Posts by Stargater

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.

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?

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

Jehovah's Witnesses as an organization has shown remarkable resiliancy over the years. They rely on the short term memories of their followers and can have members actually believing they have said "A" all the time when in fact they've said "B" and "C" in the past. As long as no one checks on them, they hold all the cards. By taking a number of positions in the past, it becomes simple to reference them to their own advantage. The structure is surprisingly immune to outside contamination. They know they're going to lose a few, but they're acceptable losses.

The main body is well insulated from outsiders. No contact with the outside community. No non-JW friends, no associations. Even if you're disfellowshipped, you are stuck between a society that rejects you and another society that you must reject. It's brilliant. Family members and friends will listen to your doubts, offer heartfelt advice, then turn you over to the elders to defray any doubts about their own loyalty. Then you're expected to forgive them. After all, they don't want to be the enemies of Jehovah.

You're also expected not to read another other religious material. Comparative religion courses are out and few, if any, ever get to advanced ancient scripture degrees. If they do, they usually won't stay. Once they find out how ridiculous their Bible translations are, it doesn't take long to see the real, actual "truth." There are no JW scholars with advanced degrees in ancient Greek, Hebrew and other languages. I've had members into my home and had them read scriptures out of their Bibles I couldn't even recognize! The meanings are often so blatantly rendered as to be mind boggling.

There's no bridge to the outside world. Members are to teach and not to be taught. Even younger members with no experience are expected to teach what's in the literature and not listen to any opposing ideas.

Like I said, it's brilliantly devised. If you stay in the movement (for convenience), do yourself a favor and claim "anointed" status. Don't question anything and take on an air of aloofness. Partake of the emblems and pretend to make inspired utterances. You can actually benefit from it, all the while knowing it's not true. There are no two classes--there's only one. But if you're going to stick with the program, take advantage of the structure. All the leaders do! If you play your cards right, you may actually develop a reputation as one of the anointed, and others will watch you partake of the emblems with envy. Or you can bail out and find another church. But then you'll be an apostate and an enemy of God and the church. Or...you can continue as you are and not rock the boat.

Either way, the church will endure because people are bred to be led. Others are born to lead, and they'll always take advantage of the former.

5

Jesus

by Stargater in

Stargater

It's a shortcut thing. I hit a key, apparently twice, and there's no way to undo it.

You can view it as a very open thread.

BTW, how do you change the avatar here?

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

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. People should not be cruel or sarcastic to believers in my opinion, but sometimes the way the JWs come across to unbelievers it's a bit difficult to hold one's tongue. For those who have visited me in the past, they talk about other religions as being "man made" and they refer to other believers in Christ as "Christendom" -- which I have nothing against except when it's used in the pejorative sense.

Paul writes that "in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established" (2 Cor. 13:1). In Moses' day, many saw the plagues he called down upon Egypt, but more importantly, we have this testimony: "Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel:And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness.And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink."

In Jesus' day, the apostles and other disciples saw the risen Lord, and he ministered to them for 40 days following his resurrection.

Sadly, though, there doesn't seem to be any witnesses of Jesus' choice of churches. In fact, the JWs are loath to use the term "church," and the leadership in various Kingdom Halls tends to be increasingly arbitrary. They establish the number of meetings, grooming, dress and so forth, all with no witnesses! Or do I have it wrong?

I recently had a hard disk give out on me. I had backed up most of what I needed, but not everything. I found a company on the Internet (Spotmau) which claimed boldly that "any" hard disk which had failed could be made to work. The advertising was just what I was looking for. The only problem is, despite all the hoopla in the advertising, it didn't work! It found my partition, but not incredibly, the file manager failed to find my missing files. But it said it could! "Any" disk it said. Why pay for expensive data recovery it blared in the advertising!

Anyone can make claims. And as anyone can tell, there's not a shread of evidence that Jesus went into heaven or picked any church in 1914 or any other year. It's much like transubstantiation in the Catholic Church. One takes the emblems of our Lord and they transubstantiate into the Lord's body and blood. It's a miracle! It's much like the fastest gun in the West routine.

Wanna see it again??

If there are any believers out there, I'd like to hear your views, and again we should be respectful to the beliefs of others. I'm just curious as to how anyone would know what Jesus did or did not do in 1914 or any other year. It's true that 1914 was a pivotal year in world history, but so was 1861 and 1776. In fact, many people see 1861 as a much more decisive year in world history. We should not think of the American "Civil War" as just a local event. Many saw it in other countries as the dividing line between how wars were fought and how they would be fought in the future.

4