djeggnog

Joined

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

Posts by djeggnog

• 
  25

  Why doesn't the WT close the religion?

  by Aussie Oz in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i was pondering the other day, why the watchtower corporation doesn't just sell off all the kingdom halls and hang the jws out to dry seeing they make far more $$$ from business than peddling the religion these days.. then it dawned on me... they need to keep that little sideline going for the tax breaks!.

  slow learner i guess.. oz .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  (duplicate post)
• 
  25

  Why doesn't the WT close the religion?

  by Aussie Oz in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i was pondering the other day, why the watchtower corporation doesn't just sell off all the kingdom halls and hang the jws out to dry seeing they make far more $$$ from business than peddling the religion these days.. then it dawned on me... they need to keep that little sideline going for the tax breaks!.

  slow learner i guess.. oz .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @Aussie Oz:

  I was pondering the other day, why the Watchtower corporation doesn't just sell off all the kingdom halls and hang the JWs out to dry seeing they make far more $$$ from business than peddling the religion these days. [¶] Then it dawned on me... they need to keep that little sideline going for the tax breaks!

  All religious groups, whether they be one of the Christian religions or the non-Christian ones (e.g., Islam, Buddhism), rely upon the financial support of its adherents. I'm not been paid a salary nor do I receive any financial compensation or any monetary benefits whatsoever for my engaging in any of the ministerial work and duties I have assumed or perform as one of Jehovah's Witnesses since before I began working in the legal field until now, but, like other religious organization, our organization is supported by the voluntary contributions of those associated in some way with my religious group. If you are able, why don't you ponder this thought?

  Now things like electricity do have a cost and that cost is typically met by contributions given to such religious groups. As far as tax breaks are concerned, not all of the religious groups that exist in the world are required to file returns with the Internal Revenue Service here in the US since foreign religious groups would not qualify for tax breaks. Think much?

  slow learner i guess.

  No, you may be suffering from a malady that I've found to exist in many people that makes it a virtual impossibility for those plagued with it to think. As one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I believe in the message that Jesus preached regarding my salvation and the salvation of the world, which was made possible on the basis of genuine faith in the sin-atoning benefits of Jesus Christ’s sacrifice for my sins and the sins of others. The good news teaches that God’s kingdom by Christ will bring all things on earth into perfect unity with the holy heavens and establish peace between God and man and lasting peace on earth.

  Every elder on the planet would step up to protect the flock in their care from being led off from the pen of the fine shepherd, knowing as we do how precious they are to the Lord Jesus Christ. If it were even possible to "close" my religion, to persuade me over to another religion, another opinion, another way of life not based on God's word as I've come to learn since I became one of Jehovah's Witnesses, someone would have to kill me. If you were a "slow learner," or retarded, then there might explain this notion of yours, but I don't think you to be either.

  I realize that you cannot possibly believe in anything of substance that is on a par with the things I believe or hold as dear to me, so I wouldn't really expect you to understand my viewpoint. Frankly, the idea of closing someone's religion comes off to me as the thought process of a stupid person. You're not a stupid person, are you, @Aussie Oz?

  @djeggnog
• 
  5

  Hour change

  by Chariklo in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  don't know about anywhere else, but here in the uk the clocks went forward an hour early sunday morning.. it throws me every time!

  only an hour's change, but my body clock has gone bananas, and i feel as if i'm suffering from major jet lag!.

  does anyone else get affected like this, or am i just totally feeble?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @ShirleyW:

  I knew something wasn't right when about two weeks ago on the news I was watching a live report from London and the time difference between London and New York was just 4 hours !

  Reading your post suggests a change was made to the international dateline based on factors that I'm not so sure could be reconciled in my mind, but while I'm sure you knew the local time in New York, perhaps you were comparing what you thought to be the local time in London.

  @Phizzy:

  The time difference between London and New York is always at least ten years, London 10 years behind Noo York of course !

  I think you meant to write "at least ten hours" and not "at least ten years," but with reference to the words "at least," I have to tell you, @Phizzy, that the time difference between Los Angeles -8 UTC and London +0 UTC, which means the time difference between New York and London would have been only five hours behind London Standard Time for the two weeks prior to March 25, 2012 (when the US moved its clocks forward an hour on March 11, 2012), during which the time difference between New York and London would have been four hours behind London Standard Time. After March 25, 2012, however, the time difference between Los Angeles -7 UTC and London +1 UTC, would again be five hours behind London Daylight Savings Time as is usually the case between New York and London.

  @djeggnog
• 
  27

  DISCUSSION WITH A JW; YOUR INPUT PLEASE...

  by Mary in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i'm 'talking' with a jw on another site who of course, does not believe that they are 'false prophets' and says that:.

  "...prophetic inspiration and being filled with the spirit ( to use a common expression) do not mean the same thing.".

  "...again the wts is using the term "prophet" in the basic sense of a spokesman.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @Mary:

  I'm 'talking' with a JW on another site who of course, does not believe that they are 'false prophets' and says that: ...

  "...Again the WTS is using the term "prophet" in the basic sense of a spokesman. ALL Christians when they speak or share from God's word are "prophets" in that basic sense."...

  Can the word "prophet" actually be "used in the basic sense"? Or is this just a typical cop-out from a Witness when faced with the idea of being a false prophet.........

  Take a moment and read the following verse, @Mary:

  "Consequently Jehovah said to Moses: 'See, I have made you God to Pharaoh, and Aaron your own brother will become your prophet.'" -- Exodus 7:1

  Now that you've read it, here's the first question: On what basis does Jehovah God consider Aaron to be Moses' prophet in speaking God's word to Pharaoh as a substitute for Moses? This isn't a Bible study or anything, so if you should find disturbing the fact that one of Jehovah's Witnesses should be asking you to answer this question, just know that I'm not really asking you this question at all, but just putting this question to you with the idea in mind that it will help you figure out what it is I'm saying to you without my having to specifically tell you what it is I would say.

  Now armed with the answer to my previous question, here now is a follow-up question: How then might Jehovah God view those of his worshippers, who, like Moses' own brother Aaron, speak God's word to the world as substitutes for Christ?

  Here now is my last question: Who is it today that makes the claim of being "substitutes for Christ" through whom God makes entreaty in beseeching that all "become reconciled to God"?

  @djeggnog
• 
  245

  Is the Watchtower shy about repeating their new "generation" teaching?

  by slimboyfat in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  as i recall in the 1980s talks and watchtower literature, magazines and books were always talking about the "generation" teaching and how it proved armageddon was going to come any day now.. but am i correct in thinking they have only actually mentioned the new "overlapping generations" teaching once or twice in the literature?

  why are they so shy about talking about their great new interpretation?

  it's almost enough to make you suspect they are a embarrassed about it.. mention it once or twice, don't dwell on it, hope everyone just accepts it, and don't bring it up again.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  The text of the "masthead" on Page 2 of the May 22, 1969 Awake! reads as follows:

  "THE REASON FOR THIS MAGAZINE

  "News sources that are able to keep you awake to the vital issues of our times must be unfettered by censorship and selfish interests. 'Awake!' has no fetters. It recognizes facts, faces facts, is free to publish facts. It is not bound by political ties; it is unhampered by traditional creeds. This magazine keeps itself free, that it may speak freely to you. But it does not abuse its freedom. It maintains integrity to truth.

  "The viewpoint of 'Awake!' is not narrow, but is international. 'Awake!' has its own correspondents in scores of nations. Its articles are read in many lands, in many languages, by millions of persons.

  "In every issue 'Awake!' presents vital topics on which you should be informed. It features penetrating articles on social conditions and offers sound counsel for meeting the problems of everyday life. Current news from every continent passes in quick review. Attention is focused on activities in the fields of government and commerce about which you should know. Straightforward discussions of religious issues alert you to matters of vital concern. Customs and people in many lands, the marvels of creation, practical sciences and points of human interest are all embraced in its coverage. 'Awake!' provide wholesome, instructive reading for every member of the family.

  "'Awake!' pledges itself to righteous principles, to exposing hidden foes and subtle dangers, to championing freedom for all, to comforting mourners and strengthening those disheartened by the failures of a delinquent world, reflecting sure hope for the establishment of God's righteous new order in this generation.

  "Get acquainted with 'Awake!' Keep awake by reading 'Awake!'"

  @djeggnog
• 
  245

  Is the Watchtower shy about repeating their new "generation" teaching?

  by slimboyfat in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  as i recall in the 1980s talks and watchtower literature, magazines and books were always talking about the "generation" teaching and how it proved armageddon was going to come any day now.. but am i correct in thinking they have only actually mentioned the new "overlapping generations" teaching once or twice in the literature?

  why are they so shy about talking about their great new interpretation?

  it's almost enough to make you suspect they are a embarrassed about it.. mention it once or twice, don't dwell on it, hope everyone just accepts it, and don't bring it up again.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @djeggnog wrote:

  This is called speculation. The answer to the question, But where will this system of things be by that time?" is "We don't know," but I didn't write this paragraph, and as far as the last sentence, if I had written it, I would have written instead the following:

  "But where will this system of things be by that time? We don't know, but it may be well on the way toward its finish, if not actually gone!"

  @Leolaia:

  But it is explicitly called a "fact".

  No, there's nothing explicitly being called a fact in that article, "What Future for the Young?" that appeared in the Awake! dated May 22, 1969, for the article clearly speculates that "all the evidence ... indicates that this corrupt system is due to end in a few years."

  At the Los Angeles Music Center here in Los Angeles, two actresses -- Barbra Streisand ("Funny Girl"), who was 27 at the time, and Katharine Hepburn ("The Lion in Winter"), who was 62 at the time -- tied in winning Oscar for the first time in this category in the history of the awards show for "Best Actress" for which category they had both been nominated and obtained 3,030 votes each. Along with Patricia Neal ("The Subject Was Roses"), who was 43 in 1969, Vanessa Redgrave ("Isadora"), who was 32 in 1969, and Joanne Woodward ("Rachel, Rachel"), who was 39 in 1969, all five of these actresses had been nominated for the "Best Actress" category on February 24, 1969, and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences declared that two statuettes for "Best Actress" would be awarded at the 41st Academy Awards for 1968 to both Streisand and Hepburn at the Dorothy Chandler Pavillion.

  "If you were to speculate back in 1969, the evidence indicated that the oldest of the nominees for this category (Hepburn) or the youngest of the nominees (Steisand) would win the Academy Award of Merit for Performance by an Actress (Best Actress), or one of the other three (Neal, Redgrave and Woodward). Why not? Because all the evidence indicated that only one of these five (5) woman would win Best Actress."

  As things turned out, what was speculated based on the evidence didn't turn out to be the case, for not one, but two of the nominees won "Best Actress" in 1969 for their performances in these 1968 films." The fact that two actresses won in 1969 and not just one for "Best Actress" doesn't mean that what was expected to occur didn't occur as if a prediction had failed, but only that what had been speculated based upon the evidence did not turn out to be what actually did occur.

  Back in 1969, it was hoped that because 1975 would mark the end of 6,000 years of human history that this year would mark the beginning of Christ's Millennial Reign, and many people had begun to speculate that the end of 6,000 years of human history would also be the end of this system of things. However, these two things turned out to be mutually exclusive events, because with the close of 1975, it is clear that while 1975 did mark the end of 6,000 years of human history, and it is also clear that 1975 didn't turn out to be the end of this system of things as had been speculated by some back in 1969.

  Contrary to what many of you here on JWN have said in this thread and in other threads, there could be no prediction as to 1975 by Jehovah's Witnesses to which one could point in our literature in those years that preceded 1975 since Matthew 24:36 indicated that as to "that day and hour," no one could know when the end of this system of things would occur, so anyone that thought the end of this system of things would occur in 1975 was clearly speculating because he or she had no evidence that would back up such a conclusion.

  Speculation is never a fact, @Leolaia, even if what one should speculate turns out to be true. Proof that speculating is never a fact is that anyone that had speculated that it would be one of those five women that were nominated for "Best Actress" in 1969 would win was wrong because, as it turned out, not one woman, but two of these five nominees won Oscar for Best Actress in 1969.

  "If you are a young person, you also need to face the fact that you will never grow old in this present system of things." (published in 1969, almost 43 years ago)

  Nothing need be read into this statement.

  I agree with you, but then why do you suppose that you and others like you have gone on to read more into this statement anyway? IOW, @Leolaia, why the strawman?

  @designs:

  Leolaia- The Watchtower was correct I have not aged in the past 43 years, true believers have the Peter Pan gene. (now 63)

  Where in any Watchtower magazine did you ever read that you would not age as long as you continued to live in the present system of things? In what Watchtower magazine was it ever pointed out that the great tribulation (Matthew 24:21) had occurred prior to 1975? Do you recall reading any mention of the great tribulation having occurred in any of the more recent issues of the Watchtower magazine? I recently downloaded the Watchtower dated June 15, 2012, and just like back in 1969, nowhere in it is there mention made of the great tribulation as having occurred, so why would you even have construed the statement that @Leolaia quotes above from the Awake! dated May 22, 1969, to mean that you would not age?

  I'm sorry that you drew such a wrong conclusion, but I suspect that if you happened to be among those in God's organization at that time, someone that had not obtained a high school education, that you would have been easily led by others, easily persuaded to believe that this statement that @Leolaia quoted from this Awake! magazine to have meant something that it really did not mean. You may not like to hear this, but even some high school graduates are lazy when it comes to reasoning on matters, and so in their ignorance they won't question any of the unreasonable things that one ought to question. If you were once of these, @designs, then you were gullible, which means that you were easily deceived, fooled, naive and too trusting of the folks you trusted.

  @Ucantnome:

  I think the position taken by the organization is that they are "commissioned to serve as the [mouthpiece] and active agent of Jehovah" Like the prophet Ezekiel.

  When the prophet tells you that God has promised something I don't think it would be to much to expect it to be true or else you would have to question the prophet and whether he was really serving in that capacity.

  Here's a point that I probably should have made in my responses to @Leolaia and @designs' posts: Even those Jehovah's Witnesses that due to an eagerness on their part for the end of the current system of things to come had failed to preface their remarks and declare Jehovah to have so advised them that the end would come in 1975.

  Now anyone that should have heard any one of them say such a thing would then have had every right to confront the person in order to have asked whether their statement -- their prediction -- is based on something they read in the Bible, and, if so, went on to ask the person to provide the book, chapter and verse on which their prediction was based. Of course, this didn't always happen, but had such folks been confronted and been asked to produce the scriptural citation(s) on which their statement to this effect was based, then upon their failure to produce same, one would then have had every right to reject the statement as false and scripturally unfounded.

  I don't know if you are in the US, or even if you aren't in the US, perhaps you followed the events that occurred here in the US after 9/11 when former Bush Administration Secretary of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge, caused a rush on hardware stores by many Americans in February 2003 when he pointed out how duct tape and plastic sheeting should be a part of everyone's survival kit in preparing for a terrorist attack.

  This statement is what led to what could be dubbed "duct tape mania," except it didn't even occur to those of us having more education than did Tom Ridge to suggest such foolishness to step one foot out of their homes to the nearest Home Depot or whatever hardware store to buy duct tape or plastic sheeting to protect them, having learned in school that in the event of a biological attack by terrorists, it isn't possible to use duct tape to protect against biological weapons like mustard gas, sarin gas, ricin gas, hydrogen cyanide gas, biotoxins and radio iodine. As a result of Tom Ridge, the Duct Tape industry here in the US is now a $150 million/year industry.

  It is those with little education -- the ignorant that are a part of the US citizenry -- which has been calculated to be somewhere around 45% of the US population that were out there at those hardware stores asking for "duck tape" and not "duct tape." How many of this 45% do you think were buying duct tape back in 2003 were among those that were gullible enough to believe those who were telling them how the end of this system of things was going to occur in 1975? There was no great tribulation, and yet the end is coming even though the Bible clearly states that it would only be when they are saying "Peace and security!" that the great tribulation would occur. "Come on, Ma, the end is near! I don't want you to die."

  No, the Bible doesn't tell us when the end is coming, but even though Jehovah doesn't tell us, if you have an influential elder in your congregation and he's sure or a very influential sister and she is convinced that the end is coming in 1975, we must go out and hurriedly tell all of our relatives that it is a must that they join Jehovah's Witnesses and get baptized before 1975. Really?!?

  The change in the teaching about the generation shows that the previous teaching was wrong.

  Yes, it was wrong to believe that the generation to which Jesus referred at Matthew 24:34 had to do with a generation of people, when we now realize that by "this generation," Jesus was referring to the generation of the sign, which began when the anointed remnant began to discern the visible evidence of the composite sign.

  The promise that was taught

  "Most important, this magazine builds confidence in the Creator's promise of a peaceful and secure new world before the generation that saw the events of 1914 passes away."

  and was part of a world wide Witness work could not have originated with God if it was untrue.

  This statement that appeared on the masthead of the Awake! magazine before November 8, 1995, did not originate with God, and no one that had read the Awake! magazine back in 1969 would have concluded that these words were quoted from the Bible. If the Society had understood that they was a contingent of illiterate Jehovah's Witnesses had mistakenly thought that this masthead was being regarded by them as if it were an inerrant statement from the Bible, it would have taken steps to remove this masthead much earlier than it did since in no way from it the Society's intention to deceive or mislead anyone to believe that this statement in the masthead was taken from the Bible. The majority of Jehovah's Witnesses did not believe this statement to have been inerrant.

  So now I find I have to question the prophet. Are they "commissioned to serve as the mouthpeice and active agent of Jehovah" ?

  Yes, we are.

  Maybe they are "shy about repeating their new "generation" teaching". I don't feel that it can be dismissed by saying we are all [imperfect].

  Jehovah's Witnesses are not shy of the new "generation" teaching. No one seeks to dismiss our earlier interpretation that we have now disregarded on the basis that we are all imperfect. When we realize that we have made a mistake in our viewpoint, it is important to discard our former interpretation, which we do, and to progressively teach what we now believe to be the correct interpretation of Matthew 24:34, and the scriptural basis for what we teach as far as Jesus' use of the word "generation," which, in this case, is based on our applying of the meaning of the word "generation" as used at Exodus 1:6.

  A day can mean various amounts of time. The meaning of "the generation" I was brought up to believe was my Grandfathers generation, the people of his day.

  Anyone that was "brought up" before April 2010 would have learned a very different interpretation for Matthew 24:34 than exists among Jehovah's Witnesses today, for since April 2010, Jehovah's Witnesses have a very different interpretation of "this generation" that is used by Jesus at Matthew 24:34.

  @Bubblegum Apotheosis:

  djegg, are you considered a rebel in your congregation, have you been "Marked" by men afraid of your Bible knowledge and education?

  I don't believe so, but why should this be when I'm absolutely correct in the things I have said here about the ignorance that exists in many of those who are spiritually qualified to serve as elders, but who think their being spiritually qualified to mean that they are qualified in other respects when many of these spiritually-qualified men are ignorant as to many things, including as to how the world works.

  It is not uncommon to hear about investigations being conducted by some of the elders into the personal affairs of someone in whose care they were appointed as spiritual shepherds, which "investigations" have turned out to be witch hunts with elders or someone being appointed by one of them to stalk a fellow Christian, not with a view to helping them to overcome some problem, but with a view to disgracing them in the eyes of the congregation, their spiritual brothers and sisters, by a disfellowshipping action.

  My Bible knowledge and education aside, we are all of us men, imperfect men, which is not to excuse anyone's bad behavior, but just to explain why some here on JWN may have been victimized by the bad motives of those that sat in judgment of them. I cannot possibly know the facts involved with the decision to disfellowship or the decisions made by some of those who were formerly Jehovah's Witnesses to disassociate themselves from God's organization, but I can imagine some very bad decisions could well have been responsible for the damaging of so many lives, and while we are keeping our eyes on those "who cause divisions and occasions for stumbling," that "where a man considers something to be defiled, to him it is defiled." (Romans 14:13, 14; 16:17, 18)

  In fact, as far as those that have been causes for some stumbling in God's organization, Jesus stated that it would be more advantageous to him were a millstone "suspended from his neck and he were thrown into the sea than for him to stumble one of these little ones." (Luke 17:2) You see, "in no way are we giving to others any cause for stumbling." (2 Corinthians 6:3) Some stumbled upon hearing some of the things that Jesus said, but if someone is imperfect, he or she can stumble, and they stumble "many times." (John 6:51-56, 60, 61; James 3:2)

  Contrary to what many people have been persuaded to believe, elders are not appointed to break up families and the belief that some have as far as family members not speaking with their own disfellowshipped family members, or even attending the funerals of disfellowshipped family members, does have the effect of making those who are not Jehovah's Witnesses believe that we have somehow become emotionless, a people "having no natural affection" (2 Timothy 3:3), which is so very far from the truth. You cannot know what is taking place goes behind-the-scenes in God's organization and I'm not in any position to inform you of what those things might be nor do I have an interest in satisfying anyone's burning curiosity, but suffice it to say, @Bubblegum Apotheosis, that opinions on this website are abundant and many of these opinions are pure speculation.

  @djeggnog
• 
  245

  Is the Watchtower shy about repeating their new "generation" teaching?

  by slimboyfat in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  as i recall in the 1980s talks and watchtower literature, magazines and books were always talking about the "generation" teaching and how it proved armageddon was going to come any day now.. but am i correct in thinking they have only actually mentioned the new "overlapping generations" teaching once or twice in the literature?

  why are they so shy about talking about their great new interpretation?

  it's almost enough to make you suspect they are a embarrassed about it.. mention it once or twice, don't dwell on it, hope everyone just accepts it, and don't bring it up again.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @Chariklo:

  If I have understood you right, in what you've written immediately above ...no guarantee that I have, you kind of went on a bit....you are saying BOTH that you are an active JW in good standing in your locality AND that you reserve to yourself the right, as a Christian with a free conscience, to be posting on JWN. Do I have you right so far?

  Correct, this is what I have said, this is exactly what I have been contending here.

  Equating that with talks I've heard from the DO at the 2 day assembly and before that from a Bethel speaker at the 3 day convention poses a conundrum. The GB have said explicitly and categorically that apostate sites such as this one should absolutely not be visited by any one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Further, the elder who at the time was instructing me in study told me that anyone coming even here silently, never mind posting here, had deliberately chosen to "turn their back on Jehovah and to disobey his direct instructions", the logic of that being that the Governing Body was the means by which Jehovah made his wishes known on earth now.

  That's what I remember and wrote down as accurately as possible from speakers, and what was imprinted on me by the elder here.

  Uh-huh. I'm sure you did the best you could. And...?

  Here's my problem. Given that the most authoritative statements have been made by representatives of the Governing Body explicitly condemning even visiting this site, let alone posting, and absolutely forbidding all Jehovah's Witnesses to come here....yet you say you are an active Jehovah's Witness...and you see yourself as free to choose whether to come here or not....two such absolute premises, one of utter prohibition requiring total obedience, one insisting on personal freedom of action based on freedom of conscience...how can you, indeed anyone, subscribe to the one without refusing to believe and observe the other?

  I'm sorry: Who exactly are these "representatives of the Governing Body" of whom you speak that you heard at circuit and district assemblies say, "as accurately as possible from [these] speakers" as you could write down, "explicitly and categorically that apostate sites such as this one should absolutely not be visited by any one of Jehovah's Witnesses"? I know of no such "representatives of the Governing Body." Should I deliver a part at a district convention, I am transformed into a representative of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, correct? Tell me what am I when I come down from the podium? Do I then lose my transformed status? Did you not appreciate that what you were hearing weren't rules, but admonitions designed to safeguard our faith, suggestions?

  Please tell me that when you heard a speaker on the stage say "whole blood components are 'out,' but blood fractions derived from these blood components are 'in,'" that you didn't conclude that it would be ok for you -- meaning you personally -- to accept blood fractions if such were recommended for treating some malady or disease. Let's just say, arguendo, that you are still that Witness, who diligently writes down the things you hear at assemblies and at conventions of Jehovah's Witnesses, and you concluded based upon what you heard that it would be perfectly ok for you to accept blood fractions and your hearing this said makes it perfectly ok for you to accept blood fractions. I'm going to digress now.

  Then why shouldn't you go on and have a baby through in vitro fertilization, for as long as this artificial insemination involves the sperm of your husband and the ovum from you, then it's perfectly ok for you do conceive a child in this way. Forget about coitus. That's too iffy anyway. Forget about whether it makes sense in your life for you to be having another child if you already feel the one(s) you have is sufficient. It say s right there in a "Questions from Readers" article in black and white, one that appeared in the Watchtower awhile back, that as long as the procedure involves both you and your own husband, you can do it.

  What you might think about the idea of getting pregnant through artificial insemination if you don't need or don't want to do this doesn't matter. What matters is that the Watchtower said it was ok and you also heard one of the speakers at a convention you attended say it's ok for you to get pregnant through such a procedure. Would you do this or would you not have taken a hard look at your life and your circumstances, and made a determination as to whether or not it made any sense for you to be having such a procedure?

  I recall that there were those during the late 60s and early 70s that had "decided" based on something they heard one or more of the speakers at their Kingdom Hall say that they would forego the expense of giving one or more of their children a college education, or who withdrew their own plans to go to college, and all because it was imagined that the end of this system of things was going to arrive in 1975. Never mind what the Bible says at Matthew 24:36 as to no one knowing "that day and hour," not even Jesus knew at the time he said these words. Why the masthead of the Awake! magazine at the time, which appeared until November 8, 1995, read:

  "Most important, this magazine builds confidence in the Creator's promise of a peaceful and secure new world before the generation that saw the events of 1914 passes away."

  We have here a "He has blasphemed. What further need do we have for witnesses" moment. In those days people were running up their credit cards and piling up debt as if they knew something that no one else knew. I recall approaching Charles Sinutko at the time about the 1975 fervor that existed and we discussed how his remarks might be construed by some in our district to mean more than they actually did, but the point I'm making here is that we are just men doing the best we can with many of our imperfections perfectly intact. Expecting perfection from an elder is always going to lead to disappointment.

  I remember promising to take a few kids to Coney Island on a Saturday, except it rained. Kids don't want to accept that sometimes adults say things as if we had consulted the meteorologist god before saying them, but eventually we learned how to say to children, "if nothing happens." Remembering to use these three words kept us from appearing so, er, "imperfect." But these three words don't work with adults that believe what they want to believe and are so much more pliable than a child. At least a child will say, "Well, let me ask my mother (or father)."

  I had made a $10 bet at 3-1 odds for the Reds against my aunt during the World Series back on the East Coast in October of 1975, because I had not heard a thing from the UN about any declaration of "peace of security," so my reasoning was that without a great tribulation there could be no Armageddon and not only was I right, but my aunt had the Red Sox, which made her duty-bound to fork over $30 to her nephew or I was going to report her to her husband, who was one of my favorite uncles.

  My point here is not about blood fractions, not about in vitro fertilizations, not about the World Series, not about 1975 frenzy. My point here is that ignorance abounds in the world and Jehovah God knows this well. Just as there are those inside God's organization that cannot properly process the information they read or hear from the platform or at an assembly because they are illiterate and too ignorant to process what things they read and hear properly, and just as there are those outside God's organization that would vote during the Republican primary for Sen. Rick Santorum, knowing that he would strip away a woman's right to take birth control pills for non-contraceptive purposes just because there are some women take birth control pills for contraceptive purposes because they are illiterate and too ignorant to process what things they read and hear properly. (BTW, I don't have an opinion one way or the other on Santorum, but I'm merely making an observation here about the ignorance of people).

  Cognitive dissonance sets in.

  How so? Do you even know what cognitive dissonance means or are you perhaps using this oft-overused phrase because you think it resonates with many of the other folks here on JWN that use it? I know what it is, because I read a book that dealt with the topic at length, but I'd doubt that many of the people on here have read a book, because it is sufficient on here to parrot others that never read a book on the topic either. What do you say is "cognitive dissonance"? Not what some book says it is, but I'm interested in knowing what you think it to be in your own words. Most people cannot do this or cite examples of cognitive dissonance at work, but maybe you're different, @Chariklo. Let's see.

  How do you resolve this problem within yourself, please?

  Resolve what problem within myself? Please clarify what it is you are asking me here so that I don't need to speculate what it is you mean, ok? Thanks.

  @mP:

  how do you manage to write so much with so little quotes ? [you] must have typed thousands of words all from a [scripture] with a dozen words.

  Huh? I guess I'm good like that. How did you manage to type so few words and yet not catch the two typos I found in your post? Just kidding. I make more than my share of typos.

  @Bubblegum Apotheosis:

  @djeggnog: the "Freedom of Christian Conscience" is a foreign concept to weak christians who are still sucking on the [udders] of Momma Cow. A refreshing set of ideas you bring with you, that are not taught openly in meetings of publishers,elders, C.O.s. I will not allow another's conscience to control my spiritual freedom, so I am not afraid to ask questions from [multiple] sources.

  This is how it should be for every human being with a brain and a conscience, but many people refuse to think because they've never really had to do much of this in their life, except maybe to order something from the Drive-Thru at McDonalds.™

  This has been a long thread, but well worth the time spent reading it, trying to better understanding Bible interpretations, is not for the half hearted and weak. King [Jehoash's] example of his half hearted effort (2 Kings 13) by striking the ground only three times, instead striking with all his energy and without let up, failed to bring the desired result of God's favor. I hope you (DJegg) continue to strike the ground without let up, and don't allow anyone to steal, or impress your Christian freedom into their service.

  I am first zealous for the worship of Jehovah, perhaps a little more than was Jehoash, but after suffering more than a few defeats at the hands of Syria, he received mercy and was able to recover possession of the cities that he had lost to the king of Syria from the Syrian king's son. (2 Kings 13:22-25) I'm happy to hear you know this stuff, for there are many folks here that formerly associated with Jehovah's Witnesses that along the way lost their zeal for true worship and really need to come back to God's organization, but maybe this time with another congregation or another circuit, anywhere the causes for stumbling won't be. If some of these on here -- on JWN -- would come back to God's organization, I'm pretty sure that he'd also be merciful toward them.

  I ended the previous thread on this subject, saying I thought this was a topic that was not going away (glad it did not!). I love these kind of threads, I wish Marvin Shilmer would post his thoughts, (drift away from his Blood expertise for a moment) to add his scholarly skills to Biblical subjects (unless he is an atheist?) of "This Generation" What a fun thread!

  This thread is "funnish," @Bubblegum Apotheosis. I know I'm enjoying it!

  @djeggnog wrote:

  If you read above I didn't write "Christians might be free people"; you did. If you should be one of Jehovah's Witnesses and you, as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, should turn over your brain to someone else to obey whatever that person says, then you are not free, but in slavery. Nothing you might say in response to me will change this.

  @Bungi Bill wrote:

  Thank you, you have just shot your bloody self in the foot with that remark!

  Did I?

  Few (if any) of us here are going to swallow that line of yours about JWs being "free" to choose what they do or what they believe:

  - too many of us have been there already, and happen to know otherwise.

  Ok.

  @THE GLADIATOR wrote:

  Beaten by the passage of time the Watchtower Society had been forced to move the date for the battle of Armageddon....

  @djeggnog wrote:

  Jehovah's Witnesses have never predicted the arrival of Armageddon, especially in view of the fact that we have always taught what Jesus himself taught at Matthew 24:36, namely, that no one knows "that day and hour." How could Jehovah's Witnesses have moved a date that they have never known, let alone set?

  @THE GLADIATOR wrote:

  How about this?

  "If you are a young person, you also need to face the fact that you will never grow old in this present system of things. Why not? Because all the evidence in fulfillment of Bible prophecy indicates that this corrupt system is due to end in a few years. Of the generation that observed the beginning of the "last days" in 1914, Jesus foretold: "This generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur."-Matt. 24:34. Therefore, as a young person, you will never fulfill any career that this system offers. If you are in highschool and thinking about a college education, it means at least four, perhaps even six or eight more years to graduate into a specialized career. But where will this system of things be by that time? It will be well on the way toward its finish, if not actually gone!"

  Awake! 1969 May 22 p.15

  This is called speculation. The answer to the question, But where will this system of things be by that time?" is "We don't know," but I didn't write this paragraph, and as far as the last sentence, if I had written it, I would have written instead the following:

  "But where will this system of things be by that time? We don't know, but it may be well on the way toward its finish, if not actually gone!"

  I would never read more into something I read than is there, no matter what I might wish the material I'm reading to say. But there are many more people that will engage in speculation and read more into what they read or hear than was actually written or heard. Oh, well.

  Now I didn’t actually say the Watchtower Society had set a date, I simply quoted from the No need to stay Awake! And inferred that they had. I learnt this neat little trick by reading Watchtowers.

  Ok. Thanks for sharing this with me, @THE GLADIATOR.

  @djeggnog
• 
  48

  Memorial - Why do i keep going?

  by maisha in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  every year i attend, missing only 5 in 50 years.. i do not attend meetings nor active in anyway, my family shun me,(all devote believers) but i do feel drawn to attend each year.

  i am out for sure, but i no longer have faith, or a belief in any religous body as being approved by god.. i am so screwed up now i not sure if i believe in a creator!, let alone who or what that may be.. i was born into the truth, married into the truth and my ex is devote.. i could never return to the cult now seeing it for what it is.. i served, donated, slaved for years happy to do so as has all my family.. i went out of my way to get df, sort of a wanting to die act, of rejecting the society.. i used to sit in a movie in my youth and think, wow i am so lucky, all these people are going to die and i will live forever.. even just typing this gives release to my emotions,, lol,,, yea i have many emotions,,, many regrets, basically the organisation i followed and the instructions destroyed my life in every possible way.. the power plays that i witnessed within are what first woke me up,,,at first i let it go, forgiving those involved as brothers do.

  but again and again power and position is and was the thing to have, you got the power you got everything.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @Azazel:

  djeggnog why do you seem to lecture every reply? Do you believe we are all entitled to your opinion and must agree? BORING!

  Of course, I do. I believe that everyone on JWN is entitled to hear my opinions, as many as I can articulate, and there are so many of them that I am often amazed over the vast number of words it takes to articulate my opinions! If I had a penny (US: $0.01) for every two words I've written to forums like this one since the late 90s, I'd be a multibillionaire many times over! And as to folks agreeing with my opinions, why not? I mean, if they are all of them correct and well-researched, it seems to me that agreeing with them would be an absolute must, right?

  On another note, I have to tell you though that I've never seen a horse like the one that your avatar portrays, and I do love horses. I tell you what: That's one colorful thoroughbred. Sweet!

  @etna:

  djeggnog, Why do you go to the memorial. Didn't Jesus say to keep doing this until I return. He "returned in 1914". So why do they still do this. Have [Christendom] got it right or does Jesus come many times?

  @djeggnog wrote:

  The Roman Catholic Church, for example, who has its own beliefs regarding the Eucharist, teaches the Eucharistic bread to be a symbol of the church community, when the bread actually symbolizes Jesus' sinless fleshly body that he offered up in sacrifice for the life of the world, while the wine symbolizes Jesus' blood that makes operative the new covenant and those that rightly partake of the emblems and eat and drink during the ceremony acknowledge the kingdom covenant as being operative toward them.

  @Chariklo wrote:

  It wouldn't be a bad idea to check your facts before you post.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  I do not want to argue with you.... I had provided a single example of how the Eucharistic bread was viewed, but the main point you may have missed was that the bulk of that paragraph addressed the real meaning of the bread and the real meaning of the wine, the latter about which you might notice I said absolutely nothing regarding Christendom's view.... You wrote a lot about the belief of the Roman Catholic Church as to the emblems, but I wrote only 26 words -- count them:

  (1) The (2) Roman (3) Catholic (4) Church, (5) for (6) example, (7) who (8) has (9) its (10) own (11) beliefs (12) regarding (13) the (14) Eucharist, (15) teaches (16) the (17) Eucharistic (18) bread (19) to (20) be (21) a (22) symbol (23) of (24) the (25) church (26) community....

  @Chariklo wrote:

  OK, Eggnog, this is the last time I'm going to feed you by answering you in detail. FYI, I am writing at this moment in patient mode.

  <insert rim shot here>

  I wasn't sure how many words there were in that paragraph, so I decided to count the words in the rest of that paragraph: (27) when (28) the (29) bread (30) actually (31) symbolizes (32) Jesus' (33) sinless (34) fleshly (35) body (36) that (37) he (38) offered (39) up (40) in (41) sacrifice (42) for (43) the (44) life (45) of (46) the (47) world, (48) while (49) the (50) wine (51) symbolizes (52) Jesus' (53) blood (54) that (55) makes (56) operative (57) the (58) new (59) covenant (60) and (61) those (62) that (63) rightly (64) partake (65) of (66) the (67) emblems (68) and (69) eat (70) and (71) drink (72) during (73) the (74) ceremony (75) acknowledge (76) the (77) kingdom (78) covenant (79) as (80) being (81) operative (82) toward (83) them.

  Please note that the passage I quoted from you in my previous post above contained 83 words. It ended with "...operative [toward] them". Hence my point, which perhaps you had difficulty understanding.

  Yes, I see that now, 83 words. But did you notice that none of the other (let's see 83-26) 57 words in the subject paragraph had anything at all to do with the Roman Catholic Church theological viewpoint about the Eucharist in contrast with the first 26? No? Hence my point.

  I suppose it's possible that you either didn't notice this or your intent here is to be deliberately obtuse and argumentative in your response, which is fine. I did want to point out though, since we're here and all of the words have been counted that #82 is "toward," and for whatever reason you quoted me as having used the word "towards," which I could never have used because while both "toward" and "towards" mean exactly the same thing, my wordsmithing is based on the US English lexicon, where "toward" is in common use and not on the UK English lexicon, where "towards" would be the word of choice.

  In college, did study both lexicons somewhat, so I'm "somewhat" familiar with the one used across the Pond, but if you don't live in Great Britain and are living here in the US, use of the word "towards" instead of "toward" in an essay (and Essays"R"JWN) would definitely harm your grade were I doing the grading. If, however, this quote was an unintentional typo and I just made it a federal case of it, then, as the late Gilda Radner (Emily Litella) of the first Saturday Night Live cast in the 70s might say, "never mind."

  FYI, I've written all of this in "bored out of my skull" mode.

  I [was] not so much concerned with defining Catholic doctrine, which in itself is of only passing interest at best to those on this forum, but to [define] it accurately to expose the ignorance in which you referred to it while presenting yourself as an authority to others. That is a feature of your posts in this thread and elsewhere, and has been commented on by others.

  Oh, has this "feature" of mine been commented on by the JWN experts? You do not have to be an expert to make a comment on a JWN thread; all one needs to do that is to have an opinion and have the ability to form one or more coherent sentences. Thankfully, the ability to spell words correctly isn't a requirement here, so I'm pretty sure I'd win something due to the number of typos that find their way into many of my posts. I'd be amazed if the "typo count" for lengthy "essays" (like this one) should turn out to be zero.

  Now what was the point I was going to make? Oh, yeah....

  You say you weren't concerned with defining Catholic doctrine, but in "defining Catholic doctrine ... accurately" in order "to expose the ignorance in which [I] referred to [Catholic doctrine]." I sense a contradiction, but ok. I'm not sure that you exposed my ignorance, but I'm going to let this one go, @Chariklo.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  Who knows how many words you wrote, but, again, my only point in that piece was to say in response to @etna's message that "Christendom does not have it right." I don't claim and never have claimed to be an authority on the beliefs of any Christian denomination, but Jehovah's Witnesses, which is the denomination with which I am affiliated, so if my penning 26 words is regarded by you as 'hyping myself up as an authority,' then, please, be as brutally honest as you wish. I never mind anyone making a fool of yourself with strawmen that are based on 26 words.

  @Chariklo wrote:

  You think Jehovah's Witnesses are a denomination? They don't. They think they are a religion. Are you sure you are a JW and member of a JW congregation? (Many of us here think they are a cult.)

  What do you mean by "they don't"? I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses and we happen to be on the list of Christian denominations in the world. We are on the NGO list, too. It might be helpful to know, @Chariklo, what it is you believe to make a Christian denomination differ from a religious body, or, as you put it, "a religion." This seems to me to be a distinction without a difference, but maybe you will be able to help me to see daylight on this because, right now, I think yours to have been a goofy statement. I don't know. Where exactly were you educated about the world's religions? Planet Earth? Please don't say you obtained your education from reading the Watchtower and Awake! magazines. I know what was meant in the context that this saw was used, but, seriously, I cannot take anyone seriously that would make a statement like the one you just made here despite the pejorative.

  Even if some should think the word "cult" to be an apt description of Jehovah's Witnesses as a group, a cult is an exclusive system of religious beliefs and practices, many of which employ many rituals in their religious practices. As it happens, the word "cult" would aptly describe every Christian denomination on the planet since all Christian denominations are each of them exclusive systems that are distinctly different from other denominations, each having their own religious beliefs and practices, and some of them employing rituals among their religious practices.

  I really don't see, @Chariklo, how Jehovah's Witnesses would be the only group indicted by this particular definition, for if you have ever been inside of a Catholic church to see the rituals employed during Mass or seen a priest presiding over the Eucharist depicted in a movie, then it's hard to see how the RCC would escape indictment as a cult. Perhaps you are of the opinion, as are many Catholics, that the RCC is not a Christian denomination at all, since it claims to trace its roots, not back to 325 AD and its pagan honorary Christian, Constantine, but back to the apostle Peter, but wouldn't you agree that this the RCC is not only a cult were we to apply the above-described definition to it, but also a Christian denomination as much so as the group known as Jehovah's Witnesses?

  @Chariklo wrote:

  I don't know you very well and I haven't read all that many of your posts, but those I have read are very loud in telling people what the facts are.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  You should really take the time to read my posts and if you should do this, you might want to read them carefully. I never stutter and I always mean what I say, even if I should throw in a few typos from time to time.

  @Chariklo wrote:

  Rest assured, Eggnog, I had no thought that you stuttered. And be assured that I always read everything carefully. I've now read many more of your posts, far from all but quite as many as I choose to.

  Being that I am an ordained Christian minister, you should appreciate that my telling people what the facts are would be by design. Telling people the facts -- the truth -- as I understand the facts is what I do. Read as many of my post as you can in one sitting. If I had my druthers, I would tell you that you can derive much enlightenment from reading my posts, but I won't. Get yourself a beer, pour yourself a glass of wine, a Coke, whatever, and get your Bible.

  Now use the Watchtower Library CD, if you have it, for research purposes, but please stay away from it in positing arguments, for I only use it when folks on here quote from it to prove something to me, in order to explain to them, in turn, what the article(s) they quoted means and why their not having completed high school has made them functional illiterates with respect to their inability to comprehend the things they actually thought they read and understood. I'm not joking around here; it's really pathetic the dearth of academic acuity that many of the people here on JWN that left God's organization possess. That is why I have said many times on JWN that these folks were never really understood what dedication means, what their baptism meant, because they've never been taught by anyone what things the Bible teaches, only what things they've read in our publications to aid them in understanding what the Bible teaches. It is primarily for this reason that we have recently produced a simplified edition of the Watchtower.

  If something I should say to you is unclear, feel free to ask me to explain what it was I meant, but never assume based on what things you think we believe as Jehovah's Witnesses that you know what I meant, for often you will find that I meant something quite different than what you may have thought I meant or what you may have thought the Bible teaches or you may have thought Jehovah's Witnesses teach.

  (For example, in a different thread, someone on here posited the idea that the generation that Jesus said would not pass away during the first century AD lasted 37 years counting from 33 AD to 70 AD, but this calculation makes no sense in view of the fact that the sign that Jesus provided only became apparent in 66 AD -- not in 33 AD for this was only the prophecy -- and the fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy as to this sign occurred when Christians had first came to discern it 33 years later, in 66 AD, when it was that the generation of the sign began and that sign ended, not in 103 AD or 37 years later, but just four years later in 70 AD. People often repeat the same errors that they hear others on here saying, because they don't seem to know how to think about the veracity of the things they hear. [I've noticed that @OUTLAW has been ignoring my posts lately, so hopefully he'll be able to do something with this next statement.] People don't get to meet many geniuses during their lifetimes, but you are fortunate to be one of the lucky ones, for I am such.)

  The articles contained on the WT Library CD are designed to help the reader learn and comprehend scriptures that are difficult to comprehend without help from the many experienced Christians that helped write these articles and the many external sources quoted in many of these articles, but they are neither inerrant or inspired. Many active and former Jehovah's Witnesses rely so heavily on the Society's publications that they can often cite the publication year, the article and the page number from memory, but they cannot explain what things these articles articulate using scriptural citations, which makes many of them, in my opinion, parrots of our publications, rather than students of the Bible, because they are just as 2 Timothy 3:7 describes them, "always learning and yet never able to come to an accurate knowledge of truth."

  This is Maisha's thread. Most posters here have written with empathy and concern for him. Empathy and concern for others are a feature of this forum, one of its great strengths. I do not detect those qualities in your posts, such as I have read.

  I don't care about your "empathy and concern" detectors, since they may be slightly impaired due to biases, prejudices and things like these. Frankly, I wouldn't really give a great deal of thought to what you think to be my qualities. None of this is about me. It's possible that you will never "get" me, but that's ok, too. My hope is that the lurkers of these JWN threads will "get" me and benefit from at least one of the things that read in my posts.

  But you're right about this being Maisha's thread. I am worried though that too many former Witnesses will lose their lives because of illiteracy and prejudices and biases engendered by the things they suffered at the hands of bad elders, whose many imperfections either stumbled some of the folks here from pursuing true worship or have put many on their heels so that they are thinking about jumping ship because they sense shipwreck on their horizons. This is where my empathy and concern lies.

  Within this thread you have been conspicuously lacking in kindness to other posters including those who are troubled, and maybe less tough than others.

  I'm sure this true, but I exchanged many posts with many people here on JWN in more than just this thread, and perhaps your subjective judgment of me can only be based upon what things you know and not upon what things you don't know, which is totally understandable (in this context), but if any of my remarks in any of the posts you read in which I was involved should come off to you as being unnecessarily "tough," I believed those "tough" remarks were deserved.

  This is not the first time within this thread that posters other than myself have brought you to task for your attitude.

  And depending upon how long this thread continues, this will probably not be the last time either.

  They seem to me to have it right.

  Ok.

  @djeggnog
• 
  48

  Memorial - Why do i keep going?

  by maisha in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  every year i attend, missing only 5 in 50 years.. i do not attend meetings nor active in anyway, my family shun me,(all devote believers) but i do feel drawn to attend each year.

  i am out for sure, but i no longer have faith, or a belief in any religous body as being approved by god.. i am so screwed up now i not sure if i believe in a creator!, let alone who or what that may be.. i was born into the truth, married into the truth and my ex is devote.. i could never return to the cult now seeing it for what it is.. i served, donated, slaved for years happy to do so as has all my family.. i went out of my way to get df, sort of a wanting to die act, of rejecting the society.. i used to sit in a movie in my youth and think, wow i am so lucky, all these people are going to die and i will live forever.. even just typing this gives release to my emotions,, lol,,, yea i have many emotions,,, many regrets, basically the organisation i followed and the instructions destroyed my life in every possible way.. the power plays that i witnessed within are what first woke me up,,,at first i let it go, forgiving those involved as brothers do.

  but again and again power and position is and was the thing to have, you got the power you got everything.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @Chariklo:

  It wouldn't be a bad idea to check your facts before you post.

  I do not want to argue with you. I didn't stutter and I wrote exactly what it was I intended to write in my previous post. If I wanted to get into what other teachings there were in the Roman Catholic Church, I would have done that, but my focus was on just one aspect I addressed, not every aspect of RCC teachings. I read what you wrote and none of what you wrote undermined the point I was making, namely, that "Christendom does not have it right." I had provided a single example of how the Eucharistic bread was viewed, but the main point you may have missed was that the bulk of that paragraph addressed the real meaning of the bread and the real meaning of the wine, the latter about which you might notice I said absolutely nothing regarding Christendom's view.

  Now, I mention this because, in this area, I can recognise pure ignorance hyping itself up as an authority when I see it. Sorry if this comes across as brutal, djeggnog.

  "Brutal"? No. I can be brutal, too, but here's the thing: You wrote a lot about the belief of the Roman Catholic Church as to the emblems, but I wrote only 26 words -- count them:

  (1) The (2) Roman (3) Catholic (4) Church, (5) for (6) example, (7) who (8) has (9) its (10) own (11) beliefs (12) regarding (13) the (14) Eucharist, (15) teaches (16) the (17) Eucharistic (18) bread (19) to (20) be (21) a (22) symbol (23) of (24) the (25) church (26) community....

  Who knows how many words you wrote, but, again, my only point in that piece was to say in response to @etna's message that "Christendom does not have it right." I don't claim and never have claimed to be an authority on the beliefs of any Christian denomination, but Jehovah's Witnesses, which is the denomination with which I am affiliated, so if my penning 26 words is regarded by you as 'hyping myself up as an authority,' then, please, be as brutally honest as you wish. I never mind anyone making a fool of yourself with strawmen that are based on 26 words.

  I don't know you very well and I haven't read all that many of your posts, but those I have read are very loud in telling people what the facts are.

  You should really take the time to read my posts and if you should do this, you might want to read them carefully. I never stutter and I always mean what I say, even if I should throw in a few typos from time to time.

  In this instance, it is not just that you don't know your facts, but you go to lengths to represent your own misunderstandings and misinterpretations as facts, and yourself as a knowledgeable authority.

  Question #1: Are you still talking about the 26 words that I have no intention of retracting or are you referring to something else you read in this one post of mine that you read?

  In this instance, where I do know what I'm talking about, I've taken the trouble to give what may be boring truths and definitions so that people can see that you are basically talking through the top of your head. [¶] Please don't do it.

  Question #2: How do you think these "boring truths and definitions" you took the trouble to provide in your message is being received by those who are actually following this thread? I'm a mind, @Chariklo, and if you should decide in the future to argue with me about anything, you might consider bringing a working knowledge of the subject at hand with you, and maybe next time it would be good to take a moment to try to get a sense of that about which I was actually speaking before taking the time to post a response to a subject with which you could have, but didn't take the time to acquaint yourself that proves to be unavailing as was your response. I could ask you to please not do this again, but I realize that being hasty may be more your style, so I won't.

  BTW, @Chariklo, this is not my "brutal" mode; it's more of my "kind" mode. Just for grins, why not try to guess the mode I'm in as I now go on to respond to @etna's post?

  @etna:

  Jesus was [enthroned] as King when he was resurrected. You might want to read the bible instead of the [Watchtower].

  Paul says different: At Hebrews 10:12, 13, he says that Jesus "sat down at the right hand of God, from then on awaiting until his enemies should be placed as a stool for his feet." Paul wrote this in 61 AD, some 28 years after Jesus' resurrection, proving that Jesus was still waiting until his enemies should be placed as a stool for his feet at that time. What's interesting is that Revelation 12:10 says also: "Now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down...," which suggests that Jesus' authority as king didn't come until after John received the vision he wrote down in Revelation, and John wrote this in 96 AD, some 63 years after Jesus' resurrection.

  You can open up your Bible and read it, but you should maybe consult an encyclopedia to validate whether the books of Hebrews and Revelation were written about the time when I said they were, for if both of these books were written before Jesus' resurrection, then..., well....

  @djeggnog
• 
  245

  Is the Watchtower shy about repeating their new "generation" teaching?

  by slimboyfat in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  as i recall in the 1980s talks and watchtower literature, magazines and books were always talking about the "generation" teaching and how it proved armageddon was going to come any day now.. but am i correct in thinking they have only actually mentioned the new "overlapping generations" teaching once or twice in the literature?

  why are they so shy about talking about their great new interpretation?

  it's almost enough to make you suspect they are a embarrassed about it.. mention it once or twice, don't dwell on it, hope everyone just accepts it, and don't bring it up again.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @djeggnog wrote:

  Christians are a free people, and as such are guided by their own consciences that have been trained to distinguish between right and wrong. You do not have to believe me. I'm fine with you and others on here believing whatever things you wish to believe, which is how it should be, with each one carrying his or her own load and each one proving to himself or herself the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.

  @Bungi Bill wrote:

  - Jehovahs Witnesses, though, are "free" only to do what they are told!

  No amount of baffflegab / circumlocution / verbal diarrhea (or staight out codswhallop) from you or anyone else changes that.

  If you read above I didn't write "Christians might be free people"; you did. If you should be one of Jehovah's Witnesses and you, as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, should turn over your brain to someone else to obey whatever that person says, then you are not free, but in slavery. Nothing you might say in response to me will change this.

  @iCeltic:

  If there is no problem with you posting here post your congregation and position held, if any, in that congregation.

  I'd be willing to do that if you can inform me how I might do so without compromising my anonymity. I live on the West Coast and in California, I'm well known. Pitch me a suggestion and I'll consider it.

  @iCeltic wrote:

  Djeggnog - when watchtower changes a doctrine, you believe it, when watchtower demands that you live a certain way, you do it. When watchtower instructs you not to post on sites such as this you, what, ignore it?

  @djeggnog wrote:

  Let me see if I understand what you are saying here: Your conscience tells you that I should not be posting messages to JWN? Really?!? You truly believe that I should be obeying your conscience? Seriously?!? [¶] You have been misled to believe something that really isn't true or taught by God's organization.

  @iCeltic wrote:

  My conscience? What on earth are you talking about? I couldnt care less if you posted here or not, you are of no threat to me, but it is clear to me that Jehovah's Witnesses should not post on these sites, I remember hearing that myself from the kingdom hall when I went.

  If you don't know what I'm talking about here, then maybe I shouldn't be talking to you at all. I was talking about how someone demands that Jehovah's Witnesses live in a particular way or else, and you then went on to cite as an example of one of such demand my posting messages to JWN. Again, you raised this as an issue, so I would expect you to know why it was you raised it. If you ran JWN and didn't want me here, you could delete my account so that I could no longer post here, but you don't own JWN, so what business is it of yours what I do? Do you exercise any authority over me? No, you don't. Do you believe you speak for Jehovah's Witnesses? No, you don't. Do you believe you speak for the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses? No, you don't. Do you believe you speak for the Society? No, you don't. Do you consider yourself to be a sane, reasonable person? No, you cannot possibly think you are.

  Either you are lying or the brothers delivering talks on not even looking let alone taking part in conversations with, as you would call them, apostates, are lying.

  Those assigned parts on circuit or district assemblies are given an outline, and they can stick to what the outline says, but they can also digress from it, and often "digress from it" is what they did. But for you to say that I am lying about this is an interesting statement, one that you cannot prove, because you're like a fundamentalist in that if you should read something and believe that you understand what you have read, then even if you should be 70%, 90% or 100% wrong, you refuse to look inward or consider the possibility that you really didn't understand what it was you read after all. I've known many active Jehovah's Witnesses that are like you, and these folks could be described by three (3) words: (1) opinionated, (2) ignorant and (3) perverse. I am telling you the truth here, but you cannot listen to my words, so as far as you are concerned, I am a liar. I accept that to you this is what I am.

  @cantleave:

  Like all cowards Idiotnog wouldn't dare give his identity on here. He knows he shouldn't be on here. His stupidity is quite entertaining though.

  I wonder if you will ever tire of all of this name-calling you do in the messages you post directed to me. How can you possibly call me an idiot or call me stupid? No one may have been courageous enough to give you their assessment of you as a communicator here on JWN, so I won't either, but it's ridiculous that I can actually count of reading such messages from you, @cantleave. And to think that you were formerly an elder. My, my.

  As to my compromising my own anonymity here by divulging anything personal about me, including what positions I've held (this sounds a bit like a request made during a job interview!) and the names of the congregation with whom I now associate or may have associated in the past for no other reason than because you are curious about me and want to learn a little something more about me than you know at present is flattering, @cantleave, but I would be an idiot to give such information to a stranger, someone that I wouldn't even invite into my home based solely on the darkness I discern in many your messages.

  I didn't come to JWN looking to make friends, but if I did, there's nothing about you to which I would be drawn so that I would want to become your friend. I wouldn't put it past you to be so deranged in mind as to want to stalk me in real life and all that entails due to your murderous disdain and hatred for the Society, since even though I don't know why you are no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I do know that there is a reason, and that if it were for pedophilia or rape or any of such things, you wouldn't be as willing to 'fess up and disclose to us here what that reason is, but maybe you will. Who knows? You could be one sick bastard that only someone not of sound mind would befriend. I don't know and I don't want to know you better, @cantleave, ok?

  You say I know I shouldn't be here, but you're wrong: I know no such thing, for as an adult, I decide for myself what it is I will or will not do, and while I readily submit to God's organization, there are things that my conscience will never allow me to do, which is the kind of freedom I enjoy as a Christian. Put another way, I don't do abject anything, and what someone described as "doing what one is told" sounds to me like to tend to think of men that are Jehovah's Witnesses as wimps or sissies. What about you? Were you a wimp or a sissy, doing what everything you were told to do by someone else? I'm wondering how candid you are about publicly divulging such things about yourself since I don't see how you would lose your anonymity by doing so. Why don't you humor me, @cantleave? Prove that you don't suffer from cowardice and tell me a few things about yourself that you don't really want people to know. Go ahead.

  @Vanderhoven7 wrote:

  The problem is that Luke 16:19-31 is not a parable.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  Ok.

  @Vanderhoven7 wrote:

  Think of how this story was understood at the time.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  Why should I when you don't seem to have done any thinking?

  @Vanderhoven7 wrote:

  Very dismissive of you DJ.

  My intent wasn't to convey dismissiveness of you or your statement, but to point out what is apparently obvious to me, even though it isn't to you: You cannot possibly have concluded that Luke 16:19-31 isn't a parable, not if you had done any thinking.

  Look: I really don't want to hijack this thread any more so than it has already been hijacked, since it is supposed to be about the recent interpretation of Jehovah's Witnesses regarding the expression, "this generation," used by Jesus at Matthew 24:34, and the only reason I mentioned this parable was to make a point about the need to interpret the expression "bosom position of Abraham" just as there is a need to interpret the expression, "this generation," so I'll just make this one obvious point regarding this parable at Luke 16:22-24:

  "Also, the rich man died and was buried. And in Hades he lifted up his eyes, he existing in torments, and he saw Abraham afar off and Lazarus in the bosom position with him. So he called and said, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in anguish in this blazing fire.'"

  The rich man is buried in Hades, right, and yet what does he do in this parable? The dead man speaks! The dead cannot speak, but the rich man says something to Abraham, who he (what?) "saw," meaning that this dead man is said to have used his eyes to see Abraham (where?) "afar off," wherever "afar off" is. But this dead guy didn't use see Abraham from "afar off," but as I said he used his power of speech to speak to Abraham from "afar off," saying "Father Abraham, have mercy of me." I'll stop right here. Are you prepared to tell me that you read these three verses from this account about the rich man and Lazarus and think this story is about a rich man that "died and was buried" and while he was dead was able to see and speak?

  But why should my alleged lack of thought determine yours?

  What? I didn't say this, did I? Nothing you say or don't say can affect my thoughts. What exactly do you mean by saying this? I don't understand what you mean here.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  Or, more specifically since we are talking about interpretation here, you may recall in Jesus' parable about the rich man and Lazarus, we read at Luke 16:22 Jesus' relating to us how it was that following Lazarus' death, he was "carried off by the angels to the bosom position of Abraham" (NWT) or how he "was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom" (KJV). Most people today would interpret the expression, "bosom position of Abraham" or "Abraham's bosom" to mean that Jesus was saying that Lazarus had died, but Jehovah's Witnesses interpret this expression differently to mean that Lazarus had come into God's favor, just as we read at John 1:18 how Jesus had come to be "in the bosom position with the Father" (NWT) or was "in the bosom of the Father" (KJV).

  @Vanderhoven7 wrote:

  Certainly assuming Luke 16:19-31 is a parable reveals that the lack of thought is your own. As such, your "Bosom of Abraham" analogy fails as justification for your organization's practice of assigning any meaning it wants to scriptural terms.

  Well, I believe you're mistaken about the rich man and Lazarus not being a parable. I shared with you what I believe it to be and I'm ok with you believing differently than I do, but thinking doesn't seem to be your forté, your thing. I just don't see how you can think that Luke 16:19-31 is not a parable.

  FYI, the Pharisees in Jesus' audience considered Abraham's Bosom a literal place.....the paradise side of Hades.

  Ok, @Vanderhoven7.

  @slimboyfat:

  What's wrong with being anonymous?

  I think @iCeltic is only interested in my not being anonymous. He is perfectly fine with your being anonymous.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  Let me see if I understand what you are saying here: Your conscience tells you that I should not be posting messages to JWN? Really?!? You truly believe that I should be obeying your conscience? Seriously?!?

  @outsmartthesystem wrote:

  The challenge was NOT for you to adopt another man's conscience. Never once did iCeltic ask you to adopt his conscience.

  Please read my reply to @iCeltic. I see no need to repeat it for you here.

  This is a lie. The question box in the September 2007 KM asks the question as to whether or not the FDS endorses independent groups who engage in research or debate. The answer was a resounding "no".

  How exactly did I lie? This "question box" article to which you refer seeks whether the Society endorses or sanctions websites that it doesn't itself set up, and the answer is it doesn't provide oversight for any website other than its own websites. You have read way more into this "question box" article than is there.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  You should know that I do not rely upon the subjective judgments of others for the decisions I make and the conclusions I draw. If anyone's conscience should accuse the person, it is a sin for that person and they should not be here, but if one's conscience should excuse the person, then they commit no sin. (Romans 2:15; James 4:17) No one can decide for me who is an apostate and who isn't an apostate. Many of you have Bibles, but put more faith in the hype than the things that Bible teaches so that you parrot as doctrines what others believe to be sins, or rules or commands, when what is being spread is opinion, falsehood, lies like 'the Society instructs you not to post on sites like this one.'

  @outsmartthesystem wrote:

  According to the doctrine of your cult, whether a person is merely disfellowshipped or an all out apostate that preaches against the advancement of your cult....

  Look, young man: You don't get to tell me what doctrines Jehovah's Witnesses believe or to what doctrines I should adhere. If you want to ask me a question, ask away, but I would never allow someone else to tell me what the beliefs of my own faith are or what they believe I ought to be doing to live in compliance with them. You're a very silly man.

  @outsmartthesystem:

  Oh....what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive. Here is a quote from Egg on a different topic that we discussed last summer.

  You're off-topic.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  Even if this were true, what things the Society suggests or admonishes doesn't rise to the level of a command from the Almighty, which is the very thing that we find Jesus condemning about the teaching of the Pharisees, or they proscribes rules that took on the dimension of commands and taught these "commands of men as doctrines." Contrary to what you believe, the Society doesn't promulgate doctrines, nor does it change Bible doctrines. It is Jehovah's Witnesses as a body of Christians that interpret Bible doctrines.

  @outsmartthesystem:

  Yup. You got it. All seven of them

  I was referring to all Jehovah's Witnesses, all seven million plus, not the current seven members that comprise the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses. You are the one saying mindless things about the governing body being responsible for all of the interpretations to which Jehovah's Witnesses adhere.

  Tell me this, @outsmartthesystem: Of the seven members of the governing body -- Herd, Jackson, Lett, Lösch, Morris, Pierce and Splane -- which of these provided the adjustment that Jehovah's Witnesses received back in 1942 regarding the change in our understanding of Bible chronology to which all Jehovah's Witnesses adhere today? If you don't know, that's ok, but I only ask this question to point out how stupid this idea of yours that seven men are responsible for how all Jehovah's Witnesses interpret Scripture.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  Believe me: There are those of us that know the difference between a recommendation that comes from the governing body and a command that comes from God.

  @outsmartthesystem wrote:

  Would you be so kind as to make a list of both and post it? That a ways.....lurkers may be able to decipher once and for all what rules they are allowed to break and what ones they may not.

  I think this to be a stupid request. If you don't know the different between a recommendation that comes from someone and a command that comes from the Almighty, then you're lost and I'd doubt that anyone will be able to help you. Maybe someone would be willing to help you, but I'm not willing to offer you any assistance with this. Frankly, like I told @Vidqun recently, I wouldn't know how to help someone that doesn't understand basic concepts.

  @iCeltic wrote:

  Djeggnog - when watchtower changes a doctrine, you believe it, when watchtower demands that you live a certain way, you do it. When watchtower instructs you not to post on sites such as this you, what, ignore it?

  @djeggnog wrote:

  Now things are changing and many of you that have monitoring God's organization for some reason -- maybe you do so as a backstop against the possibility that you were wrong and Jehovah's Witnesses is God's organization, I don't know -- have been left totally in the dark. But I'll continue to post here as long as I decide to do so until @Simon should declare JWN to be an apostate website.

  @outsmartthesystem wrote:

  It is quite simple. We enjoy watching the cult that we used to be a part of slowly crumble under the weight of its own hypocrisy....

  This was part of my response to a question asked by @iCeltic. I don't recall asking you a question and I don't care what things you do to bide your time until the great tribulation arrives. You don't need to explain anything to me. I don't care what you are doing or why you are doing it, @outsmartthesystem. Even though it seems you want to take out your anger against Jehovah's Witnesses or probably, more specifically, against certain ones among Jehovah's Witnesses, your beef is with someone else, because I don't know you or want to know you. Don't use me as a substitute because you lack the fortitude to buy a plane ticket to go and call out the ones against whom your anger rages.

  After that stunt you pulled awhile back in posting one of the longest and pointless messages I've ever seen posted to a thread on JWN, you should feel fortunate that I posted any response to any of your posts in this thread. You are someone that loves to argue over minutiae, and I never forget stunts like the one you pulled, and be advised that I may pass on responding to any subsequent post you might make to this thread unless those posts should be on topic.

  @iCeltic:

  I'm not a busybody in other peoples affairs, I'm not worrying about you. I'm challenging you, as are others here. You continually say things like 'gods organisation' , the vast majority of people here don't agree with you, we don't believe watchtower is gods organisation. You do, and that's fine by me, you are allowed your view, as are the rest of us here.

  For whom do you speak on JWN? I see you write about how "the vast majority of people here" and "we" and "us," but did any of these folks give you their proxy to speak on their behalf? If not, then from whom didn't you receive their proxy? I don't believe you speak for anyone but yourself.

  The simple facts of the matter are, this website is not a site for JWs to come and associate with like minded people, it's more a place to find help to recover from the damage watchtower has done to people's lives. Don't insult the people here by saying that it's ok for you to engage with us here. It's as ok for you to do that as it is to celebrate your birthday.

  Tell you what: Mind you own business and don't concern yourself with what I am doing. If you want, I will start ignoring your posts so as not to interfere with the expression of more of such delusional viewpoints, ok? Would that work for you, @iCeltic?

  Slimboyfat - there's nothing wrong with that at all, many here have the best reasons for doing so, my point was that egg is saying its ok as a JW to post here, I was only saying that if that's the case, let all your JW brothers and sisters know that you do it. Of course he won't, because it's not.

  Many active Jehovah's Witnesses know that I post messages to this website. They read the printed copies of the ones to which I have posted here. Contrary to what you believe, it is not a secret to everyone that I post messages here, but as Paul stated, if a person should be comfortable eating vegetables, why put a stumbling block before him or give him a cause for tripping for it just wouldn't be loving to cause another to stumble over what things we eat that his faith doesn't permit him to eat. Understand? If not, that's tough, but maybe someone here will explain the point I have made here (that you don't understand) to you.

  @djeggnog