Posts by Stargater

3

Verses That Teach A Paradise Earth

by Philadelphia Ponos in

what verses does the society use as proof of a future paradise earth.

i know they are mostly in psalms and isaiah but i don't know where.

can someone who knows off the top of their head post them?.

Stargater

Millennial scriptures should not be confused with those describing Earth in its day of glory. To think that God would create Adam and Eve, usher in the Fall of Mankind and then return everything back to the way it was makes no sense. Some of those who experience "life after death" experiences report that God's creations span the universe. Some human life exists on worlds without number; some with one moon, others with multiple moons or suns -- anything that stabilizes a planet so that their equators remain constant.

How many religions answer the question of whether there's a purpose to life? Did God anywhere in the scriptures answer the question as to why he created Man? Or whether there were other worlds? There appears to be no reason for Man given a static existence in a garden. Neither Adam nor Eve progressed, nor would be capable of progression, given such an environment.

22

The Three Common Complaints by JWs Against "False Religion"

by sd-7 in

1. false doctrines, all taught to keep people in darkness, all done by those claiming to speak for god!.

2. misconduct by the leaders and by the followers with impunity (ie.

child abuse, adultery, etc., etc.)..

Stargater

The Jehovah's Witnesses remind me of the parable Jesus gave.

Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying? But he answered and said, Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted up. Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

Matthew 15

Interesting. Every plant, or religion, which the Father has not planted, or established, shall be rooted up.

The Jehovah's Witnesses try to mimic the New Testament by establishing a Governing Body similar to the Twelve Apostles. They're described as "a central group of experienced elders who oversee the worldwide congregation."

I love how the website just throws out completely unsubstantiated information, such as: "During the 19th century, sincere Bible students calculated that the waiting period would end in 1914. World events that began in 1914 confirm that the calculation of these sincereBible students was correct. The fulfillment of Bible prophecy shows that in 1914, Christ became King and God’s heavenly Kingdom began to rule.

What really astounds me is that all J.W. literature all sounds like it was written by some guy they keep in a closet with a typewriter somewhere.

Now these leaders don't receive the word of God directly as the ancient apostles and prophets did, but if not, then how do we know they know what they're talking about? What if they just changed the dates and then didn't tell anyone? And what if those buzzwords in red were just put there to manipulate people? (Of course I know they wouldn't do that...I'm just giving a hypothetical.) And it they are blind, meaning they don't receive any revelation as the ancient apostles did, and we're blind, meaning we don't receive such revelation, either, then wouldn't they be blind leaders leading the blind (us)? I mean, let's say I'm a sincere Bible student of the 21st Century and that I calculate differently? And what if the fulfillment of Bible prophecy confirms/shows that I'm right and they're wrong?

For example, what if Bible prophecy stated that the Jews would gather back to the lands of their inheritance? The "Bible Students" back before 1914 wouldn't have known that because it hadn't happened (nevertheless it would have been prophecied) until 1948 or so.

Look, I'm just sayin' that God never told anyone that he was choosing those suits in Bethel to speak for him. He certainly never told me, and I don't see them listed in the Bible. Of course, maybe it's me. Maybe I missed the New York Times the day God announced it. To me, it sounds an awful lot like self appointment...kind of like (how should I say it?)...like this is all a "manmade" religion.

44

WARNING for active JW's

by Anony Mous in

as you may have heard if you attended recently, social networking is of the devil and many have been 'lead astray' by website supposedly set up for jw.

whatever, you heard it before about rock, hard rock, hip hop, rap, gangsta rap, tv, werewolves .... anyway you may have heard of the recent elder school where basically there were the proverbial tongue lashings about not having social networking sites.

here is the skinny on recent developments:.

Stargater

Inconceivable!

It's only a matter of time....

2

Talking To Non-Believers In An Informal Setting?

by Stargater in

you're a dedicated member of the society and you've got a fist full of literature in your desk dawer at work.

in the break room you see someone reading a religious book or pamphlet.

you strike up a conversation with the person and the person shows interest.

Stargater

Thanks. I never thought any member would lose the opportunity to gain a potential convert. I've had some J.W.s come over from time to time just scouting out the neighborhood, but they never try to set up an appointment or do anything other than leave literature. Has something changed in the way they approach people or are the new people just lazy?

39

using the name "jehovah"

by finallyfree! in

i find it to be frankly disrespectful.

im a father, if my kids were to call me by my first name id find that wierd.

we address judges with "your honor" and various other titles, so why on earth would we call the almighty god by his first name?

Stargater

Many religions use the name discreetly and reverantly, and in my opinion it's in very poor taste to use it as the Society does. It shows a complete misunderstanding of scripture, but that's never stopped 'em before.

31

Apostasy and Df question

by jam in

speaking hypothetically, a elder can not except the logic on the.

new understanding of the doctrine change (over lapping generation).. he voice his concern to his wife, she being a good jw , tell the elders.. the brother have not spoke to anyone in the cong.

about his doubt.. the elders question him, he remains firm, he tell the brothers, i have.

Stargater

So what did your wife say when you told her that?

Are you divorced because of that or did she follow you?

2

Talking To Non-Believers In An Informal Setting?

by Stargater in

you're a dedicated member of the society and you've got a fist full of literature in your desk dawer at work.

in the break room you see someone reading a religious book or pamphlet.

you strike up a conversation with the person and the person shows interest.

Stargater

You're a dedicated member of the Society and you've got a fist full of literature in your desk dawer at work. In the break room you see someone reading a religious book or pamphlet. You strike up a conversation with the person and the person shows interest. You get some material and give it to the person, but the person begins telling you about their church or their beliefs.

What do you do??

Do you pretend to listen intently or do you find some way of shutting the person down?

I ask this not because I met anyone at work, but because when I had a couple of guys into my home, they just looked through me when I said anything, religious or non-religious. It's like they wanted to get back to the script. But at work, it's different. It's more relaxed, more spontaneous. So what's the course they would take? You're probably not encouraged to have open discussions with people who have other viewpoints, but surely the missionaries (or Pioneers, whatever) are in a better position to control the conversation. But in a more open setting, the person is likely to say, "That's interesting. I've always thought of the Trinity as being...." In other words, you can't read them the next inane question and insist they answer it or else!

If you are a J.W., did you ever show any interest in other religions? What if you wanted to read the Book of Mormon or the Westminister Confessions? What if you wanted to take a college course in comparitive religions? (When I worked for the Navy years ago, I even got hit up by a Muslim, who gave me a very nice bound copy of the Qur'an, which I still have. We had many conversations during which we freely exchanged ideas...and he was a former Christian.)

What are the standard directives?

5

What Happens If Members Read This Site? (And Other Questions)

by Stargater in

first, i read an account that says members are often baptized more than once if they feel so disposed.

in conventional christianity, partaking of the bread and wine is done in rememberance of their baptism.

one is symbolic of death and renewal; the other is done to remember the body and blood of the savior.

Stargater

First, I read an account that says members are often baptized more than once if they feel so disposed. In conventional Christianity, partaking of the bread and wine is done in rememberance of their baptism. One is symbolic of death and renewal; the other is done to remember the body and blood of the Savior. The notion that there are two classes is fiction, and all are expected to partake of the bread and wine as a rememberance of the Lord's defeat of death in the Atonement.

We discuss doctrines of the Witnesses here, but apparently the Outfit...er...Organization ("Outfit" is what Sam Giancana called the Chicago Mob) is critical of members discussing doctrine outside of sanctioned outlets. To most Christians this is absolutely shocking, the extent of which J.W.s can't even fathom. Communism is tame compared to what I've read in just the last two weeks about the influence of the Outfit...er...Organization. That anyone can exert that much influence on a person outside of Jonestown is amazing in this day and time. I've thought to myself, "Someone ought to write a book about it!" It explains a lot.

When I had these guys in my home, I noticed that they had no interest at all in the exchange of ideas. It was like, "Jehovah wants us to be good. Question: What does Jehovah want us to be?" Or..."Jesus clearly was nailed to a torture stake. Question: What was Jesus clearly nailed to?" There are no A, B, or C answers. It's just A. When I questioned my tormentors, they said they would write down my questions. They seemed ill prepared to answer even basic questions.

Speaking of questions, I have a few of my own:

So what kind of records does the church keep and are they shredded when someone is disfellowshipped or are the people still considered members? Do they need to be rebaptized? Are records kept for rebaptisms?
If I am a father...do I baptize my children or is that something the elders do?
In the New Testament, baptized members had the Holy Spirit conferred upon them by the laying on of hands. Is this done in the Organization?
If a person is turned in by a family member for reading this website, can that person be disfellowshipped? Are they warned first?
If a person is disfellowshipped, do their family members shun them? What is shunning like?

Just curious. Please feel free to rant, set me straight or quote.

31

Apostasy and Df question

by jam in

speaking hypothetically, a elder can not except the logic on the.

new understanding of the doctrine change (over lapping generation).. he voice his concern to his wife, she being a good jw , tell the elders.. the brother have not spoke to anyone in the cong.

about his doubt.. the elders question him, he remains firm, he tell the brothers, i have.

Stargater

Greetings, InterestedOne. Rolf Furuli holds a Master of Arts degree, which he received in 1995. I would be most interested in reading his The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation with a special look at the New World Translation of Jehovah's Witnesses. Unfortunately, it sells on Amazon for sixty dollars. He also is a proponent of the theory that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 B.C. rather than 586 B.C.

Based on his work and the years of his study, I suspect he started out to defend the New World Translation rather than doing an objective work. And though I don't usually stand on degrees as the sum of a person's education, I do find certain things suspect. If a scholar comes along and promotes 1) Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 B.C., 2) the NWT is an accurate rendition of the Bible, and 3) Jesus was executed on a torture stake, and if that scholar is a J.W., then I am led to suspect that he's following an agenda. All three are minority views. The chances that an objective scholar would come to all three of these opinions on his own is a bit mind-boggling. I know of no reputable scholars of ancient scripture who aren't Jehovah's Witnesses who think the NWT is a decent translation. And the evidence that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 B.C. is based on Bible mathematical history, not secular history (which is more accurate). Without going into too much detail, the biblical texts were tampered with. The Bible, for example, points to Nebuchadnezzar being driven mad for seven years when secular history points to it being Nabonidus.

One scholar writes: "The Babylonian accounts do not mention that Nebuchadnezzar became mad. But it is well known that Nabonidus did. Records kept by the Babylonian priests confirm Nabonidus’s temporary madness in the wilderness of Tema." This has always puzzled Old Testament scholars, and it's now widely believed that someone swapped the name of the more famous Nebuchadnezzar for Nabonidus. If one uses the Bible over historical secular texts (including one by Nabonidus' mother), then the dates become hopelessly jumbled. The same scholar mentioned above goes on to state: "The Dead Sea scrolls found at Qumran in 1948 confirm that Nabonidus, not Nebuchadnezzar, was the mad king. A fragmentary document titled The Prayer of Nabonidus tells of a king NBNY (Hebrew uses no vowels) who, while at Tema, was diseased by the God of Israel. A Jewish adviser (no doubt Daniel) counsels him to honor God, reminding him, 'Thou has been smitten with this noisesome fever … for seven years because thou hast been praying to gods of silver and stone, which gods are but stock and stone, mere clay.'" (Theodore H. Gaster, The Dead Sea Scriptures, 3d ed., Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Press/ Doubleday, 1976, p. 537.) Gaster is one of the more widely recognized writers on the Dead Sea Scrolls, BTW.

I mean no disrespect to Rolf Furuli, but he's wrong on all three points, and no doubt more, and I suspect it's mostly because he's chasing an agenda.

.

8

1914: Jesus Chooses Jehovah's Church?

by Stargater in

to those who lurk, or to those on the brink of leaving the ranks of jehovah's witnesses, try for a moment to put yourselves in the position of we who are not members.

i just bought a book by a former jw, and while i really don't put much credence in the works of apostates i do know how to read in between the lines for things i know to be accurate.

for example, i've read how jesus, in 1914, inspected all of the world's religions and selected the hari krishnas...er...i'm sorry, the jehovah's witnesses...as the one true religion.. to say the least, this sounds a little strange to the uninitiated.

Stargater

Yep, the year was wrong. But what's a few years amongst friends? I just find it very interesting...fascinating...that Witnesses fall for it. Jesus inspects the world's religions and chooses the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. And he made that known how? Was it the Pope? Or was it the hidden message in the Marian apparitions? Or perhaps it was the Orthodox Patriarch or the Mormon prophet? Or was it picked up by wire by the New York Times?

No, it was reported by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society! Imagine the coincidence, the joy unfeigned, when Jesus announced it and only the WBTS managed to get it. But how was the joyous information transmitted when the Society said there was no revelation? They wrote repeatedly that they weren't inspired, that they weren't writers of scripture, yet somehow the great God of Heaven transmitted this information without revelation...without inspiration!

Did it come by telegraph? Or Pony Express? The JW literature admits to making the occasional mistake (lots of them, really), but I find it suspicious when the news comes to one person without any witnesses whatsoever. Didn't the Lord say that in the mouth of two or three witnesses would every word be established? And didn't Amos say that surely the Lord God (Jehovah) would do nothing, save he revealed it unto his servants the prophets? The Organization says it is the latter-day "prophet," only it doesn't want to be held up the the same standards as the ancient prophets. But if they make mistakes, how do we know that the Jesus Report is accurate? Maybe he said "Catholics" or "Mormons" and they got it wrong. Maybe he didn't say anything. But if he did, there should be witnesses.

I just get suspicious when religious people report that God picked them and there's no external evidence. I don't want to be difficult, but where am I wrong?