StandFirm

Joined

• started 6 topics
• posted 45 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by StandFirm

• 
  25

  2011 Convention Releases - PDFs?

  by StandFirm in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  does anyone have links for pdfs of any of the convention releases this year?.

  many thanks..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  StandFirm

  Does anyone have links for PDFs of any of the convention releases this year?

  Many thanks.
• 
  144

  1st Cen. Christianity - One Organization

  by StandFirm in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  here is the promised debate.

  the subject is whether or not god has an organization.

  i'll start things simply:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  StandFirm

  Marvin Shilmer asks:
  
  "-- Were there true Christians in the centuries leading to the 19th and 20th centuries?
  -- If so, were those true Christians part of one administrative and functional structure used by God?
  -- If so, what was that one administrative and functional structure used by God?"
  
  There were Christians in the intervening centuries. And they did organize themselves in some cases, as best they could. Remember, though, that those were the centuries of apostasy, of the wheat being hidden by the weeds. Wouldn't it be better to imitate the 1st century's spiritual prosperity? Thus, what you bring up is a red herring.
  
  "-- Was being thrown out because of disobeying a what or a who? (“However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond what we declared to you as good news, let him be accursed.”— Gal. 1:8, NWT)"
  
  Notice that the sin is declaring something 'beyond what WE declared to you'. The sin is disobeying a WHAT (Christian doctrine) that the WHO (Christian congregation) taught you.
  
  Also, I notice that some have brought have brought up the Pharisees, as though they were Jehovah's organization. However, it was the Pharisees who seated THEMSELVES in the seat of Moses. They were the apostates from Jehovah's organization.
  
  Finally, the purpose of this thread is not to debate the inspiration of the Bible. Rather, the key question is:
  
  Did all 1st century Christians obey what the Apostles said according to the Bible? If not, explain why.
  
  Apologies if I missed an answer in the many responses.
• 
  151

  Introducing Myself

  by StandFirm in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  hello to jwn!

  this is standfirm.

  i mainly post on the topix jehovah's witness forum, but i decided to give it a try over here also.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  StandFirm

  Farkel: The debates are here. Here's an example debate for you to read. It picks up a few pages in. Feel free to BTTT it.

  Terra Incognita: Adding comments to their writings is different from a forum discussion. The regular Watchtower makes clear that it is referring to their blogs and websites, not forums. If they meant forum why didn't they say it? And why can't I do research like Andre if I've already been exposed to apostate ideas?
• 
  151

  Introducing Myself

  by StandFirm in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  hello to jwn!

  this is standfirm.

  i mainly post on the topix jehovah's witness forum, but i decided to give it a try over here also.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  StandFirm

  Here is the debate:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/210113/1/1st-Cen-Christianity-One-Organization
• 
  144

  1st Cen. Christianity - One Organization

  by StandFirm in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  here is the promised debate.

  the subject is whether or not god has an organization.

  i'll start things simply:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  StandFirm

  Here is the promised debate. The subject is whether or not God has an organization. I'll start things simply:

  The dictionary defines organization as this:

  " an administrative and functional structure"

  Acts 16:4 reads:

  "As they traveled from town to town, they delivered the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the people to obey."-Emphasis added.

  As we can see from this, all the Christians of that time obeyed the direction of the Apostles. All Christians were one "administrative and functional structure." Christianity was one organization. This would make it God's organization.

  Those who disobeyed the organization were thrown out. Thus the oneness of the organization was to be kept.

  "As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer"-1 Timothy 1:3.
  
  "It is necessary to shut the mouths of these, as these very men keep on subverting entire households"-Titus 1:11.
  
  "Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them. You may be sure that such people are warped and sinful; they are self-condemned."-Titus 3:10, 11.

  "Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take them into your house or welcome them. Anyone who welcomes them shares in their wicked work."-2 John 9-11.
• 
  33

  Blatant misquote in the Origin of Life booklet

  by bohm in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i am trying to review the "origin of life" booklet, and i got to say that the more i look into it the worse it look.

  this particular quote puzzled me a lot (p. 28).

  one group of researchers used brain size to speculate which extinct creatures were more closely related to man admitted that in doing so, they often feel on shaky ground.. they took the quote from the preface of the "the human fossil record - volume 3" from 2004. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  StandFirm

  The WTS brochure The Origin of Life - Five Questions Worth Asking states on page 28:
  
  "One group of researchers used brain size to speculate which extinct creatures were more closely related to man admitted that in doing so, “they often feel on shaky ground.”"
  
  bohm asserts:
  "What the author of the booklet is trying to do in this section is to create a strawman argument where the brain size is the most important hint to evolutionary ancestry amongst the humanoids, and then he tries to knock that down by pointing out that there is little correlations between brain size and intelligence."-Emphasis added.
  
  But this is a misrepresentation of the brochure. It clearly states:
  
  "The brain size of a presumed ancestor of humans is one of the main ways by which evolutionists determine how closely or distantly the creature is supposed to be related to humans."-p. 28, emphasis added.

  The brochure says that brain size is one of the ways, not the main way, of determining ancestry. Why did bohm misrepresent the brochure? It could be an honest mistake, although he/she doesn't seem to leave any room for that for the WTS.

  Besides, the brochure is not about a book. The brochure is talking about the idea that brain size shows where in a supposed line of descent a fossil should be placed. The WTS says that this is false. The authors of the book agree, as does New Scientist. So what is your point?
• 
  125

  JWs Not Allowed to Post on Websites?

  by StandFirm in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  this seems to be a favorite topic to bring up to any witnesses who post on any website where there are any opposers, either here or topix or anywhere.. so, here is the one and only place i will be discussing it.

  who can prove that witnesses are specifically told not to post on websites about them?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  StandFirm

  From page 4:
  
  mrsjones5: Of course there are ex-elders, ex-servants, etc. here. But she claimed that there were current Bethelites and Circuit Overseers. That seems a little farfetched to me.
  
  jwfacts: Obviously the GB doesn't want us to all go out and post on websites like this, they may even prefer we don't, but they have not outright said 'you must not' anything.
  
  sizemik: This thread is on whether it is allowed.
  
  From page 5:
  
  InterestedOne: They probably would not like it. They may not all agree with me in all my entertainment choices either. But it is not their place.
  
  passwordprotected stated: "some of the reactions to his initial question have been sooooo JWN in their tone of puerile snickering. Grow up, people. You know who you are." Couldn't agree more on that!
  
  ABibleStudent: I would tell the truth. But such a circumstance as you describe will never happen.
  
  Hobo Ken: No, they won't list forbidden URLs, for many reasons. But if they didn't want Witnesses to post on forums - end of story - it would be very easy for them to just say so. But they haven't.
  
  oompa suggests: "i would believe standfirm really believes his position on this this topic...if he had joined here using his own name or his own picture or both....that would show for sure that he has no doubt that wt is cool with him posting here"
  
  Alright, you first.
  
  sizemik asks: "Yet the WTS sponsored Forum(s) restrict any opposing views from being aired . . . why do you think that is StandFirm?"
  
  First off there are no WTS sponsored forums. Anyway, when you converse with your friends who agree with you on some topic, do you want some stranger challenging you on every word you say? That is why JW only forums exist.
  
  From page 6:
  
  palmtree67: The tone of the suggestion is also important. There is a difference between 'there are dangers in...' and 'You must not...'.
• 
  151

  Introducing Myself

  by StandFirm in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  hello to jwn!

  this is standfirm.

  i mainly post on the topix jehovah's witness forum, but i decided to give it a try over here also.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  StandFirm

  I asked:
  
  What ONE subject would you most want to debate with a JW defender?
  
  The votes so far are:
  Deity of Christ: 1
  False Prophecy Allegations: 1
  Jesus as Mediator: 1
  God Having an Organization: 1
  
  So far that's a 4 way tie! Come on, all, tell me really:
  
  What ONE subject would you most want to debate or see debated with a JW defender?
  
  Replies:
  
  From page 5:
  
  OUTLAW: I quoted the WTS' own statements as proof, both from the 1950s and from recent years. That you choose to ignore the obvious is your own fault.
  
  Retrovirus: If you look back over this thread or on my blog (link on post 1) you should see plenty of examples.
  
  Black Sheep: No, the same idea is expressed in 2001. Also, the Jonadabs were understood to also be JWs well before the 1950s.
  
  Here the quotes are again:
  
  *** w01 1/15 p. 31 A Special Announcement ***
  "Concerning the Pennsylvania corporation, Brother Barr added: “Ever since its incorporation in 1884, the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania has played an important role in our modern-day history. Still, it is merely a legal instrument available for use by ‘the faithful and discreet slave’ when it is necessary.”"
  *** w53 4/1 p. 214 par. 21 Doing the Work Approved by God ***
  there is only one organization that is pursuing the above-outlined course, namely, Jehovah’s witnesses. Inseparably associated with this widely known organization is its legal servant and governing agency, the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. Only Jehovah’s witnesses and their associates are bearing the fruits of the Kingdom by public proclamation. (Heb. 13:15) They alone are heralding forth the good news that God’s kingdom under Christ is man’s only hope.
  
  From page 6:
  
  Hobo Ken: That's pretty detailed for an introductory thread! I agree with the 1st statement, the 2nd statement I can't agree with. We do not teach that. I would say instead "Jehovah's Witnesses have been chosen as Jehovah's representatives."
  
  bohm: I'll comment over on that thread then.
  
  Honesty: The WTS comments on those verses elsewhere:
  
  *** w65 3/1 p. 151 Basis for Reliance on Prophecy ***
  The Bible itself establishes the rules for testing a prophecy, at Deuteronomy 18:20-22 and 13:1-3: (1) It must be spoken in Jehovah’s name and at his command; (2) it must come to pass; (3) it must be in harmony with God’s commandments and thus promote right worship.
  
  ProdigalSon: I've seen shows like that. Their attempts to explain the Bible according to their ideas are little better than anyone elses.
  
  yknot: I may disagree with those who gave me the elders' manual but if they claim the manual supports their distortions of the elders then I will use it to prove them wrong, simple as that.
  
  You wrote: "HH interupst you again).... well Mr.SF I believe in the good news, gospel, or truth of the kingdom message.....can you tell me about what you JWs believe of the kingdom message ?"
  
  Alright, I'll say:
  
  "Okay, well our belief in the Kingdom is based on how the Bible desribes it here at Daniel 2:35, 44. At the end of verse 35 it says, "And as for the stone that struck the image, it became a large mountain and filled the whole earth." And verse 44 describes the symbolic rock: "And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite". May I read you one more scripture?" [HH answers: "Sure."] "Okay. Isaiah 9:6 says, "For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule [or, as many Bible translations say, the government] will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace." So we can see from this that God's Kingdom is an actual government with Jesus Christ as ruler which will someday govern the whole earth. This magazine [shows Watchtower] shows from your own copy of the Bible how we know that God's Kingdom will soon take over the affairs of this earth." [HH says, "Okay, I'd like to read it."] Then I set up a return visit.
  
  After all that, they should have given me the demo on the Service Meeting this week.
  
  yknot writes: "the Arian belief is a strong one that not many will part with it even if they become Ex-jws"
  
  Could that be because our belief is much better rooted in the Scriptures?
  
  yknot writes: "No one ever told a JW anything.....JWs have an automatic dismissal response to such approaches."
  
  Who doesn't?
  
  Farkel writes: "Care to explain those "hardest tests" you mentioned?"
  
  Lots and lots of debates with opposers both intelligent and idiotic.
• 
  20

  Is the governing body any different from Osama Bin Laden?

  by Joliette in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  justifying people willing dying over the blood tranfusion issue is the same as osama justifying killing anyone who did not agree with his religious beliefs?

  ?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  StandFirm

  People who become JWs do so with the full knowledge that we do not accept blood transfusions, and of the teaching on DF/DA persons. When they refuse blood they do so with full knowledge of whatever possibility of harm there may be in doing so. No one forced them to become JWs.

  Further, usually what happens in an operating room can be kept confidential. And no one is forced to fill out a DPA. Some JWs do not have theirs filled out (I suspect mostly because of laziness). So a JW who really wants can accept blood without DAing themselves.

  Finally, 'refusing blood' does not equal death. Nearly every procedure can be done and has been done with no blood transfusions.
• 
  13

  Anyone in the New England Area want to see a wrestling show and donate to Silent Lambs?...

  by Tuesday in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  hey folks,.

  so i have a show coming up in west warwick, ri on 5/28.

  you can check out the website www.thencwonline.com in the upcoming events section for all the details.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  StandFirm

  yknot: Just making sure it's an informed choice.