Yes, but tell the truth Sab, if - as is quite likely - she turns around in six months time and says "That's it, I've changed my mind. You were right. This can't be God's Org." you'd still give her a big cyber-hug. LOL.
Posts by Essan
-
9How WT Apologists at JWN inherently break forum rules. :)
by Essan ini noticed the posting guidelines the other day as i was replying to djeggnog, one of our relentless wt apologists (although he's very unapologetic about it :) and i noticed one rule in particular that got me thinking.. seeing as such jw's are representatives of an organization that falsely claims to solely "represent" a pretty important person - god - and they frequently make the claim here that the org.
represents god on earth and that it's teachings are god's teachings - a claim they have been completely unable to substantiate - then i'm fairly sure they must be in breach of rule 7:.
"impersonating or falsely claiming to represent a person or organization".. so, if ever one was looking for a technicality on which to 'disfellowship' any particularly unpleasant and deceptive society worshipping spammers, then maybe posting guideline 7 might be the way to go.
-
-
-
9
How WT Apologists at JWN inherently break forum rules. :)
by Essan ini noticed the posting guidelines the other day as i was replying to djeggnog, one of our relentless wt apologists (although he's very unapologetic about it :) and i noticed one rule in particular that got me thinking.. seeing as such jw's are representatives of an organization that falsely claims to solely "represent" a pretty important person - god - and they frequently make the claim here that the org.
represents god on earth and that it's teachings are god's teachings - a claim they have been completely unable to substantiate - then i'm fairly sure they must be in breach of rule 7:.
"impersonating or falsely claiming to represent a person or organization".. so, if ever one was looking for a technicality on which to 'disfellowship' any particularly unpleasant and deceptive society worshipping spammers, then maybe posting guideline 7 might be the way to go.
-
-
Essan
Calm down, nobody is suggesting you should be disfellowshipped from the JW's LOL. I was just saying that if apologists and JW spammers get to be too much of a pain in rear then rule 7 may come to the rescue. (and note which forum you are in).
But BTW, you can be DF'd for legal online activities. The Society has, for instance, DF'd many people for having websites or making online comments critical of WT doctrine or policy. That's legal, the WT just doesn't allow free speech or criticism. But, don't worry, you can enjoy all of the free speech and Christian Freedom that Jesus wants you to have here at JWN, even if you can't get it at the Hall.
-
31
Watchtower's Jesus = Michael doctrine
by Ding ini've never really understood the watchtower's teaching on jesus being michael.
here is what i understand they teach:.
1. jehovah's first creation was the archangel michael.. 2. jesus was nothing more than a perfect man, not michael the archangel in human form.. 3. rather, when jesus was conceived in mary, michael went out of existence and his impersonal life force was put into jesus (analogous to sharing the same pacemaker).. 4. when jesus died, his impersonal life force went back into a recreated archangel michael.. .
-
-
Essan
"The Watchtower Society has it all effed up."
Truism. That simple phrase sums up and renders thousands of posts at JWN redundant.
The Watchtower Society does indeed have it all effed up.
I want that on a t-Shirt.
-
9
How WT Apologists at JWN inherently break forum rules. :)
by Essan ini noticed the posting guidelines the other day as i was replying to djeggnog, one of our relentless wt apologists (although he's very unapologetic about it :) and i noticed one rule in particular that got me thinking.. seeing as such jw's are representatives of an organization that falsely claims to solely "represent" a pretty important person - god - and they frequently make the claim here that the org.
represents god on earth and that it's teachings are god's teachings - a claim they have been completely unable to substantiate - then i'm fairly sure they must be in breach of rule 7:.
"impersonating or falsely claiming to represent a person or organization".. so, if ever one was looking for a technicality on which to 'disfellowship' any particularly unpleasant and deceptive society worshipping spammers, then maybe posting guideline 7 might be the way to go.
-
-
Essan
Yeah, that's why I put this in the humour section. It's tongue in cheek. :)
And you're right, we should extend the Christian freedom to them that their own religion will not allow them, or us.
-
269
Have your JW Relatives Explained about Generation/Overlap Change to You ?
by flipper inafter reading on the way out's thread about his mom explaining the generation overlap to him it kicked this idea into my head to make this thread .
i thought it would be helpful to see if anybody here has had jw relatives or friends try to explain this " generation overlap " theory to you as a faded or inactive witness and what happened in the conversations.
so please feel free to post your experiences.
-
-
Essan
Oh I realize that flipper, but I think it would be a good exercise in Christian humility for Djeggnog to remove his teachers hat for a moment and to acknowledge that he made a fairly major false claim about the history of a central doctrine of his own Organization.
He can either acknowledge it, try to keep ignoring the issue as I keep reminding him of it, or stay away.
My hope is that he is now away doing the research about the history of the Society's teachings that he should have done before presuming to teach others about it. Who knows, maybe discovering the error of his belief that Russell taught that 1914 was the year that marked the beginning of Jesus 'invisible presence' will be the straw that broke the camels back? After all, he held this false belief because the Society had lied to him about their history.
You would hope that a sincere Christian would find such current lies by the Society about their past to to be totally unacceptable, even if they were to make excuses for the Society's original false teachings regarding 1874.
-
9
How WT Apologists at JWN inherently break forum rules. :)
by Essan ini noticed the posting guidelines the other day as i was replying to djeggnog, one of our relentless wt apologists (although he's very unapologetic about it :) and i noticed one rule in particular that got me thinking.. seeing as such jw's are representatives of an organization that falsely claims to solely "represent" a pretty important person - god - and they frequently make the claim here that the org.
represents god on earth and that it's teachings are god's teachings - a claim they have been completely unable to substantiate - then i'm fairly sure they must be in breach of rule 7:.
"impersonating or falsely claiming to represent a person or organization".. so, if ever one was looking for a technicality on which to 'disfellowship' any particularly unpleasant and deceptive society worshipping spammers, then maybe posting guideline 7 might be the way to go.
-
-
Essan
I noticed the posting guidelines the other day as I was replying to DjEggnog, one of our relentless WT apologists (although he's very unapologetic about it :) and I noticed one rule in particular that got me thinking.
Seeing as such JW's are representatives of an Organization that falsely claims to solely "represent" a pretty important person - God - and they frequently make the claim here that the Org. represents God on earth and that it's teachings are God's teachings - a claim they have been completely unable to substantiate - then I'm fairly sure they must be in breach of rule 7:
"Impersonating or falsely claiming to represent a person or organization".
So, if ever one was looking for a technicality on which to 'disfellowship' any particularly unpleasant and deceptive Society worshipping spammers, then maybe posting guideline 7 might be the way to go. :)
(I personally think that many of them could technically also be caught under rule 8. "Posting in a language other than English", seeing as Watchtowerese makes absolutely no sense, but I can see that one would be a stretch. Lol)
-
31
Watchtower's Jesus = Michael doctrine
by Ding ini've never really understood the watchtower's teaching on jesus being michael.
here is what i understand they teach:.
1. jehovah's first creation was the archangel michael.. 2. jesus was nothing more than a perfect man, not michael the archangel in human form.. 3. rather, when jesus was conceived in mary, michael went out of existence and his impersonal life force was put into jesus (analogous to sharing the same pacemaker).. 4. when jesus died, his impersonal life force went back into a recreated archangel michael.. .
-
-
Essan
"I've never really understood the Watchtower's teaching on Jesus being Michael"
Ah, well there is an excellent reason for that! It's because the teaching is baseless nonsense. It's poppycock.
Twaddle.
Bunkum.
Bull.
Congratulations on being able to spot it. Hopefully it didn't take you over three decades as a JW before you spotted it, as it did me. :)
-
19
These words really made me mad!!!
by Sour Grapes ina couple of months ago the brother giving a talk was bragging about all of the good work.
that the wtbts does thru their missionaries.
he said that all that the christendom's missionaries.
-
-
Essan
JW's as a culture have no real love. Some few individual JW's have Christian love, but this is despite being JW's rather than because of it, and it's a struggle to hold onto that love in the cold and judgmental atmosphere of of Org.
-
22
JW view of the Bible vs WT publications
by brotherdan ini recently had an experience with my mother-in-law that really solidified what i had suspected about the jw claim to trust only in the bible.. my father-in-law was raised a witness, but never got baptized.
he eventually joined the army and served his country in vietnam.
after his tours of service he "came to his senses" and eventually got baptized as a jw.. fast forward to a few months ago.
-
-
Essan
Following on from what Terry said, JW's are also afraid to use their power of reason.
If you use you own reasoning ability to guide your understanding of Scriptures, and so to guide your actions, there is always the likelihood that someone else will have a different opinion on the same Scriptures. But JW's are so paralyzed with fear of what others think, of being judged by them or being accused of "stumbling" others that they rarely dare exercise their own power of reason without feeling nervous or guilty. JW's are extremely judgmental and everyone is scared of what everyone else thinks.
The only way to escape this bind is to be able to point to an explicit Watchtower 'law' as a defense for any action, so that they then feel free of responsibility and therefore free of possible negative judgement or condemnation.
So Witnesses without an explicit directive from the Society often feel paralyzed. "Please, Society, please tell me what to do, so that I can act, free of the judgmental gossiping and head shaking of my 'loving' brothers"
That's why we have ridiculous "questions from readers" with JW's asking the Society what they should do about even the most mundane and basic aspects of their lives.
-
269
Have your JW Relatives Explained about Generation/Overlap Change to You ?
by flipper inafter reading on the way out's thread about his mom explaining the generation overlap to him it kicked this idea into my head to make this thread .
i thought it would be helpful to see if anybody here has had jw relatives or friends try to explain this " generation overlap " theory to you as a faded or inactive witness and what happened in the conversations.
so please feel free to post your experiences.
-
-
Essan
DJeggnog, it's revealing that you totally ignore posts which categorically prove your statements wrong.
So I'll repeat, in light of the facts that have been presented to you, are you going to correct your false claim that Russell taught Christ's 'invisible presence' as beginning in 1914?
Are you capable of admitting that you are wrong?