Posts by Essan

40

The fundamental flaw with the WTBTS as "God's Organization"?

by Essan in

there are countless issues that people have with the society and which together have led to many people realizing that it is not what it claims and pretends to be.

these include things like the secret un affiliation, contradictory and hypocritical stances, (malawi vs mexico vs un/ngo), the ever changing blood policy and ever changing doctrine, failed predictions for armageddon etc, etc, etc.. but what is the consensus about what the fundamental flaw is?.

what i mean is, many jw's hear about these various issues and manage to make endless excuses for them, even though this involves gross hypocrisy and excusing the society for things they would never excuse in other religions and which the society itself has ruthless condemned other religions for over almost 100 years.

Essan

Some great replies thanks.

I do feel the 1914-1919 period and the supposed "choosing"and "appointing" at that time is the vulnerable 'Achilles heel' for the Org.

It can be presented as a very valid challenge "Look, I will stay (or join) if you can prove Scripturally that God said he would have one Org, and that the Society is it and was chosen in 1919. If you can do that, as you should be able to, I'll stay."

As soon as we get to the "Slave" Scripture, they have to prove they were "Discreet" and were feeding pure food at the proper time - but their own publications show this to be totally false.

Then when we get to the "Wise Virgins" Scripture - another supposed 1919 prophesy about the Society - they have to prove they were "awake" when the cry went up that the Master had arrived. They had to be ready at the time. Unfortunately they were wrongly teaching he had arrived 40 years earlier in 1874, so they were "asleep".

And the biggest gift the Society has given us relating to this pivotal time of supposed "choosing" is that, just as some quoted on the previous page, they lie now about what they preached in the run up to 1914, which shows they know full well that what they taught them is a 'black mark' against them and would disqualify them from being "chosen". This lie is easily exposed, because it just involves comparing quotes from now and then.

26

Top 5 Flawed Teachings

by MrFreeze in

this is for all of you out there who post wells of information on the doctrines of jw's.

let's say you had to present your top 5 arguments for why jw's are not the true religion, which five would you choose?

i'd like to hear all of your thoughts.

Essan

The F&DS is the top flawed teaching IMO. They could not have qualified as the slave in 1919, nor met the requirements of the "Wise Virgins", therefore they can't have been chosen as "God's Org".

40

The fundamental flaw with the WTBTS as "God's Organization"?

by Essan in

there are countless issues that people have with the society and which together have led to many people realizing that it is not what it claims and pretends to be.

these include things like the secret un affiliation, contradictory and hypocritical stances, (malawi vs mexico vs un/ngo), the ever changing blood policy and ever changing doctrine, failed predictions for armageddon etc, etc, etc.. but what is the consensus about what the fundamental flaw is?.

what i mean is, many jw's hear about these various issues and manage to make endless excuses for them, even though this involves gross hypocrisy and excusing the society for things they would never excuse in other religions and which the society itself has ruthless condemned other religions for over almost 100 years.

Essan

Neon, that is one of the main characteristics I have noticed about JW's since leaving. Their inability/unwillingness to address one issue thoroughly. As soon as they feel their reasoning is being defeated on one issue, or if they are presented with decisive evidence regarding one issue, they try to change topics.

It's very dishonest and extremely frustrating and thoroughly characteristic of JW's. As you say, they can't be allowed to do this or it will just take the discussion in meaningless circles. It is how the virus like lie which has invaded their mind protects itself from exposure.

40

The fundamental flaw with the WTBTS as "God's Organization"?

by Essan in

there are countless issues that people have with the society and which together have led to many people realizing that it is not what it claims and pretends to be.

these include things like the secret un affiliation, contradictory and hypocritical stances, (malawi vs mexico vs un/ngo), the ever changing blood policy and ever changing doctrine, failed predictions for armageddon etc, etc, etc.. but what is the consensus about what the fundamental flaw is?.

what i mean is, many jw's hear about these various issues and manage to make endless excuses for them, even though this involves gross hypocrisy and excusing the society for things they would never excuse in other religions and which the society itself has ruthless condemned other religions for over almost 100 years.

Essan

TJ. I agree. I think there are two basic types of JW. The sincere and the insincere.

The sincere are deceived but if they are exposed to the full facts, they realize their mistake. Because they love truth more than feeling 'right'.

The insincere are deceived, but want to be. They don't want to hear the facts and if they do, they will ignore them or make excuses. They love feeling 'right' more than truth.

For the sincere JW's, realizing the Society could not have qualified as the "Faithful Slave", is crucial and decisive.

For the insincere, it's as meaningless and any other truth. Insincerity is their 'fundamental flaw' and I'm not sure anything can be done about that.

40

The fundamental flaw with the WTBTS as "God's Organization"?

by Essan in

there are countless issues that people have with the society and which together have led to many people realizing that it is not what it claims and pretends to be.

these include things like the secret un affiliation, contradictory and hypocritical stances, (malawi vs mexico vs un/ngo), the ever changing blood policy and ever changing doctrine, failed predictions for armageddon etc, etc, etc.. but what is the consensus about what the fundamental flaw is?.

what i mean is, many jw's hear about these various issues and manage to make endless excuses for them, even though this involves gross hypocrisy and excusing the society for things they would never excuse in other religions and which the society itself has ruthless condemned other religions for over almost 100 years.

Essan

Why, does it say the same thing? LOL Even the Star Wars analogy too? Oh, no.

I've never read it. But I've heard other people mention it.

EDITED to ADD. I've just clicked the link. Yeah he seems to be saying exactly this.

Well, I agree with him :)

40

The fundamental flaw with the WTBTS as "God's Organization"?

by Essan in

there are countless issues that people have with the society and which together have led to many people realizing that it is not what it claims and pretends to be.

these include things like the secret un affiliation, contradictory and hypocritical stances, (malawi vs mexico vs un/ngo), the ever changing blood policy and ever changing doctrine, failed predictions for armageddon etc, etc, etc.. but what is the consensus about what the fundamental flaw is?.

what i mean is, many jw's hear about these various issues and manage to make endless excuses for them, even though this involves gross hypocrisy and excusing the society for things they would never excuse in other religions and which the society itself has ruthless condemned other religions for over almost 100 years.

Essan

There are countless issues that people have with the Society and which together have led to many people realizing that it is not what it claims and pretends to be. These include things like the secret UN affiliation, contradictory and hypocritical stances, (Malawi vs Mexico Vs UN/NGO), the ever changing blood policy and ever changing doctrine, failed predictions for Armageddon etc, etc, etc.

But what is the consensus about what the fundamental flaw is?

What I mean is, many JW's hear about these various issues and manage to make endless excuses for them, even though this involves gross hypocrisy and excusing the Society for things they would never excuse in other religions and which the Society itself has ruthless condemned other religions for over almost 100 years. Still, many JW's do just pull this hypocritical mental-gymnastic stunt and dismiss the facts and make excuses for the Society.

Why?

It seems like there is some fundamental belief which is somehow not touched by seeing these various errors and which anchors them to the Society no matter what.

What is that fundamental belief and how how can it be dealt with?

My own opinion is that this 'lynchpin' belief, the unchallenged assumption, is that the Society is "God's Organization", the rep of the "Faithful and Discreet Slave". Everything else rests on that, and as long as that notion remains unchallenged, nothing else matters. All 'sins' no matter how gross will often be overlooked because of this core assumption.

I think this belief is a little like the little energy port that Luke has to shoot in Star Wars to destroy the otherwise indestructible 'Death Star" LOL. The energy port leads to the Core - Boom. Hit that and it's Game Over.

So, my thought is that for many JW's the 'satellite' issues - no matter how serious they are - and irrelevant as long as the Core Assumption remains intact. Which means the key issue would be to show that they cannot be "The Faithful and Discreet Clave" and simply cannot have been appointed to anything in 1919, and this is actually pretty easily done. If this is shown to be impossible, then the reason for their dismissing all the other errors simply vanishes.

That's my feeling anyway.

What say you?

74

Ran over my dog today

by BurnTheShips in

jw
friends

she was chasing my car up the road.

i didn't notice her.

she is gone.. bts.

Essan

Oh, I'm so sorry about that BTS!

It's terrible when we lose a loved pet. I'm sure she had a good life with you. When I have lost pets in the past I always got another pet quite quickly to help ease the pain - and it really does help. I hope you feel better soon.

62

Explanation for the generation in Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30 and Luke 21:32

by alice.in.wonderland in

i see quite a bit of inquiry about the generation in matthew 24:34, mark 13:30 and luke 21:32. in every scripture in the gospels, the term generation is referring to a wicked generation except for matthew 24:34, mark 13:30 and luke 21:32. .

then as an answer to him some of the scribes and pharisees said: teacher, we want to see a sign from you.

in reply he said to them: a wicked and adulterous generation keeps on seeking for a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of jonah the prophet.

Essan

Alice said: The context of this scripture isn't crystal clear and the meaning of some Bible passages are only explained through the passage of time.

No, for the JW's they are explained wrongly, and then changed again and again, though the passage of time. They are not "explained" through the passage of time. And the passage of time should have nothing to to with the true explanation. The passage of time is only seen as relevant because JW's made the mistake or anchoring their "Generation" interpretation to a separate date they had arrived at. Time proved this to be a mistake. But they won't learn from it.

The truth is, if they didn't know - which clearly they didn't and don't - then they should have kept their mouths shut and said "We don't know what the Generation is, the context is unclear". But no, they made it part of a false "Creators Promise" linked to 1914.

Big Mistake. Repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated.....but their brand new non-contextual understanding is "evident". Wow. Isn't that exciting? I'm sure it'll be correct this time. Sixth time's a a charm!

Alice said: It's quite possible the faithful and discreet slave had the current meaning in mind but took into consideration various expectations and let time be the judge.

No, otherwise they would not have referred to a former wrong interpretation as "The Creator's Promise". Unless you believe that it's possible the GB could know full well that an interpretation may be incorrect, but decided to claim it as God's Promise anyway? That would be a problem.

Alice said: The people that deny its meaning as explained in the Watchtower...

Sorry, deny which explanation? There have been so many. This month's?

"...don't know what it means and really never did. Was it ever explained in any other books written by theologians?"

I don't know. But you're right, shame on them for not making a definite judgement when they didn't know for sure! They should take a leaf out of the Society's book and claim they do know even when they don't and make false statements as fact, which they later discard as false. Better to authoritatively talk crap than to humbly refrain from judgement, right? Actually, as is now obvious, the Society itself "doesn't know what it means and really never did", but they don't let details like that restrain them.

You said the context was unclear. The "faithful and discreet" thing to do, if you don't know because the context is not clear, is not to make unsound proclamations in God's name and to admit that you don't know.

62

Explanation for the generation in Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30 and Luke 21:32

by alice.in.wonderland in

i see quite a bit of inquiry about the generation in matthew 24:34, mark 13:30 and luke 21:32. in every scripture in the gospels, the term generation is referring to a wicked generation except for matthew 24:34, mark 13:30 and luke 21:32. .

then as an answer to him some of the scribes and pharisees said: teacher, we want to see a sign from you.

in reply he said to them: a wicked and adulterous generation keeps on seeking for a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of jonah the prophet.

Essan

The OP basically says that Generation can mean many things and that the Scriptural context determines the exact meaning - or at least it should.

But that is not what is happening with the Society's ever changing interpretation of the "Generation". If their interpretation of the Generation was actually based on the Scriptural context it would not have changed so many times, because the context is unchanging. I don't recall those passages of Scripture changing over the past 100 years, do you? No. The context is unchanging and pretty obvious. It's not that hard to understand.

So why has the Society's interpretation of the "Generation" changed so many times, if it's Scriptural context has never changed? Because the "context" they are using to interpret is not the Scriptures, it's their own publications and their own claims.

The context they are using is 1914 and their claim that this date is when the "Generation" starts and that it is marked from this year.

Their interpretations are based on the wrong context. Having linked the "Generation" to 1914, and because of being unwilling to admit they were wrong to do this, the context continually shifts as the decades pass. They are forced by repeated evident failure of interpretation due to the passage of time to constantly change the "Generation", not by 'new light".

But, their intent is still not to interpret the "Generation" in terms of what the Scriptural context actually reveals, but to interpret it in a way that retains their 1914 date, in a way that somehow still makes them right, despite the fact that every former attempt to interpret it according to 1914 has proved them wrong and had to be scrapped. They are like someone who tries to put their feet in two different rowing boats. The boats start to drift apart, but they wont make a choice to go with one or abandon the other, so they end up doing the splits in ever more painful fashion as the 'boats' - 1914 and the "Generation" - drift ever further apart. Right now they are in full splits stretched so far that - excuse my vulgarity - their balls are dangling in the water. LOL

You'd think they'd have noticed a pattern and they'd have said to each other:

"Hang on guys. Every time we interpret the generation, the passage of time proves our interpretation wrong and he have to find new ways of extending what a Generation could be so it still links with 1914. We've run out of options and the recent explanations are just getting extremely silly. But we're not getting the interpretation from the Scriptural context, we're just trying to make a Generation fit with 1914. Maybe that's where we've been going wrong? Maybe we should reconsider 1914 in light of the fact that every interpretation we have made of the Generation - when linked to 1914 - has failed?"

The "Generation" is proving 1914 wrong. But they won't admit it. That's because their primary context for interpretation is not the Bible, but their own claims regarding dates. Their primary context is their own pride.

Come on guys, you've abandoned so many dates before, another one isn't really going to matter is it?

62

Explanation for the generation in Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30 and Luke 21:32

by alice.in.wonderland in

i see quite a bit of inquiry about the generation in matthew 24:34, mark 13:30 and luke 21:32. in every scripture in the gospels, the term generation is referring to a wicked generation except for matthew 24:34, mark 13:30 and luke 21:32. .

then as an answer to him some of the scribes and pharisees said: teacher, we want to see a sign from you.

in reply he said to them: a wicked and adulterous generation keeps on seeking for a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of jonah the prophet.

Essan

Alice, (weren't you banned?) I find it fascinating how you manage to find time to respond to posts by those venting their exasperation with you and that you rebuke them for not debating with you about the evidence presented in the OP, yet you ignore those replies which actually do directly debate the subject raised in the OP, such as Ultimate Reality's.

Why is that, I wonder?

It almost seems like you aren't interested in honest debate, but thrive on the personal conflict, after all, that is what you're choosing to address, rather than the subject matter.