I hate it when that happens LOL.
Posts by Essan
-
82did wt shut doors 9/11?
by topanga inis it true because all of those tunnels dinning rooms factories and supermarkets could be of great help to the community in a time of attack.
-
-
-
92
1975 - Lest We Forget
by GetBusyLiving ini find the topic of the 1975 end of the world scenario facinating, especially since i never lived through it.
do you old schoolers ever feel concerned that people will one day forget about what really went down?
with whitewashed tripe like the 'proclaimers' book informing dubs that it was just the false expectations of over enthusiastic apostates, are you at all concerned that the legacy of bullshit that is 1975 will be a forgotten moment in history blamed on you instead where the blame really belongs?
-
-
Essan
WitnessofJEsus said: I'm not dummie, I have a degree, and I hope to complete my Master's before I retire from the U.S. Navy and then get baptized, so I won't be an idiot, but I will ask all the questions NOW, before I get baptized so I won't bet disfellowshipped afterwards.
I really hope you do open-mindedly ask ALL the relevant questions and do ALL the relevant research about the Society's history before being baptized. My concern is that you already speak with a degree of certainty that indicates a mind already made up, and possibly, closed. You seem to have already bound up your cherished hopes and sense of identity with the Society. If so, that will make it all the harder for you to respond honestly and rationally to any information you discover which shows that the Society cannot be "God's Organization".
I was a JW for 30 years, from birth, and believed exactly as you do. And many here were JW's much longer than that. We were deceived, as you are being deceived. Don't make the same mistake we did and do ALL the research and questioning NOW. Don't wait until you have wasted decades of yours and your family's lives and possibly suffered terrible consequences - perhaps by abiding by an ever changing, nonsensical and unscriptural blood policy, or suchlike.
For instance, if you have the old literature you know that the JW's did not preach that Jesus invisible presence as King began in 1914 until decades after 1914. You may also know that the Society lies about this now, claiming that they preached this decades before 1914. This is totally false and is easily proven false by comparing the old and new literature. Does it concern you that they lie? Do you know why they lie about this? It may have more significance than you realize. Try asking you study conductor what JW's preached about 1914 before 1914. Then compare their answer with truth revealed by your research of old literature. Why don't JW's know the truth? Why have they been lied to? Does lying matter to you? What else may they be hiding or lying about?
This is just the tip of a pretty monstrous iceberg.
-
4
Important Message from the Governing Body.
by Essan inrepent!
the seventh armageddon is coming!.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hp8usagdxk8.
-
-
Essan
Repent! The seventh Armageddon is coming!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hp8usAgdXk8
For some reason I never tire of this video. You may have seen it before. But it always makes me laugh no matter how many times I see it so I thought it deserved it's own thread.
Wow, I'm thankful I only had to live through a couple of those terrible Armageddons! LOL
-
92
1975 - Lest We Forget
by GetBusyLiving ini find the topic of the 1975 end of the world scenario facinating, especially since i never lived through it.
do you old schoolers ever feel concerned that people will one day forget about what really went down?
with whitewashed tripe like the 'proclaimers' book informing dubs that it was just the false expectations of over enthusiastic apostates, are you at all concerned that the legacy of bullshit that is 1975 will be a forgotten moment in history blamed on you instead where the blame really belongs?
-
-
Essan
Thankfully, the GB themselves won't let us forget!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hp8usAgdXk8
I love this video. LOL
-
-
-
Essan
Thanks for posting these.
They prove quite false the claims of Alice/Consfearacy, and if I recall correctly Djeggnog, that one has to to be actively seeking to lead others away from the congregation by preaching contrary doctrines before one can be DF'd as an apostate:
"A person would be disfellowshipped for trying to proselytize inside the Kingdom Hall or using connections with witnesses that are not elders, relationships they formed after Baptism to proselytize or press counter doctrines for destructive purposes...As for ex-communication, a person doesn't get disfellowshipped for... disagreeing...They get disfellowshipped for taking an active stand against the organization."
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/197624/2/High-Control-Groups
Not that we needed such proof, seeing as many here have been DF'd for simply disagreeing with the Sociey, without trying to 'proselytize', but it helps to shut the mouths of lying Watchtower apologists.
(I had to click on images and select 'open in new tap' to see them)
-
82
did wt shut doors 9/11?
by topanga inis it true because all of those tunnels dinning rooms factories and supermarkets could be of great help to the community in a time of attack.
-
-
Essan
Truth,
You don't realize it, but you are a textbook JW just as we all were at one time.
The only difference between us really is that we have discovered many many things which you have not as yet. At one time, we too would have come onto a website and gone off like a firecracker, as you have. We'll have been full of blind confidence and 'righteous' indignation, convinced we were right and had the truth, quoting Watchtower articles as if they were an authority etc. We'd have come - like you - without considering that anyone else might actually have anything to teach us and with the view that we knew it all already.
Yeah, we were you, once.
Don't presume everyone you meet who is not like you and doesn't think as you do anymore must either be ignorant, stupid, or evil. We are exactly the same as you, just better informed. We have walked in a JW's shoes (many us for a lot longer than even you have), but you have not walked in ours, not yet.
There is a lot you could learn here, if truth is really what you are interested in, but take it one subject at a time and be less abrupt and dogmatic and you'll get a better reception. Allow for the possibility that you could be wrong and that there may be many things you don't know or been deceived about. If you have the truth, then there is nothing to be afraid of.
-
243
Let's settle this for once and for all...... is atheism a belief, a non-belief or an anti-belief?
by Quillsky inmy opinion is that atheism is not a belief.
it is a belief in no belief..
-
-
Essan
"The definition of atheist as not a theist is supported by numerous dictionaries"
Is it? Can you provide numerous examples? Clearly an atheist is not a theist but that is certainly not what the word itself means. This understanding may be "supported by common usage", but then so is crack. Lol. (actually, I don't accept that 'not a theist' is the most common usage of atheist)
"I don't mind other people using the other definition of atheist as long as they don't try to imply that everyone who claims to be an atheist meets their more narrow definition. "
That's the problem with misusing words with specific meanings - in the end no one knows what anyone means anymore. if people abided by the meaning of words then they could simply select the right label, rather than select the wrong one and then try to redefine it, with everyone who wrongly selected the label defining it differently to everyone else, yet demanding the right to have their definition applied and being offended when this doesn't happen. Especially so if someone tries to actually apply the true definition of the word. "But I don't meet that definition!", they complain, "Change the definition to accommodate me!"
It's Babel all over again, I tells ya! Chaos! "Cats and dogs living together...mass hysteria!" :)
Well, if that's how it is, then I've just declared myself 'Empress'! Who cares that I'm a man... a man without an Empire! I'm a bloody 'Empress' and there's nothing you lot can do about it! Don't you try to bind me with your narrow definitions! I'll 'common-usage' myself into an accepted 'Empress' in no time. LOL.
-
243
Let's settle this for once and for all...... is atheism a belief, a non-belief or an anti-belief?
by Quillsky inmy opinion is that atheism is not a belief.
it is a belief in no belief..
-
-
Essan
No, atheist doesn't mean 'not a theist'.
It means "No God" or "Without God"
It is with reference to God, not to God-believers. It is a statement of belief, just as theist is, only it's opposite. You are rendering a word with a specific origin and definition meaningless, as if it means everything and anything but a theist. Sorry, but that's ridiculous.
If it just meant a lack of positive belief in God, then 'belief' in God in some form would constitute part of the word. But it doesn't, it simply contains a negation and then the word for God. A-the-ism - The philosophy of God negation, No-God-ism.
"Word Origin & History
atheist
1570s, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "to deny the gods, godless," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see Thea). A slightly earlier form is represented by atheonism (1530s) which is perhaps from It. atheo "atheist."
http://dictionary.reference.com/etymology/atheist
I know that today some people define atheism as a lack of positive belief, rather than outright denial, but this is an adulteration of it's meaning. There is no need to misuse the label atheist and so blur it's meaning into other labels until confusion abounds. The original and primary - and therefore, IMO, 'real' - meaning of atheism is:
" the doctrine or belief that there is no god".
-
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: "If I should opine something having to do with the history of Pastor Russell and be mistaken... IOW, if I should be mistaken and you are correct about 1874, I'm ok with you being right and with me being wrong about such a trivial matter. "
"If"? Yes, you were wrong. I suppose that's as close as you'll ever come to admitting it. Still, the facts speak for themselves even if you obfuscate endlessly. Russell never believed or taught that the 'invisible presence' began in 1914, as you claimed. But to be fair, it's not your fault, you were lied to and unknowingly repeated the lie. The Society told you this and you believed them. That was your error, the full repercussions of which you are only beginning to discover.
Dj said: "since Russell died in 1916, it may make a difference to you, but it makes no difference to me what Russell may have believed before he died 94 years ago, or what he may have believed in 1874, or 42 years before his death, as to when Jesus' invisible presence began."
Well, that's not true is it? Otherwise you would not have made a point of posting the false claim that Russell did believe that 1914 was the year of Jesus invisible presence, as a defense of him and JW's, a defense that proved to be futile because you were wrong about what your religion taught and when - by decades. Obviously it mattered or you wouldn't have brought it up. The fact is Russell believed and preached 1874 as the date of Christ's Kingship and of the "invisible presence" until his death, and the Society did so for much longer.
Dj said: "Jehovah's Witnesses believe his invisible presence began concurrently with the composite visible sign that began to appear in the year 1914."
They do now, yes. But don't tell me that you weren't shocked to discover that Russell never preached 1914 as the beginning of the 'invisible presence'. Don't pretend you weren't shocked that this 1914 'invisible presence' doctrine wasn't even a firm Society teaching until after 1943. Don't pretend that learning that nothing JW's proclaimed or predicted before 1914, about 1914, is still held to be true was not disturbing. And don't tell me that it doesn't matter that the Society lies now by falsely claiming that their present "invisible presence" doctrine regarding 1914 was preached by the Society before 1914! A lie matters, and a lie about such a central doctrine of JW's is catastrophic. If you don't think so, then try sharing your new found facts with the brothers in the Hall. Tell them that JW's didn't preach that Jesus became king in 1914 until decades after 1914! Do you think they will believe you? Why should they, after all the Society tells them the exact opposite. Do you think they will see it as insignificant? I know they wouldn't. I know because 90% of the JW I have seen directly informed about this ended up leaving because they didn't like being lied to.
But it takes someone with real integrity and love of truth to to see being lied to as a serious problem, rather than "trivial".
I wonder why the Society lies now about what they preached then? What could be so important about the years around 1914 that the Society feels the need to present a false image of itself back then, it's teachings and it's predictions? What a puzzler! Could it be the need to appear to have been fit to have been "appointed", "chosen" and to be seen as "awake"? But what if the truth is that they were not fit, not providing "food at the proper time", not "awake"? What if the brothers discovered this? Why, they may then think that if they were not fit then they could not have been "appointed", and if they were not "awake" when the Master arrived then they could not be the "Discreet Virgins" they claim to be? Then, the Society would lose it's claim to authority! What to do, what to do?
Well, if you cannot make it, fake it.
Dj, you put so much time and energy into your epic posts that I have to believe - or hope - that this reflects a commitment to more than just a need to always appear knowledgeable and right. I hope that commitment is to truth rather than just the Watchtower Society. If so, then in time, you will eventually be compelled to choose one or the other, truth or the Society, because they do not go together and you can't remain blind to that forever. I hope when that time comes you make the right if difficult choice.
-
243
Let's settle this for once and for all...... is atheism a belief, a non-belief or an anti-belief?
by Quillsky inmy opinion is that atheism is not a belief.
it is a belief in no belief..
-
-
Essan
Super Nova: "I think some who call themselves atheist are just really following the herd and are really agnostic."
Bingo. In fact, I'd suggest that the majority of professed 'atheists' are actually agnostic, they just don't have a clear understanding of what the terms mean and because 'atheist' is commonly (mis)used, they adopt it. Most people on questioning would acknowledge that they aren't claiming to absolutely know for sure that God does not exist, but only that he/she/it/they have not been proven to exist as yet.