914, so I went on to tell @Mad Dawg the following:

  This year -- 1914 -- was calculated as being 2,520 years following the beginning of the Gentile times, which began in the year 607 BC, and so, in the year 1914, the Gentile times would come to an end, thus being the year when the Lord Jesus Christ would have the right to begin ruling as king 'in the midst of his enemies.' (Psalm 110:2) Pastor Russell had from 1876, for almost 40 years, preached 1914 as a marked year, but he never made any predictions as to what would occur at that time.

  But I added the following sentence to my post, which was incorrect:

  In addition, Russell preached that the invisible return (or "presence") of Jesus Christ would occur in 1914.

  It wasn't Russell, but Jehovah's Witnesses that have been preaching the invisible return of Jesus Christ as occurring in 1914. This is what I should have written, but I realize now that what I actually wrote creditted Russell with knowledge that he definitely didn't have at the time. In the very first issue of the Watch Tower that Russell published back in 1879 we see what Russell believed at the time, as the magazine was called, "Zion’s Watch Tower and Herald of Christ’s Presence"! In 1879, Russell was heralding the invisible presence of Jesus Christ as having begun five years earlier, that is, in the year 1874. Russell believe Jesus' presence would last for 40 years until 1914, the year he had calculated as being when the end of the Gentile Times would be fulfilled. (Luke 21:24)

  Now when you stated the following in an earlier post --

  I don't understand what you mean when you say "In addition, Russell preached that the invisible return (or "presence") of Jesus Christ would occur in 1914".... Which suggests to me he believed Christ was invisible present in 1876 and a visible presence some time after 1914.

  -- and I had replied --

  Although Barbour decided in 1883 to abandon his teaching in an invisible presence and began to teach the Adventists' view of a visible presence in 1896, Russell made an adjustment in his viewpoint, believing 1914 to be the year of Jesus' invisible presence, so your quoting older publications that say that Russell believed otherwise only suggests that the man's beliefs were not static, but were progressive.

  -- I didn't realize that I had typoed in that post in my saying that Russell believed 1914 to be the year of Jesus' invisible presence and opposed to what Adventists had been teaching as to Jesus' visible presence occurring in 1896. When I should have written "1874," I discovered that I had written "1914," so I thank you for bringing this matter to my attention, for it had not been my intention to mislead anyone as to what Russell believed at the time.

  I tend to review the older WTS publications to see how a particular doctrinal viewpoint had been explained at that time, but I do not review the older publications to prove that Russell or Rutherford or Knorr had signed off on statements included in these publications that were erroneous, since I know Jehovah's Witnesses today have obtained a progressive understanding of many Bible truths that Russell, Rutherford and Knorr obviously didn't have in their day.

  You will recall, too, that I also told you:

  I don't care what Russell may have believed at any particular time before his death because whatever errors he may have made during his lifetime -- and he made many errors, proving that he was as human as you and I are -- he was acquitted for his sins when he died. (Romans 6:7)

  Consistently, I went on to tell @flipper:

  It makes no difference to me what Russell may have believed before he died 94 years ago, or what he may have believed in 1874, or 42 years before his death, as to when Jesus' invisible presence began. Jehovah's Witnesses believe his invisible presence began concurrently with the composite visible sign that began to appear in the year 1914....

  The man was led [by] holy spirit, and it is not like the holy spirit got the date wrong, but an imperfect human that was neither infallible nor inspired by God to determine the correct date using the dates that had been determined by Adventists (like Balbour) from the Bible -- that is, if 1874 should be the date that Russell calculated to be when Jesus' invisible presence would begin -- got the date wrong. Jehovah's Witnesses believe 1914 to be the correct date when the invisible presence of Jesus began and we teach accordingly.

  @The Finger:

  However it seems to me from reading Matt. 24. that Christ warned there would be those that said he was here when he wasn't. CT Russell seemed to be one who claimed that. It seems F Franz claimed he had seen the "sign of the son of man" when he hadn't. What am I to think?

  At Matthew 24:23-26, Jesus was telling his disciples about visible Messiahs, about "false Christs" that would rise up so as to mislead the chosen ones:

  "Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look! Here is the Christ,’ or, ‘There!’ do not believe it. For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will give great signs and wonders so as to mislead, if possible, even the chosen ones. Look! I have forewarned you. Therefore, if people say to you, ‘Look! He is in the wilderness,’ do not go out; ‘Look! He is in the inner chambers,’ do not believe it."

  Your question here cannot have anything at all to do with Jesus' warning his disciples in the first century AD about the emergence of "false Christs," especially considering that Jesus said these things would occur before the "great tribulation" that occurred in 70 AD as made clear at the very beginning of Matthew 24:29:

  "Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened...."

  The point is that Russell made no such claim at all, and as for what you say here as to what Franz said, so what? Just like Russell, the man is dead and as is the case will all man, Franz wasn't perfect and he could well have made as many zany statements during his lifetime as did Russell, Rutherford and Knorr. I don't care about human foibles; what I care about is the truth. Mistakes are typically made when one is seeking and searching for the truth, and I'm ok with that.

  One other thing I'd like to clear up here: I do not like strawman arguments and I tend to ignore them, except when they are unavoidable. One such strawman is this notion that I have read in this very thread -- @Simon Morley being one of the folks that have advanced this strawman -- that Jehovah's Witnesses have "core beliefs" or "core teachings," listen up: Jehovah's Witnesses do not subscribe to any creed; we have no "core beliefs" or "core teachings."

  For example, when Jehovah's Witnesses say that "Jehovah is the true God," this is a fundamental teaching of Jehovah's Witnesses, but not a part of any creed that we have; not a "core belief" or a "core teaching" that Jehovah's Witness have: It is simply a fundamental teaching that is derived from a reading of Jeremiah 10:10 and Exodus 6:3. When Jehovah's Witnesses say that "Jesus is God's son" and that we look to Jesus and not Jehovah in connection with out salvation, these, too, are fundamental teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses and not a part of any creed. These are fundamental teachings derived from a reading of John 10:36 and John 20:31; John 5:22, 23; Matthew 25:31-33; and 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9.

  People are often heard saying about Jehovah's Witnesses that we don't hold Jesus as being our Savior, but while Jehovah's Witnesses do follow Jesus' lead in glorifying God, God exalted Jesus as "Chief Agent and Savior" (Acts 5:31), and to Jesus all authority was given so that all "should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father" (Philippians 2:9-11). Consequently, Jehovah's Witnesses give due honor to God's son as Lord.

  Jehovah's Witnesses have beliefs that are based on our understanding of the Bible and we accordingly teach these things.

  This idea that our understanding of when "this generation" began (Matthew 24:34) and our understanding of when the sign of Christ's invisible presence occurred (Matthew 24:3), or even our understanding of when the symbolic scarlet colored seven-headed wild beast came out of the abyss (Revelation 17:3, 8), are not "core beliefs" or "core teachings" of Jehovah's Witnesses. What things we believe and teach are based on inspired prophecies that by God's will came to recorded in the Bible "that were written for our instruction, that ... we might have hope." (Romans 15:4)

  What things Jehovah's Witnesses teach are things that pertain to "the primary doctrine about the Christ" (Hebrews 6:1, 2) and nothing more. Accordingly, the only "core beliefs" or "core teachings" that Jehovah's Witnesses have, "the congregation of the living God, a pillar and support of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15), are those things that are recorded in God's word, the Bible. (John 17:17)

  @OnTheWayOut:

  I hope you are very happy with not just the wool, but a whole sheep pulled over your eyes. I see no point in further discussions with you as we are at opposite ends of the JW belief spectrum. I am certain that you are not so brazenly posting on an apostate website, yet actually believe all your positions that harmonize with WTS, so that simply makes you a troll on this forum seeking attention. Good day to you.

  My positions harmonize with the Bible, not with the WTS. You are stuck on this idea that the WTS has assumed the role of "the congregation of the living God, a pillar and support of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15). The 144,000 is "the congregation of the living God," also known as "the faithful and discreet slave" (Matthew 23:33), whereas the WTS is just a publishing company staffed with Jehovah's Witnesses that prints the literature that Jehovah's Witnesses use in their Christian ministry, through which company, the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses provides instructions to assist the worldwide association of Jehovah's Witnesses.

  You have been misled. Although it is not advisable that Jehovah's Witnesses visit websites like this one for some of those whose faith is weak might, upon reading some of the statements made on even this website, might begin to develop serious doubts as to their faith. Most of the people on this forum whose posts I've read are having what faith they may have had once eroded away by those of you that have no faith at all, and that is why the WTS has published many articles suggesting that websites like this be avoided as a protection to those who might think their faith to be strong only to discover their faith isn't as strong as they may have thought. Many of you here whose faith was rather weak when you came to this forum have ignored the advice given you by the governing body, and so many of you have faded away and it's possible that you may in time even leave the spiritual light found in God's organization to inhabit the spiritual darkness where many of the folks here now dwell.

  The net result for many of the folks here is that due to their inability to recognize flawed arguments and flawed reasoning when they hear them, for many here have ended up succumbing to the many nonsensical and stupid arguments launched by disgruntled and bitter servants of God that had their own axes to grind against someone, after leaving or having been expelled from God's organization for unchristian conduct, and that "someone" is the Big Bad WTS.

  This mythical WTS, which isn't a real person, doesn't have nine heads, isn't any group of people, and certainly doesn't represent the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses, but is merely the publishing organ that Jehovah's Witnesses use to publish the Bibles and Bible-based literature that we use in our preaching work, an impersonal entity. What's especially sad though is that many of you should not have come here, for the quality of your faith has suffered as you buy into all of this nonsense about the Big Bad WTS. The apostle Paul wrote about these very ones at 2 Timothy 4:3, 4:

  For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the healthful teaching, but, in accord with their own desires, they will accumulate teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, whereas they will be turned aside to false stories.

  The WTS is the publishing arm of Jehovah's Witnesses and that's all it is. If Jehovah's Witnesses didn't have it own publishing arm, many of us would use a printing/copying facilities like Kinko's as some Jehovah's Witnesses are, in fact, doing in their copying the study articles of the Watchtower that they are using at the Kingdom Hall. It's funny that I don't yet hear any comments from anyone here about folks being misled by Kinko's!

  The apostle Paul, in referring to God's heavenly "woman," the "Jerusalem above," who is Jehovah's wifelike organization of spirit creatures in heaven, which corresponds to "the free woman" Sarah, who was once been a "barren woman" (Galatians 4:26; Isaiah 54:1) until "she" finally gave birth to a son, Isaac, who corresponds to the seed of promise, Jesus, when in 29 AD he was begotten with holy spirit, for which event the angels in the "Jerusalem above" had for many centuries been anxiously awaiting since Jehovah had first uttered the prophecy about the seed. (1 Peter 1:12; Genesis 3:15)

  It was an Pentecost in 33 AD that more spiritual sons came to be produced by God's "woman" through their anointing with holy spirit and when the ingathering of those that remained of her 144,000 sons ended, "the things in the heavens," then it was that the ingathering of Jesus' "other sheep," "the things on the earth," began. (Ephesians 1:10; John 10:16)

  At Galatians 4:26, Paul stated. "the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother," and often many Jehovah's Witnesses can be heard referring to the WTS as "mother," but this is just an affectionate way of referring to the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses, who are the anointed servants of God that not only provide oversight to Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide from Brooklyn, NY, which is also where the WTS is located, but who, as long as they continue to be human beings here on earth, also represent "Jerusalem above." When each of these anointed servants of God dies, he or she will each be raised up as an immortal God, just as their brother, Jesus, had become when he was raised up. (John 20:28; 1 Corinthians 15:23, 42-44; 1 Peter 3:18)

  Now if all of my positions harmonize with the Bible, please tell me how this in your mind makes me "a troll ... seeking attention"? I know you said in your post, "harmonize with the WTS," but, as I point out here, you have to realize that your saying this sounds about like it would sound had you said "harmonize with Kinko's." You want to bitch and moan, I'm not going to try to get in the way of that, but what I'm saying to you here is that I'm not here as "a troll ... seeking attention" as you characterized me here. And like you, I'm not a child either, but you come off to me as if you think me to be a child, because only a child might be persuaded to believe that by the things that you have said here to me that you manifest the intellect of someone wise when it comes to understanding the Bible. Did you not know that Jehovah actually "catches the wise in their own cunning" or that "the reasonings of the wise men are futile"? (1 Corinthians 3:19, 20)

  Have you actually taken the time to read and study God's word? Or have you, like many Jehovah's Witnesses are guilty of doing, been memorizing certain scriptures, memorizing certain things you have read in WTS publications, and reasoning by this that you are someone that knows the truth? I don't quote the Watchtower or any of the WTS publications, except during a congregation meeting or by reference on a website, like this one, where for the benefit of those that do not have access to the Watchtower Library 2009 CD, I will do so. With my knowing the truth, meaning that by my knowing the scriptures upon which the things I am discussing during the Bible-related discussion that I am having with someone are based, I am good to go with the Bible. I'm someone that has been "taught by Jehovah." (John 6:45; Isaiah 54:13)

  Now what about you? Your accusing me of "brazenly posting on an apostate website" and calling me a troll demonstrates only an ignorance in you. You r conscience doesn't seem to prevent you from posting to this particular website, but neither does my conscience forbid me from posting to any website that I might wish. I know that you are an adult and not a child, but I wish you wouldn't make stupid arguments like this one, for, as Paul said at 1 Corinthians 10:29, "For why should it be that my freedom is judged by another person's conscience?" I won't allow my freedom to be judged by your conscience, especially considering the fact that your conscience doesn't seem to disturb you in the least from posting here, so why don't you tell me why you believe I shouldn't be posting messages here? I want at least one cogent reason, not an opinion of what you think you understood when you might have been reading or one of the WTS publications.

  If you should ever want to return to Jehovah, I can talk to you about that. If you want to give me advice as if you were one of Jehovah's Witnesses yourself, I would no more take advice from a disgruntled expelled Jehovah's Witness as to my obligations as being one of Jehovah's Witnesses than I would take advice from a pedophile on how to properly raise my children. Please take a moment to read what I wrote in this last sentence so that you're clear on what I said and what I did not say, since I do know there to be a lot of ignorance on this forum: I did not say nor did I call you a pedophile. You may be ignorant about many things, @OnTheWayOut, the truth being just one of those "things," but I don't want my words here to be perceived by you as causing offense if you should read my words here and ignorantly conclude by them that I either said something or called you something here, which I have not done and am not doing.

  I just made an analogy similar to what Jesus did at Matthew 17:25-27 when he was trying to make the point to his apostle Peter that kingdom heirs, sons of the kingdom, are not obliged to pay taxes to the king, for only "the strangers" are obliged to do so and "the sons are tax-free." But since they were living at that time under the authority of "the kings of the earth," namely, Roman authority, it would be best for both he and Peter to pay the head tax anyway, so that they do not cause such rulers to stumble. Get it? Notice that Jesus didn't tell Peter that he was obliged to pay taxes to Caesar, but that, in order "that we do not cause them to stumble," Jesus said, we should be paying our taxes.

  Likewise, because a pedophile harms children, my point is that it would be foolhardy, even ridiculous, for anyone to be taking advice from a pedophile on child-rearing, so what this analogy says is that I would view as suspect any advice that you might give me as to my obligations as being one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Understand? Let me apologize in advance in the event you or someone else here reading my post should have for any reason be offended by my analogy.

  @cantleave:

  Is this DJeggnog character for real? He must be counting time with posts that long and so full of sh*t.

  I am always "for real," and you should always take what things I say here seriously. As for my "counting time with posts," that has to be a joke, right? It's just not possible that you would have made such a stupid statement and been serious when you were making it, am I right?

  Right now, as I am putting together this post, I am informally rendering direct service to God in His Great Spiritual Temple. You see, I love studying the Bible and talking to folks about the Bible, so why shouldn't I make it count as sacred service? Whenever you have a family study at home, that would be direct service to God. Whenever you should attend meetings at the Kingdom Hall, that would be sacred service to God. Should you raise your hand to participate during any of the meetings held there, this would be sacred service, all of it being direct service to God.

  Would it be appropriate to count and report such time I might be spending in direct service to God? No, as a family head, it would not be appropriate for me to do so and what we are typically reporting when we count time spent in direct service to God is formal and informal witnessing to persons who are not already dedicated servants of Jehovah. Did you not know this?

  Today, in Jehovah's great Spiritual House, we're to maintain cleanness, wearing our "white robes," meaning that we are must be clean physically, clean mentally, clean morally, clean emotionally, clean spiritually, and in every way if we are to have the privilege of serving in His temple, both "day and night." (Revelation 7:13-15) Those are our basic responsibilities in Jehovah's great house, to render Him sacred service day and night, and to maintain the purity of our white robe, maintaining a clean standing before God, and those who appreciate their privileges at His house will do their best to carry out these responsibilities I just mentioned.

  This website is put up for entertainment, and the fact that I'm serious about the things I say here, the things I post here, doesn't transform this website into anything other than this, or make what things I do here in speaking to you and others that also visit this website become more than this: Posts to a website that was put up for entertainment purposes. Am I serving God? Yes. Am I now in God's spiritual temple? Yes. Were I to take the ten-minute drive to the local Starbucks here and spend another ten minutes there drinking a beverage, a coffee, would I be in God's spiritual temple? No, I would not.

  What if I had spent that ten minutes speaking to someone about the Bible, who was not already a dedicated servant of God, would I then be in God's temple giving God direct worship? Yes, I would. What if the person with whom I was speaking at the coffee shop those ten minutes was a brother in good standing; would that be direct worship to God? No, it would not. What if the person with whom I was speaking at that coffee shop those ten minutes was a brother not in good standing, someone that had been disfellowshipped; would that be direct worship to God? No, it would not. One other question:

  What if the person with whom I was speaking at that coffee shop those ten minutes was a brother not in good standing, someone that had been disfellowshipped, to whom I had been assigned to help restore him to spiritual health; would that be direct worship to God? Yes, it would.

  Now did you follow this? Were you able to follow any of what I just said to you here? I'm going to put a question to you now as a kind of review to see if you were able to comprehend all of what I've said here as you are here calling into questions my motives for spending so many hours composing and posting responses to some of the posts here. Are you ready? I'm sure you still remember how it was we did things when you were yourself attending meetings at the Kingdom Hall. Here's are two (2) questions, each of them with "(a)" and "(b)" parts:

  1(a). Do you think it would be direct worship to God for me to post messages to this website? Yes or no?

  (b) Why do you so answer?

  2(a). Do you think it would be appropriate for me to count and report the amount of time I have spent here posting responses to messages here? Yes or no?

  (b) Why do you so answer?

  @djeggnog