Posts by WontLeave

42

What is the Trinity?

by pirata in

from this thread: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/204837/2/if-you-could-ask-one-question-to-an-active-jw-to-get-them-to-open-their-mind-about-their-beliefs-what-would-it-be.

dontplaceliterature re: if you could ask one question to an active jw to get them to open their mind about their beliefs, what would it be?posted ~ 14 hours ago (1/18/2011) .

post 63 of 65. since 12/28/2010.

WontLeave

So why is Jesus called the firstborn over all creation? Because he was the first thing created? No. Because he is pre-eminent over all creation

First, using the translations that say "over" rather than "of" doesn't let the Trinity off the hook, because nearly every version renders Rev 3:14 to indicate Jesus is the "beginning of the creation of God" or words to that effect. Sure, there are mental gymnastics and "debates about words" on this subject too, but if you have stop every few minutes and explain away what the Bible says, maybe it's time to rethink the theory rather than the Bible. This argument is nothing new and only addresses the "firstborn" aspect of that phrase. Even if it means "preeminent", it doesn't deny he is "of creation". You can read all about Jesus' creation in Prov 8.

Jesus is the "last Adam". If you feel that Adam is equal to - part of, an incarnate version of, whatever your particular take is - God, then you might be able to weasel out a case for Jesus to be, too.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. - Thomas Jefferson

2

Just thought of something today, regarding "faithful slave"

by WontLeave in

jw
friends

thousands of the readers of pastor russell's writings believe that he filled the office of 'that faithful and wise servant,' and that his great work was giving to the household of faith meat in due season.

his modesty and humility precluded him from openly claiming this title, but he admitted as much in private conversation - w12/1/1919 p357.

russell died in 1916 and taught that jesus' parousia had started in 1874. this would allow him to believe jesus had already identified his "faithful and discreet slave" and appointed "him over all his belongings.

WontLeave

Thousands of the readers of Pastor Russell's writings believe that he filled the office of 'that faithful and wise servant,' and that his great work was giving to the household of faith meat in due season. His modesty and humility precluded him from openly claiming this title, but he admitted as much in private conversation - w12/1/1919 p357

Russell died in 1916 and taught that Jesus' parousia had started in 1874. This would allow him to believe Jesus had already identified his "faithful and discreet slave" and appointed "him over all his belongings." So, fast forward to today, and JWs teach that Jesus didn't come until 1914 and appoint a "faithful and discreet slave" until 1919. This would mean that by its own admission (at least on that occasion), the Society (which was pretty much just Russell, back then) presumptuously claimed to be this "faithful and discreet slave" way back at the very beginning.

I understand why the Society now deny Russell identified himself as the FDS. It would raise a red flag that this title was usurped by the founder of the JWs, so why should anyone believe the present WTS GB are identified by Jesus to be the FDS? It's been presented time and time again that the only reason the current GB cling to the 1914 date is to assure their own position as the FDS. If they can make people believe Jesus picked the guys in 1918 as his "faithful and discreet slave", they can ride their coattails. I'm not really sure what these current guys have to do with those guys, but it's all they have, so they bluff that hand for all it's worth.

42

In your hall, how many converted to a JW from door to door in the last 10 years?

by just n from bethel in

in mine that would be a big fat zero.. there have been a handful of teenage baptisms of jw children.. one that really was a foreign language group transfer.. but in the last ten years - there has not been one single convert from the d2d ministry.. btw - my congregation has had over 10 pioneers (real ones that actually do d2d, including elders) for the last decade.. not one.

10 x 70 hours a month x 120 months = 84,000 hours ... results = 0.. also most of our pioneers are pretty good at the door - some half way decent teachers.

one is sub co and another often is called to teach ... wait for it ... pioneer school!!!.

WontLeave

I see the comments about even long-time pioneers not being able to get any studies. I've known several who were pounding the pavement month in and month with nothing more to show for it than a "magazine route". Of course, magazine routes are just a roundabout way of saying "Will you people throw these Watchtowers away for me?" Before the elders started attacking, demonizing, and excluding me, I started tons of studies. The pioneers would talk about me behind my back because how dare I get studies and who did I think I was... I tried to tell them to show people what the Bible said about things instead of preaching the Watchtower. Of course, that just got me into trouble, because obviously field service is more about appearances, hours, and showing other people in the car how much we worship the Society than results. I take my ministry seriously and preach the Bible. I don't care what the Watchtower says and I doubt the people we meet do, either.

22

Members of Governing Body preach door to door?

by ZionsWatchTower in

does anyone know if they still make this work?.

*sorry for my bad english.... .

WontLeave

I don't understand this argument that Luke 10:7 implies not to preach house to house. Read the context and this was intended for traveling missionaries. They weren't to bring anything with them: "Do not carry a purse, nor a food pouch, nor sandals" (vs 4), but to find someone receptive in the area to stay with, as a base during their local ministry: "So stay in that house, eating and drinking the things they provide". If nobody in the entire town was receptive, they were to shake the dust from their feet and move on to the next town.

Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Messiah. - Acts 5:42(NIV)

The reasons this kind of specious argument works on JWs at all is because they're horrified to read anything that disagrees, so they are ill-prepared when they encounter any resistance and they refuse to read the Bible, so they don't know what it says. I even enjoy having a little fun with JWs I see out preaching (hoping they won't visit my hall and remember me, not that I go often) just to show them they have no qualifications to be out "teaching" people about the Bible. I liken it to someone with training wheels (the literature) on their bike (the Bible), knocking on people's doors and offering cycling lessons. Take away their Watchtowers and they fall flat on their faces, because they don't know the Scriptures, at all.

165

So an 8 year old is killed by a machine-gun and it's no ones fault?

by Simon in

i think us gun laws are s-t-u-p-i-d ... and the legal system more so.

saw a very good suggestion yesterday though - force people who want to own a gun to require insurance (hey, you have to have it for a vehicle for gods sake).

single-shot hunting rifle?

WontLeave

bohm,

There are websites that will give you pretty exhaustive lists of various logical fallacies for reference.

The way you keep guns out of the hands of people who suck is the price, psychological tests, restricting availability to convicted criminals, etc. Sure, a few crackpots and criminals have guns, but guess what: Making more laws won't cause them to go away. I only suggest availability, not proliferation. I talk about the right to bear arms and you suggest "tanks and stuff distributed amongst people". The idea that some people shouldn't have weapons, so therefore nobody should be able to have them is about the same as "Some people should be locked up, so all people should be locked up." Sure, there are those who shouldn't have weapons, just like there are those who shouldn't be allowed to vote, because they're too stupid or evil. Your argument only allows one side of the equation to be armed: The government - and government has proven time and again it has a tendency toward stupid and evil. That's the mentality of feudal Europe and Orient. Maybe a disarmed public is going smoothly right now, but roll the clocks back 70 years and how were they? How about 200 years? 500 years? 1000 years? Armed government has a long history of abusing unarmed people.

thetrueone,

In all honesty, handguns shouldn't be more favored than most guns the US government bans, according to the 2nd Amendment. Since the Constitution isn't protecting a right to prevent crime, but empower the citizens against tyranny, it doesn't make sense. The argument for a handgun is to protect from criminals, not armed government personnel. Granted, many military officers carry a sidearm and the majority of police do too. When something like Waco happens or when citizens have had enough government corruption and rebel, the SWAT team and military will have much bigger guns than a Glock 19. The only purpose a handgun serves is to kill civilians and that is not protected under the US Constitution. Even when a police officer knows he's going into a gun fight, he gets the shotgun out of the trunk, because handguns don't cut it.

165

So an 8 year old is killed by a machine-gun and it's no ones fault?

by Simon in

i think us gun laws are s-t-u-p-i-d ... and the legal system more so.

saw a very good suggestion yesterday though - force people who want to own a gun to require insurance (hey, you have to have it for a vehicle for gods sake).

single-shot hunting rifle?

WontLeave

If you think the "democratic process" is a good thing, we will definitely have to agree to disagree.

A lynch mob in the Southern US in the early 20th Century vs. a black man was a "democracy".

The Nazi regime vs. 6M Jews was a "democracy".

A pack of wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner is a "democracy".

The Inquisition vs. the accused was a "democracy".

The same person you wouldn't trust with a gun probably shouldn't be trusted with a vote. I'd rather keep some power in my own hands than turn it completely over to the ebb and flow of popular opinion, otherwise unemployable government workers (including police and military), or corrupt politicians. Anyone who believes dialog and reason win the day and cooler heads prevail in political and social issues has never read a history book. Too many forms of government rely on a totally unrealistic ideal of people being inherently good, intelligent, productive, generous, etc.

Hitler was elected. The parade of embarrassing US presidents over the past few decades were elected (not that there was really much of a choice; just a perceived lesser of two evils). The 'will of the people' is no guarantee (or even suggestion) of sanity or intelligence. People suck and in large groups they can suck in a large way.

165

So an 8 year old is killed by a machine-gun and it's no ones fault?

by Simon in

i think us gun laws are s-t-u-p-i-d ... and the legal system more so.

saw a very good suggestion yesterday though - force people who want to own a gun to require insurance (hey, you have to have it for a vehicle for gods sake).

single-shot hunting rifle?

WontLeave

I'm merely pointing out absurdity by being absurd. Responding in kind to sarcasm and hyperbole. See how it's not convincing and just obnoxious? How it adds nothing to the conversation? How it only preaches to its own choir? How it's only self-indulgent arrogance?

165

So an 8 year old is killed by a machine-gun and it's no ones fault?

by Simon in

i think us gun laws are s-t-u-p-i-d ... and the legal system more so.

saw a very good suggestion yesterday though - force people who want to own a gun to require insurance (hey, you have to have it for a vehicle for gods sake).

single-shot hunting rifle?

WontLeave

bohm, your sarcasm and hyperbole have swayed me to your side. I will start a petition in my neighborhood to have a policeman posted in every living room, every US citiz- sorry - subject be implanted with a GPS tracking device, all pointy scissors be replaced with round-tip ones, and highway speed limits be reduced to 25 MPH. With enough legislation and loss of liberty, the government will protect us from ourselves and we will have nothing to fear.

did i mention i live in europe

Oh, never mind. You guys have already beat me to this.

62

What silly things have you been counselled on or simply been told off for?

by 3Mozzies in

so what silly things have you been counselled on or simply been told off for?.

back in my early 20's, i had a pair of comfy old jeans that started to tear in about 3 places on the leg.

it was the fashion at the time so not only did they feel great to wear, they also looked 'in', not that i cared for that, but it was a bonus .

WontLeave

"Inappropriate" ties, wearing a hat, wearing a beard, having a FaceBook/MySpace/Yahoo account, emailing a female sister (totally not romantically), offering to drive a sister 3 blocks to my study with a female... The list goes on and is irritating and just plain shameful.

Got pulled aside several times for not pursuing more "privileges" in the congregation, e.g. pioneer, MS, even elder. I'd never even get on the school. I didn't want the responsibility to distract me from my ministry and didn't want it to feel like a burden, but a joy. I never agreed with a special title ("pioneer") for Witnesses who actually witness. The 5-10 hour a month JWs who insist they are "putting the Kingdom first" just annoy me to no end.

165

So an 8 year old is killed by a machine-gun and it's no ones fault?

by Simon in

i think us gun laws are s-t-u-p-i-d ... and the legal system more so.

saw a very good suggestion yesterday though - force people who want to own a gun to require insurance (hey, you have to have it for a vehicle for gods sake).

single-shot hunting rifle?

WontLeave

The Second Amendment guaranteed "the rights of states to form militias not for individuals to bear arms."

Actually, the 2nd Amendment acknowledges the need for the government to be armed "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" and so the government doesn't, in turn, transform from a protector of the people to a bully, ruled that " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This is another of the checks and balances instituted by the Constitution to keep the government as honest as can be legislated. Chopping up the sentence and moving the words around to make it seem like only the government (the militia) can be armed is the exact opposite of what the 2nd Amendment and the entire Constitution stand for.