I am an American, and so is my president. This is an iron no speech can hold. It can only be experienced. All freedom lovers experience this. But I call it American.
March on freedom!
Marvin Shilmer
JoinedPosts by Marvin Shilmer
-
142
The State of the Union
by Marvin Shilmer ini am an american, and so is my president.
this is an iron no speech can hold.
it can only be experienced.
-
-
-
26
Subtle change in UK Blood Policy
by caspian init seems that the latest directive from his at the branch office is the following.. .
hlc members are not to direct jw parents to refuse blood for their children any more.. in the past uk doctors could easily get a court order to force jw children to have a blood transfusion.
but the parents always had to refuse completely so that court action almost always took place.
-
-
Marvin Shilmer
Hello, Caspian
Those directions are in line with the following shift in Watchtower policy effective 1992:
*** km 9/92 3 Safeguarding Your Children From Misuse of Blood ***
Finding a Cooperative Doctor: Physicians have many concerns in treating patients, and when you ask them to treat your child without blood, this increases the challenge. Some physicians will agree to treat adults while respecting their wishes on blood as long as an acceptable release is filled out. Some may similarly agree to treat minors who have demonstrated they are mature minors, since some courts have recognized that mature minors have the right to make their own medical choices. (See The Watchtower, June 15, 1991, pages 16-17, for discussion of what constitutes a mature minor.) However, physicians may refuse to treat young children, especially infants, unless they have permission to give blood. In fact, very few physicians will give 100-percent assurance that they will not use blood under any circumstances when treating a child. For medical and legal reasons, most doctors feel that they cannot give such a guarantee. Nevertheless, an increasing number want to provide care for the children of Jehovahs Witnesses while going as far as they feel they can in respecting our wishes on blood.
In view of this, what if, in your search for a suitable doctor for your child, you find one with a record of good cooperation with Jehovahs Witnesses and who had in the past performed the same bloodless procedure for other Witnesses, yet he feels that the law does not allow him to give you an absolute guarantee that blood would not be used? However, he assures you that he feels there will be no problem this time as well. You may decide this is your best option. Under these circumstances you might conclude that you could grant permission to proceed. Make it quite clear, however, that in giving permission for medical treatment for your child you are not giving permission for blood transfusions. Taking this course would be a responsibility you would have to bear without your decision being viewed as a compromise.
______________________
Marvin Shilmer
-
18
Moral dilemma.
by expatbrit inimagine you are the head of the security services in your city.
somewhere in your city is a bomb.
it is timed to explode sometime in the next 24 hours, very probably in a crowded area.
-
-
Marvin Shilmer
Hello, Expatbrit
I see no moral dilemma. What you are asking about is a matter of self-defense.
Societal norms (and most orthodox religions too) accept that self-defense is morally acceptable to the point of applying force necessary to defend your person or those in imminent danger. In the case of threat of life then taking life is not out of the question. In the case of threat of torturous affliction then applying torturous affliction is not out of the question. Your scenario has both threats. One would only need proof of the offense you state in sure terms. If sure then there is no dilemma to me. On the other hand, doubt is reason for refrain, and the extent (or lack of extent) of doubt is where the moral dilemma lay.
That's the way I see it, and no one should try convincing me that parents would not kill to protect their child's life from a criminal set to murder. I agree with several posters above. Give me the pliers! I'll do the job.
__________________
Marvin Shilmer
-
6
Whose Organization is it? GAME TIME
by Marvin Shilmer inwhose organization?
if a religious organization disfellowships its members for criticizing or exposing teachings for what they are, whose organization is this indicative of according to the watch tower bible and tract society?
10 points--whatever thats worth--to the participant that can prove their answer.
-
-
Marvin Shilmer
Hello, Kismet
Your answer was: Satan
Bingo!
Here is the WTS comment accordingly:
"Satans organization claims to be Gods organization, and persecutes those who are actually members of Gods organization. Satans organization sails under the high-sounding name of "Christendom". It boasts of a membership of over 500,000,000 persons. Its members are in bondage to creeds, customs, rites and ceremonies; they dare not disown these or criticize or expose them. To do so would bring down on their heads taunts, reproaches, disfellowship and persecution. Many thousands of the Lords people are held in these denominations as prisoners, afraid to express their disapproval of the creeds, methods and customs of the organization."-- MILLIONS OF PRISONERS TO HEAR THE GOSPEL, The Watch Tower journal of October 1, 1930 page 301.
Imagine that, according to the WTS a religious organization that disfellowships its members for criticizing or exposing teachings is indicative of Satan's organization. Now--I wonder--what organizations behave like this today?
____________________
Marvin Shilmer
-
6
Whose Organization is it? GAME TIME
by Marvin Shilmer inwhose organization?
if a religious organization disfellowships its members for criticizing or exposing teachings for what they are, whose organization is this indicative of according to the watch tower bible and tract society?
10 points--whatever thats worth--to the participant that can prove their answer.
-
-
Marvin Shilmer
Hello, setfreefinally!
Nice quotes, but you do not answer the question and neither does your citations. You have 9 more attempts available--making up the rules as we go here.
Whose organization is it, according to the WTS?
____________________
Marvin Shilmer
-
6
Whose Organization is it? GAME TIME
by Marvin Shilmer inwhose organization?
if a religious organization disfellowships its members for criticizing or exposing teachings for what they are, whose organization is this indicative of according to the watch tower bible and tract society?
10 points--whatever thats worth--to the participant that can prove their answer.
-
-
Marvin Shilmer
* * *
Whose Organization?
If a religious organization disfellowships its members for criticizing or exposing teachings for what they are, whose organization is this indicative of according to the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society?
10 points--whatever thats worth--to the participant that can prove their answer.
________________
Marvin Shilmer
-
23
Oslo hypothesis vs. Jonsson hypothesis
by scholar init has been announced that two forthcoming volumes examing the secular and biblical ecidence for bible chronology are due for publication in the spring, 2003. rolf furuli a semitic language scholar provides a new approach to the many problems associated with current chronology.
it should be interesting to see how this book will be reviewed in the scholarly literature and compare this material with jonsson's gentile times reconsidered.
to date i am unaware of any scholarly review of the jonsson hypothesis.
-
-
Marvin Shilmer
Whoever writes:
Are you jealous of my academic qualifications?
Is your last name Tatum? (Willy getet?)
What academic qualifications? All I see is a claim. Are claims of academic level supposed to impress educated readers coming from the writer of a pseudonymous work?
Writing under a pen name requires a composition to speak for the writer instead of the writer speaking for him or herself.
If you have something to say then say it. Educated readers will decide intelligence.
Marvin Shilmer
Edited by - Marvin Shilmer on 11 January 2003 22:32:10
Edited by - Marvin Shilmer on 11 January 2003 22:33:10
-
14
Respecting God-given Authority
by Marvin Shilmer inrespecting god-given authority.
the watchtower bible and tract society (wts) teaches jehovah's witnesses (jws) that "anointed servants" of god are endowed with an appointment of authority over christians.
the basis of this teaching is the biblical text of matthew 24:45-47, which reads, .
-
-
Marvin Shilmer
***
Respecting God-given Authority
The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (WTS) teaches Jehovah's Witnesses (JWs) that "anointed servants" of God are endowed with an appointment of authority over Christians. The basis of this teaching is the biblical text of Matthew 24:45-47, which reads,
"Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time? Happy is that slave if his master on arriving finds him doing so. Truly I say to YOU, He will appoint him over all his belongings."NWT
Assuming it true that God has appointed a "faithful slave" to serve in the capacity of His anointed authority over Christians, just what is expected of Jesus followers in terms of respect?
The biblical record contains many examples of God appointees filling the capacity of His anointed one. These manifest a consistent model in answer to the question of what God expects in terms of respect toward this extended authority.
Examples readily familiar to Jehovah's Witnesses include those of Moses and King Saul. We single out these two because incidents involving them are often used in WTS publications to explain proper respect for God-given authority. For example, Moses was once faced with actions of a man named Korah. Because of Korah's actions Jehovah destroyed him along with his supporters. In a separate incident an indisposed King Saul was unwittingly at the mercy of David. David had the opportunity and ability to kill or injure King Saul, which would have removed him from kingship, but he refrained because Saul was, as David put it, the anointed of Jehovah. David did cut away some of Saul's clothing and later felt regret for even this small act. These incidents between Moses and Korah and King Saul and David are often cited in WTS publications to instill respect for God-appointed authority.
What is almost never highlighted in WTS teachings is whether appropriate respect for God-given authority requires unquestioning submission. Why this omission can only be guessed at, but since the WTS usually cites examples to teach submission we can surmise they either see no need in teaching whether there are conditions that would warrant any retraction of support or corrective measures from subordinates, or they do not want their subordinates to consider these possibilities. So, given the same two examples of Moses and King Saul's God-appointed authority, does Jehovah expect and/or require unquestioning submission?
At Meribah Moses sinned so gravely that Jehovah removed him prematurely from his position of authority in Israel. Aaron too was removed prematurely from his position of high God-given authority. Aaron's situation is significant here because the Bible depicts Moses as the instigator of the sin with Aaron acting in support. The biblical account reads:
"So Moses took the rod from before Jehovah, just as he had commanded him. After that Moses and Aaron called the congregation together before the crag, and he proceeded to say to them: Hear, now, YOU rebels! Is it from this crag that we shall bring out water for YOU? With that Moses lifted his hand up and struck the crag with his rod twice; and much water began to come out, and the assembly and their beasts of burden began to drink.
"Later Jehovah said to Moses and Aaron: Because YOU did not show faith in me to sanctify me before the eyes of the sons of Israel, therefore YOU will not bring this congregation into the land that I shall certainly give them. "--Numbers 20:9-12, NWT
In this case did Jehovah expect Aaron to support Moses in his sin? Apparently not, since he was prematurely removed from authority along with Moses for doing just that! So what should Aaron have done? Before answering this question let's go on to the example of King Saul.
As noted earlier, David refused to remove Saul from his God appointed position by killing him. David apparently felt that God gave him the job so I'll let God remove it from him. But this did not mean David supported Saul in actions that David felt were ungodly or otherwise wrong. In fact another servant of God, Samuel, actually confronted King Saul on more than one occasion because of Saul's ungodly deeds. In express language Samuel informed King Saul that he would not support such actions, and this he said publicly. This was done despite the fact that King Saul was the anointed of Jehovah at the time.
So, what should Aaron have done at Meribah? Because of Jehovah's disapproval of how Aaron did act and because of His blessings on how Samuel acted later on, we can conclude the correct path for Aaron was to have at least removed his support from Moses' sinful act. As High Priest in Israel, too he probably should have acted to check Moses' action short of removing Moses from office by his own action.
From the examples of Moses and King Saul we can learn that God expects his followers to listen to and consider the teaching and directives his appointees. But Jehovah does not expect his worshippers to support his appointees without first making an unselfish and personal consideration of what God has said Himself in his written word, the Bible. In cases where Christians have unselfish and sound scriptural reasons they should defer to God's word the Bible and refuse to support what is evidently wrong. Christians can not forget that, in addition to considering what God-appointed representatives say, Jehovah also expects His followers to use their power of reason in their worship. In short, respect for God-given authority does not mean standing in support of wrong conduct despite that it may be on the part of His anointed one. When wrong conduct is evident true worship requires withdrawal of support just as Aaron should have acted at Meribah and Samuel did act in response to Saul.
As interesting end note to this discussion is the fact that David, a true worshiper, was put in the awkward position of having to hide himself from the anointed of Jehovah for sake of self-preservation and to continue his efforts at defending and otherwise helping his fellow Israelite brothers. This, along with other examples demonstrates that just because God appoints spokespersons and gives authority it does not mean the actions of these are always at His behest as though loyalty to them is equivalent to loyalty to Jehovah. Quite frequently the biblical model evidences that those whom God has appointed have acted on their own in some or many respects. In these instances it was appropriate for subordinates to apply their power of reason together with a love of God's written word and then act by refusing to support what was evidently wrong. Messages of Jesus to the seven congregations in the district of Asia evidence that Christians too are faced with wrong actions of servants of God. They should act accordingly.
Assuming it true that God has appointed a "faithful slave" to serve in the capacity of His anointed authority over Christians, Jehovah expects and requires that Christians will recognize this authority by listening to it and considering what it has to say. If, as it asserts, its teachings are food from the Master's table then true worshippers can confirm this by checking the Master's menu, the Bible. If it's on the menu then it's the Master's food. If it's not there, then it is some other kind of food and should be treated accordingly. In harmony with the biblical model, in the event of ungodly teachings or practices evidenced by this "faithful slave" then Christian should withdraw support accordingly. "Faithful slave" does not mean, "perfect slave." Undeniably, earthly slaves of God are yet imperfect and therefore susceptible to the same failings of past slaves of The Almighty.
Supporting ungodly teachings and/or practices committed by the "anointed of Jehovah" as an act of loyalty to God is an act of worship, and it is an idolatrous act of worship. It is idolatrous because unquestioning submission is due and appropriate toward only One, The Almighty. Anyone else with God-given authority is due relative submission. (Compare Romans 13:1; Ephesians 5:24; Hebrews 13:17)
________________
Marvin Shilmer
-
70
new service report (upturn)
by whatiloveaboutwater in.
has anyone seen the new figures in the jan 1st watchtower - i have.
what do you think about them?.
-
-
Marvin Shilmer
Hello, Blondie
Im not sure it is fair statistically to count out any aspect of reports. We should look at what the reports are, not what they would be if we counted out one or more aspects.
Many would probably be surprised to compare the average monthly hours of reported field service by total publishers, including pioneer publishers.
In 1960 the total average publishers (851,378 that year) averaged 12.89 hours per month over the course of the year. Subsequent years looked like this:
The period of 1961 through 1970 total average publishers averaged 14.12 hours per month.
The period of 1971 through 1980 total average publishers averaged 14.30 hours per month.
The period of 1981 through 1990 total average publishers averaged 16.97 hours per month.
The period of 1991 through 2000 total average publishers averaged 18.62 hours per month.
For the year 2002 alone total average publishers averaged 16.57 hours per month.
A running 10-year average since 1959 shows that the year 1984 had the lowest 10-year average with 13.73 hours per month per total average publisher over the previous 10 years. The highest 10-year average over the same period (1959-2002) shows 1995 as the highest with 19.31 hours per total average publisher over the previous 10 years. As of 2002 the running 10-year average for monthly field service for total average publishers is 17.99 hours. As for individual years, over the same period (1959-2002), 1978 had the least average per total publishers at 12.27 hours per month per publisher. 1992 had the greatest average per total publishers at 19.91 hours per month per publisher.
In reviewing the full set of statistics over the period of 1959 to present in regard to average time spent in field service, the only thing that really stands out to me is the period immediately following 1975 and the period immediately following 1995; both of which represent significant dates for Jehovahs Witnesses. 1975 was the year held out by the WTS as the year Witnesses could expect Armageddon within months of, which event did not occur. 1995 was the year the WTS significantly changed its doctrine regarding the generation of 1914.
Contrary to other expressions on this thread, September of 2001 does present a statistical change. In the States that month marked the beginning of a (so far) sustained increase in the number of reported publishers. The only significant event concurrent with September 2001 was the terrorist destruction of the twin-towers. For this reason I believe it is more than coincidence that the 2002 report shows the increases it does in developed lands. Residents of all developed nations were horrified by this act of terror.
I will point out, though, that the time Witnesses spend in field service is nowhere near as efficient in terms of gaining publishers as it was in years past. In 1960 the average time it took to have an increase of 1 publisher was 1,907 hours. In 2002 the average time it took to have an increase of 1 publisher was 4,529 hours.
___________________
Marvin Shilmer
-
70
new service report (upturn)
by whatiloveaboutwater in.
has anyone seen the new figures in the jan 1st watchtower - i have.
what do you think about them?.
-
-
Marvin Shilmer
For whatever worth, statistically there has been consistent increase in the numbers of publishers reported by the Watchtower Society as a ratio of world population:
The 1980 report shows publishers represented 0.0488% of world population. Subsequent years look like this:
1981 - 0.0496%
1982 - 0.0508%
1983 - 0.0533%
1984 - 0.0561%
1985 - 0.0590%
1986 - 0.0620%
1987 - 0.0645%
1988 - 0.0671%
1989 - 0.0698%
1990 - 0.0728%
1991 - 0.0759%
1992 - 0.0787%
1993 - 0.0811%
1994 - 0.0837%
1995 - 0.0870%
1996 - 0.0896%
1997 - 0.0916%
1998 - 0.0936%
1999 - 0.0942%
2000 - 0.0951%
2001 - 0.0955%
2002 - 0.0982%
The 2002 report shows twice the percentage of publishers versus world population as the year 1980.
________________
Marvin Shilmer