Posts by Oroborus21

24

Can someone post quotes on Jesus only being mediator for 144000?

by megsmomma in

jw
friends

pleeeeaaaaasssseeee?????

pretty please????.

i tried to get the cd-rom download, but it didn't work for me....any tips?.

Oroborus21

I don't see why people are confused.

The Society's teaching is that there are two senses of the word (translated "mediator") and that the scriptures apply accordingly.

The first sense is that of one who is a go between, or intermediate agent. In this sense Christ is a mediator for all persons just as the Bible states. It is through Christ that mankind may approach God.

The second sense is a specialized situational meaning of being the means or agent between God and the 144,000 that effects the covenant for a heavenly destination and purpose. In this sense Christ is the mediator for only that group.

(BTW, I am just saying that it is not contradictory. I don't believe the 144K to be a literal number of those bought from the Earth.)

-Eduardo

9

Has any JW called the Bible an apostate book?

by A-Team in

imo, they are basically sayin this if they disfellowship someone because that particular person has actually read the bible on their own, and basicalyl come to the conclusion that the wt society is wrong in their interpitations.. thoughts?.

Oroborus21

Sure, and that is the big issue. What body of belief and practices should be essential?

Looking at the Org's history, the Russellite Bible Students tolerated much more differences. Russell generally held only a few necessary beliefs, most specifically the belief in the Ransom.

Gradually, more and more of the extras became "required" until what we have is the present bloated religion full of a bunch of these "non-essentials" and many of which (everything from 1914 to Blood to restrictions on beards, etc) that are unscriptural or lacking genuine bible-backing.

there are forces within and without the Org that are pushing to trim the fat so that in the end I believe it is the destiny of the worldwide association to return (revolve) back to something that looks much like the International Bible Students. Still Adventist and Millennialist but without all the crap that got added over the course of the 20th Century including the aspects regarding the Publishing Corporation Paradigm including the literature peddling and house-to-house "preaching."

9

Has any JW called the Bible an apostate book?

by A-Team in

imo, they are basically sayin this if they disfellowship someone because that particular person has actually read the bible on their own, and basicalyl come to the conclusion that the wt society is wrong in their interpitations.. thoughts?.

Oroborus21

Narksis,

I am not defending the practice of df'ng among Jehovah's Witnesses as i believe it is one which should cease and is destructive and counter-productive, not too mention unscriptural.

as for your question, the explanation essentially has to do with the degree to which adherence to a set of items is tolerated or necessary for the group.

to illustrate:

The Club of Farsandia holds that members in good standing must believe without dispute or denial (and that is the key "without dispute or denial")

Belief A, Belief B, and Belief C. and must perform Ritual 1, Ritual 2, and Ritual 3

these are fundamental requirements of membership. anyone who doesn't state they believe them or gives evidence in not believing them can't be in the Club.

so far so good i think. Most people would agree that the above is not outlandish and it is ok for the Club to establish these basic requirements of membership. (That is my fundamental premise in my post.)

Now, however, among some Farsandians, there are the Beliefs D and Beliefs E, and a Ritual 4.

The issues raised by my post address the situations where these non-essential beliefs may or may not be tolerated.

If the Farsandians are a tolerant group they may consider Farsandians who also Belief D and E and practice Ritual 4 to be approved members of the Club even if they disagree with those items or even if they are not "official" or requirements for membership. On the other hand, if they are not tolerant, they might try to exclude the Farsandians who hold the extra beliefs or who practice the extra ritual.

My personal opinion is that I think it is better when a group is more tolerant than not but of course this would depend on the specifics of the differences. If for example Belief D happened to completely contradict Belief A then it could not or should not be tolerated by the Club and the person could not, by definition, be a member.

--------

I wasn't going to expand but maybe it is necessary.

So my concerns regarding JWs is that DF'ng is used to silence criticism about what are essentially (in reality) non-essential or completely wrong beliefs and practices. Blood for example. Or DFng Bill Bowen for raising concerns about policies, practices and doctrines that result in potential harm to others.

DF'ng because a person doesn't hold to a belief in God, Jesus, an accepted minimum standard of moral conduct, etc., I have no problem with as I would view those things as essential to the definition of group membership.

9

Has any JW called the Bible an apostate book?

by A-Team in

imo, they are basically sayin this if they disfellowship someone because that particular person has actually read the bible on their own, and basicalyl come to the conclusion that the wt society is wrong in their interpitations.. thoughts?.

Oroborus21

right A-team,

ideally that is not the way it should be. ideally what the Society teaches and what JWs believe would correspond or at least there would be a tolerance for differences of opinion or belief.

but this is not the case.

many religions are very tolerant. others have tolerance to an extent. others like Witnesses, are not very tolerant. and still others are even more extreme. One of the aspects of a cult is the complete intolerance of differences (in many but not all cults).

That JWs are very intolerant, close enough to that line that crosses over into cultdom, is one reason why some persons attach that label to them.

11

Is it unwise to have your real name and photo on JWD?

by *jeremiah* in

i googled jw something or other and one of my own topics came up first on the google search.

it caught me off guard.

i'm wondering, is it more wise to have an alias name and avatar photo?.

Oroborus21

howdy,

i wouldn't say that there might not be some reason why the WTS couldn't go after you for some legal reason, like maybe if you posted some copyrighted info beyond what is legally permissible, but for the most part you or individuals don't have to worry about the Society coming after them for partipation on forums.

what you should be MORE concerned about is the use by potential employers or clients, or even potential significant others, competitors, etc. etc. that any of these persons might make from anything you post online in this forum or elsewhere on the Net.

there are tons of scenarios where you might not want someone to know that you are, were, or even care about Jehovah's Witnesses or to know any such person info about you. if you are so concerned then take steps to minimize your exposure.

Also consider that anything you put on the Net, even in any so called "private" pages, etc. could eventually be made available to someone you have not anticipated, made generally public, or might be discoverable in legal process. It is also potentially "forever" or extremely long-lasting and might be used for some purpose many many years from now.

-eduardo

9

Has any JW called the Bible an apostate book?

by A-Team in

imo, they are basically sayin this if they disfellowship someone because that particular person has actually read the bible on their own, and basicalyl come to the conclusion that the wt society is wrong in their interpitations.. thoughts?.

Oroborus21

Billions of persons have read the bible, many have believed it to be the Word of God and more or less inspired, and the beliefs or opinions they have arrived at have of course varied considerably.

Merely reading the bible, or believing in it, does not qualify a person for "membership" in a group which holds a certain body of beliefs and practices if that individual doesn't agree with that group AND if the group holds as one of its tenets that membership is contingent upon agreement.

The bottom line is that any group has the right to hold rules of what will qualify as membership in good standing and to hold those members to those rules. I actually don't think many people disagree with that fundamental principle.

Similarly, I would assert that it is the inalienable right of any individual to decide for his or herself whether he or she wish to associate with another person or not. In my opinion, Jesus encouraged us to find the proper balance between nonjudgment acceptance of all persons and avoiding intimacy with wickedness or corrupting influences.

Thus in my opinion, the principle of disfellowshipping is acceptable both from a social (or organizational) angle and from a scriptural one.

What most persons, like myself, have issues with when it comes to the practice of disfellowshipping among JWs are:

1) the actual procedures and practice are unscriptural, being secretive and often biased. The scriptures clearly show that similar processes or condemnation whether in OT or in NT were open and public.

2) the imposition of the judgment of a few upon the individual consciences of the flock. Each individual should choose whether to cast his or her stone, i.e. whether to associate with someone or not should be purely a matter of individual conscience.

3) the lack of experience and information conveyed to the young and converts regarding disfellowshipping. Never enough education in this area.

4) very questionable disfellowshipping "categories" such as dissent over doctrinal matters or the lumping of various activities under the "apostasy" umbrella

5) the use of disfellowshipping as a mechanism or tool for silencing criticism, debate and dissidents.

6) and finally, the lack of efficacy as a means to achieve its stated aims, namely either the "correcting" of the person or the "(spiritual) fortification" of the disfellowshipped person. (this seems especially true when the situation is that the person is disfellowshipped for some transgression apparently resulting from "weakness" or sin. The opposite approach would seem more efficacious of bringing the person into closer association so that their faith and desire to behave rightly can be upbuilt.)

10

JW Citizenship to another country

by dawgfan in

i've always wondered how jws get around the citizenship process when moving to another country.. example: here in the us, to my understanding, all naturalized citizens have to take the oath of allegiance.

also i read that there are similar things that other countries require.. the us oath.

"i hereby declare, on oath, that i absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which i have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that i will support and defend the constitution and laws of the united states of america against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that i will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that i will bear arms on behalf of the united states when required by the law; that i will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the united states when required by the law; that i will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that i take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me god.".

Oroborus21

whenever an oath like the one you posted is involved, whether in court or for some process, generally, the authority requiring the oath has an acceptable alternative for those who may have a religious objection to taking the oath.

actually, i believe many JWs do not find it objectionable to take most oaths that merely require obeying the laws of the land, and many would not object to the citizenship oath, but if they do there are acceptable alternatives.

-eduardo

39

Which meeting goes first ?

by 5go in

jw
friends

if the gb.

me the school because it would allow more time for brow beating in the service meeitng wihch would be one hour.

then no one would complain about thier kids being up way past thier bed time on school nights..

Oroborus21

In the future, Jehovah's Witnesses will abandon formalized ministry (house-to-house and street work) so the KM/Service Meeting will be unnecessary.

I think there may be some type of voluntary "ministry school" for those who will be trained locally to give Sunday Bible talks. Such schools will probably be on an enrollment basis and take place one of the week nights at the hall and only involve the students and intructors. Advanced students would probably cut their teeth on Sunday sermons.

The "Book Study" groups serve a number of other purposes including allowing more individual participation and persons more comfortable with expressing their faith in smaller groups to participate. It also allows the Shepherds of the flock to be more attentive to those under their charge (in theory). So I think it will be useful in the future but it will be changed to a "Bible Study" similar to the early Berean Studies and testimonies that used to occur in the culture of the International Bible Students, where the bible itself will be studied with greater overall discussion. (Not the rote reading and parroting of the expected answers from the paragraphs that occurs today in all Book Studies.) Future Watchtower publications will be sold to individual JWs as they desire them and solely used for their personal edification.

-Eduardo

31

"An Inconvenient Truth".. JW's are deluded

by GetBusyLiving in

jw
friends

hi everyone, hope you all are doing ok!

long time no talk.. .

have any of you seen the new dvd "an inconvenient truth"?

Oroborus21

popular film? not sure about that. maybe its somewhat well-known..

anyway, back in college over a decade ago now, i remember some classmates ribbing me about my atrocious eating habits...my response to them is that I guess i don't really have to worry about cholesterol, etc. since the New System would come sometime soon....

JWs have the same mentality about the Earth's "lungs" and "arteries" ....

-eduardo

37

I just got one of those calls from my son's school

by daystar in

*sigh* the joys of parenthood.. i just got a call from my son's school.

he gets picked up by his after school care in a van.

all the kids who get picked up are lined up outside to get ready for their rides.. my son decides it's a good idea to pick up a stick and throw it, hitting a car and putting a small dent in it.

Oroborus21

seriously diamond,

she has a good teaching opportunity here.

the lesson isn't that he shouldn't ever throw sticks. there are times when it could be appropriate (e.g. playing catch with a dog for example).

the lesson is that he should learn to think a moment before acting (and if possible to think about consequences of his action). if she can in some way get him to start thinking before he does some big action like throwing, running, jumping. etc. even for a second that lesson will translate across all kinds of situations for his good. especially being energetic in character, he needs to learn to pause a moment and think about things before he acts.

help him to appreciate that he needed to run through some questions first. Such as where he was throwing it? Whether it was good to throw it in the first place? and of course If he had looked to make sure that he wouldn't anyone or anything with the stick..he would have avoided any trouble and wouldn't be in trouble.

writing papers or being punished isn't going to help him learn that lesson.

-eduardo