Posts by stillstuckcruz

8

Effective means of "apostasizing" at conventions and assemblies?

by stillstuckcruz in

i notice most apostates will picket signs or try to place their own literature with the witnesses.

i cant see how the latter is effective since jw's are so heavily bombarded with warnings about apostate literature.

i was thinking that an effective strategy might be printing out lots of copies of older and current magazines, highlighting specific phrases and words, and stapling them together to show the obvious inconsistency of the wt.

stillstuckcruz

I notice most apostates will picket signs or try to place their own literature with the witnesses. I cant see how the latter is effective since JW's are so heavily bombarded with warnings about apostate literature. I was thinking that an effective strategy might be printing out lots of copies of older and current magazines, highlighting specific phrases and words, and stapling them together to show the obvious inconsistency of the WT. This could be done by leaving it on their seats or something. I'm not sure they would immediately throw it away as they would with other non-WT literature. If its straight from their own literature, it might peak their interest. What are your thoughts on other effective techniques?

44

Special day Last talk "No formula"

by MommieTiger in

this weekend at our special assembly day, let gods will take place the final talk was a head shaker.... the bethel speaker was quite entertaining when he joked @ the shortcomings of the elders.

he also made us laugh with the comment "we were told the end of the system is right around the corner, but we've found its been more than that, we've been around the blocks a few times.

" he told the young ones to make the truth their own by researching in the wtbts publication (only).

stillstuckcruz

"It's ok to have your own thought on our publications, and you may share them with your immediate family only....but you better not be thinking anything that is not there! Or your disfellowshipping will be another thing thats 'just around the corner!'"

22

Were organ transplants ever forbidden?

by stillstuckcruz in

as an apostate, i'm currently compiling a list of changed doctrines and "new light" changes over the years.

this is mainly for discussing with witnesses in the future.

i feel if i don't present full truth of their own doctrine, they will knock me down and rightfully say that i did not give full infomation(hypocrites much?).

stillstuckcruz

@Blondie: Ahh this was what I was hoping for really...was first had experience. What's interesting is how there is never any mention of disciplinary action. At least in the 67' article. We never discuss these type of things at out "family study". We usually just do the WT every week. YAWN!

@Leolaia: Thats VERY interesting! Do you know where I can find and print out this article online?

12

What do you make of THIS?

by TimothyT in

arrangement the ark the law covenant the new covenant the organisation.

leader noah moses / the high priest jesus christ the governing body.

entity for salvation the ark the tabernacle / temple the body of christ the organisation.

stillstuckcruz

That the organization is playing the role of Jesus and it is only through them we gain salvation. Pfft. I'll go along with their own doctrine and just leave. If they are even .00000000000000000000000000000000001% correct, I'll just be resurrected to the same end so what's the difference? :P

22

Were organ transplants ever forbidden?

by stillstuckcruz in

as an apostate, i'm currently compiling a list of changed doctrines and "new light" changes over the years.

this is mainly for discussing with witnesses in the future.

i feel if i don't present full truth of their own doctrine, they will knock me down and rightfully say that i did not give full infomation(hypocrites much?).

stillstuckcruz

As an apostate, I'm currently compiling a list of changed doctrines and "new light" changes over the years. This is mainly for discussing with witnesses in the future. I feel if I don't present full truth of their own doctrine, they will knock me down and rightfully say that I did not give full infomation(hypocrites much?). Doing more research i found the articles dealing with organ transplants via the web and they were based on these:

-1961 = Conscience choice.
[Watchtower August 1, 1961 'Question from Readers']

-1967 = Cannibalistic.
[Watchtower November 15, 1967 ‘Questions from Readers’]

-1980 = Conscience choice.
[Watchtower March 15, 1980, page 31]

[BOLDING mines]

•The first article from 1961 mentions: "However, it does not seem that any Scriptural principle or law is involved. It therefore is something that each individual must decide for himself. If he is satisfied in his own mind and conscience that this is a proper thing to do, then he can make such provision, and no one else should criticize him for doing so."

So here is obviously the personal decision being made and no one judging others for making such a decision

•The second article from 1967 mentions these points:

-When there is a diseased or defective organ, the usual way health is restored is by taking in nutrients. The body uses the food eaten to repair or heal the organ, gradually replacing the cells. When men of science conclude that this normal process will no longer work and they suggest removing the organ and replacing it directly with an organ from another human, this is simply a shortcut. Those who submit to such operations are thus living off the flesh of another human. That is cannibalistic. However, in allowing man to eat animal flesh Jehovah God did not grant permission for humans to try to perpetuate their lives by cannibalistically taking into their bodies human flesh, whether chewed or in the form of whole organs or body parts taken from others.

-It is of interest to note that in its discussion of cannibalism the Encyclopœdia of Religion and Ethics, edited by James Hastings, Volume 3, page 199, has a section designated “Medical cannibalism.” It points out that this is associated with the idea of obtaining strength or some medical virtue from the flesh of another human, adding: “The most remarkable example of this practice occurs in China. Among the poor it is not uncommon for a member of the family to cut a piece of flesh from arm or leg, which is cooked and then given to a sick relative. . . . The whole superstition in China is certainly connected with the idea that the eating of the human body strengthens the eater. . . . Among savages the practice is found of giving a sick man some blood to drink drawn from the veins of a relative.” Some might argue that therapeutic practices involved in modern organ transplant operations are more scientific than such primitive treatment. Nonetheless, it is evident that men practicing medicine have not been beyond using treatments that amount to cannibalism if such have been thought justified.

-At present scientific researchers are starting to use artificial or animal parts where formerly human parts were thought necessary, such as in the case of cornea transplants. (See, for instance, Science News for May 21, 1966, page 396, and Time for April 28, 1967, pages 68 and 70.) Whether wider use of such operations will be made, we do not know. Nor can we decide whether a Christian should accept some animal part as a transplant; that is for personal decision [though this may be a different issue]

-When it comes to deciding what to do with one’s own body or with the body of a deceased loved one, for which a Christian is responsible, the apostle Paul’s words at Romans 12:1 should not be overlooked: “I entreat you by the compassions of God, brothers, to present your bodies a sacrifice living, holy, acceptable to God, a sacred service with your power of reason.” Baptized Christians have dedicated their lives, bodies included, to do the will of Jehovah their Creator. In view of this, can such a person donate his body or part of it for unrestricted use by doctors or others? Does a human have a God-given right to dedicate his body organs to scientific experimentation? Is it proper for him to allow such to be done with the body of a loved one? These are questions worthy of serious consideration.

-Not to be overlooked is the use to which a dead body might be put. Would a Christian who, while living, refused to give his blood to be used as a transfusion for some other person, allow his body to be turned over to a group or to a person and possibly at that time have the blood removed and used for transfusion, as has been done with some cadavers? (See, for example, Awake! of October 22, 1962, page 30.) A person might feel that he could stipulate that his body not be used in that way; but if many persons in authority refuse to abide by a Christian’s wishes about blood when he is alive, what reason is there to believe they will show more respect for his wishes after his death? Would they use his organs in cannibalistic medical experiments?

-Our bodies are the creation of Jehovah God. (Ps. 100:3; 95:6; Job 10:8) Christians might allow apparently necessary surgery to be performed, such as to remove a diseased limb, but they do not needlessly mutilate their bodies created by Jehovah. Would allowing a body to be mutilated after death be showing respect for and appreciation of God’s creation? True, in some instances there may be legal requirements that Christians abide by, such as when the law requires a postmortem examination to determine the cause of death. (Rom. 13:1, 7; Mark 12:17) In such cases the next of kin can usually request that the organs not be removed for transplant or reuse. In this way, even though an autopsy might be required, the Christian can prevent misuse of the body of a loved one. But when such laws do not apply, the Christian can decide in such a way as to avoid unnecessary mutilation and any possible misuse of the body. Thus he will be able to have a clear conscience before God.—1 Pet. 3:16.

-It should be evident from this discussion that Christians who have been enlightened by God’s Word do not need to make these decisions simply on the basis of personal whim or emotion. They can consider the divine principles recorded in the Scriptures and use these in making personal decisions as they look to God for direction, trusting him and putting their confidence in the future that he has in store for those who love him.—Prov. 3:5, 6; Ps. 119:105. [END]

So although, yes, brothers and sisters were HIGHLY encouraged to go one particular way, it still seems like it was a personal matter. Now, I wasn't alive during this time period so I don't know what happened. I do know of stories of those who have died on account of this article[sad as it may be]. But(and I'm asking those who have witnessed it), was there ever judicial action taken against such ones who transplanted their organs or those who partook of them? It doesn't seem from this article that it was expressly forbidden such as the issues of holidays and the taking of blood and other issues. Although, yes I can certainly see how someone could derive that it is wrong to do so from this article. But there is no mention of disciplinary measures for organ transplantation(is that a word?) and vice versa.

•Then, of course, we have the final article from 1980, which mentions that no judicial action would be taken and it is agian just a personal choice not to be judged by others.

-Clearly, personal views and conscientious feelings vary on this issue of transplantation. It is well known that the use of human materials for human consumption varies all the way from minor items, such as hormones and corneas, to major organs, such as kidneys and hearts. While the Bible specifically forbids consuming blood, there is no Biblical command pointedly forbidding the taking in of other human tissue. For this reason, each individual faced with making a decision on this matter should carefully and prayerfully weigh matters and then decide conscientiously what he or she could or could not do before God. It is a matter for personal decision. (Gal. 6:5) The congregation judicial committee would not take disciplinary action if someone accepted an organ transplant.

I feel that when I witness to witnesses, I must be absolutely truthful regarding their own doctrines, otherwise I am no different than they are, and am being an apostate fitting of their own descriptions...."spreading false stories"

12

What do you make of THIS?

by TimothyT in

arrangement the ark the law covenant the new covenant the organisation.

leader noah moses / the high priest jesus christ the governing body.

entity for salvation the ark the tabernacle / temple the body of christ the organisation.

stillstuckcruz

I thought you went crazy for a minute there Timothy. lol. I guess the table got a little screwed up

21

I know I'm not alone, but damn do I feel lonely now...

by OneDayillBeFree in

i have been meaning to post my experience at the pioneer school and i will as soon as time permits but theres something that has happened recently in my life that has impacted me in such a horrible way that i just have to get off my chest.. as you may know ive been trying to fade.

its very hard.

hard as hell.

stillstuckcruz

My eyes were watering by the end of your story. We all have different stories but most are so unsimilarly similar(if that makes any sense). Faking in the Borg can be one of the hardest things to do. I am faking now but you have it much harder being a pioneer. I can only imagine what you are going through.

I can't imagine what happened to that girl. I can't say she was playing you from the start. Maybe something on her Bethel trip made her reexamine. Made her wake up...NOT! More like make her fall asleep. I can only offer you wishes for the absolute best in fading. we know the real truth about the truth. I've never had a bible study but my goal now is to reach at least ONE witness and get them to see the real truth. That will truly make everything worthwhile for me.

Best wishes!!!!

15

Contradictory statement in this weeks WT

by stillstuckcruz in

this exerpt is taken from the july 15,2011 issue of the wt.

study article for sept 19-25th.

(bolding mines) this was under the subheading "when someone we love leaves jehovah".

stillstuckcruz

@ Lola-rabbit: your absolutely right! I was handling mikes during this study and I was shaking my head nearly the entire time. I really can't believe people can be in full support of these things. It's funny how JW's condemn everyone else for every mistake and fault made. But anything they do is easily justified and supported in their eyes. SMH

@00DAD: I've novticed how there are zero thinking skills involved with JW's. I was listening the the utterly ignorant comments made by individuals at the hall, including my ELDER father. My fathers statement during the WT was "if disfellowshipped indiviuals continued to have contact with family and friends in the organization, then that individual might say 'well why should I come back when everyone still talks to me like nothing ever happened.' But if they they have no contact with these ones and realize they have no family or friends, this can encourage them to come back" I had my mouth open in shock at this point. I'm not even going to delve deep into that comment as it is pretty typical and speaks for itself.

15

Contradictory statement in this weeks WT

by stillstuckcruz in

this exerpt is taken from the july 15,2011 issue of the wt.

study article for sept 19-25th.

(bolding mines) this was under the subheading "when someone we love leaves jehovah".

stillstuckcruz

This exerpt is taken from the July 15,2011 issue of the WT. Study article for Sept 19-25th.(BOLDING mines) This was under the subheading "When Someone We Love Leaves Jehovah"

16. Moses brother. Aaron, faced a difficult situation with regard to two of his sonds. Think of how he must have felt when his sons Nadab and Abihu offered illegitimate fire to Jehovah and He struck them dead. Of course, that ended any association those men could have had with their parents. But there is more. Jehovah instructed Aaron and his faithful sons: "Do not let your heads go ungroomed, and you must not tear your garments[in mourning], that you may not die and that [Jehovah] may not become indignant against all the assembly." (Lev. 10:1-6) The message is clear. Our love for Jehovah must be stronger than our love for unfaithful family members.

17. Today, Jehovah does not immediately execute those who violate his laws. He lovingly gives them the opportunity to repent from their unrighteous works. How would Jehovah feel, though, if the parents of an unrepentant wrongdoer kept putting Him to the test by having unnecessary association with their disfellowshipped son or daughter?

So looking at the bolded text, although they do not say bluntly say "Jehovah is being loving towards His people today unlike the UNloving way he dealt with people in the past...", is that not the implication of the way this text was worded? In effect, saying, "Nadub and Abihu were struck dead immediately for violating God's law. But today, rather than the harsh and unloving way He dealt with Nadub and Abihu, 'He lovingly gives them the opportunity to repent from their unrighteous work'". That would obviously be contrary to Deuteronomy 32:4, which says "The Rock, perfect is his activity, For all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness, with whom there is no injustice; Righteous and upright is he.".

Comments?

10

Better to live the JW "life" or live the christian life, die, and be resurrected?

by stillstuckcruz in

this is a question i've been wanting to ask.

i'm not sure if i understand their whole "resurrection" teaching totally.

but it appears that to any jw's who may not want to be, or any others for that matter, dont have to be baptized in the borg at all.

stillstuckcruz

I was thinking more along the lines of what a JW would say in response to this question. Personally I dont see the difference between slaving and being resurrected later to be taught "truths"