Posts by Oroborus21

76

Wow LittleToe!

by IP_SEC in

jw
friends

dang man, your site has seen a lot of traffic over the past few years .

nice.

http://www.angelfire.com/trek/littletoe/profile.html.

Oroborus21

Billy,

I have to disagree with you for a couple of reasons (and i won't go off like perhaps some might on the issues of "trust" and betrayals of such and the Society, etc..)

First, if the meetings of the congregations are going to be truly meaningful and anything more than a ritual (call and respond or rote repetition of the Watchtower study-answers from the paragraph), then they must be a place where Witnesses may speak freely about their faith.

True, this doesn't mean that just anyone may come in an rant about their faith or even sincerely interject their own views or their own religion. And of course as a place of worship, there should always be a modicum of respect and dignity.

If you would care to examine the meetings of the Bible Students under Russell, what you might be surprised to learn is how very different the atmosphere was. These were meetings where the friends could each stand and give their own testimony. Portions of the meetng were devoted to that. The Zion's Watchtower was not considered as such, not like today, but instead was merely the print medium that served to unify the various groups and to bring together some cohesiveness of thought. So historically, the point is that the meetings of the congregation were meant to upbuild and encourage all and also allow persons to express their faith as they had made it their own.

Even today, that ideal is still held out as a facade by the Society. But that is all it is, because any expressions of personal faith which don't conform to the currently blessed theology are considered abnormal (and possibly worse.)

thus I say again, there is a problem with this and unless we are resigned to pemit only the rule of ritual, then we must permit freedom of expression, within reason, including allowing those who might have a different view or belief, if the house of god is to be one of genuine worship and fellowship.

Secondly, I would call attention to the content of the expression.

I must ask myself the question: Is the content of the expression truly wrong within this house of God?

In my opinion, unless what is expressed is truly contrary to God or offensive to him not just because I think so but because it truly is, then so long as it is sincere and personally felt, it cannot be wrong to permit it.

What LT expressed from the platform might be wrong in a theological way, but he sincerely believed it and I don't believe that, objectively, one could say that it was offensive to God or contrary to him.

And Finally, I think that the example of the two occassions of Jesus running the money-changers and profiteers out of the Temple as related in the bible provides an ample scriptural basis to assert, that when one truly believes that wrong-doing is occurring, even if it be in the House of God or the most holiest of places, that it is the duty of a Christian to take action or in the least his zeal is not wrong if he does act.

In my opinion, I would like to see more Bill Bowens storming out of the meeting, or more Little Toes speaking from the heart from the platform. I would like to see more of this, not when they are disassociating themselves, but more Witnesses need to speak up, yes and risk the consequences. They need to speak in their comments and from the platform.

The Revolution to come is one that is being and will be produced by both external and internal forces and it is time that the ones on the inside do their share. Momentum is growing and the Society cannot afford (financially or spiritually) to disfellowship every Witness who disagrees or seeks reform and recantation. All it takes is courage.

I find Little Toe's talk to be extremely courageous and a good example for others.

just my two cents,

Eduardo Leaton Jr., Esq.

13

Martin's Method of Giving a Testimony to JWs: Would this really work?

by Oroborus21 in

jw
friends

ok so i read in walter martin's the kingdom of the cults how he claims to use the following method to give a testimony to jehovah's witnesses who come to his door periodically, and frankly i find it a bit dubious, despite his claims that he has successfully done it many times.

he calls this method "subliminal seeding" (pg.

487-8) [a dubious title already]:.

Oroborus21

Greetings,

Ok so I read in Walter Martin's The Kingdom of the Cults how he claims to use the following method to give a testimony to Jehovah's Witnesses who come to his door periodically, and frankly I find it a bit dubious, despite his claims that he has successfully done it many times.

He calls this method "Subliminal Seeding" (pg. 487-8) [a dubious title already]:

Ok so this is his method in a nutshell:

First, he invites them in. Then before they have a chance to say anything or offer any literature he states that "he never discusses the bible or religion without beginning with a prayer"

THEN HE IMMEDIATELY bows his head and starts praying. He does use the name Jehovah in his prayer.. Like he begins it "Dear Jehovah God or whatever..." but really his prayer is all about his orthodox beliefs. He goes on for about 3 minutes (a heck of a long prayer if you ask me).

Then after the prayer he says "Now what do you want to discuss?" (He says that he insists on only letting them use or refer to an accepted translation of the bible and sticks to cardinal doctrines of orthoxy -but really these points are moot.)

After he has had enough of the JW discussion that he can stomach for the day. He says, he quickly reminds the Witnesses of the lateness of the day (or whatever) and then quickly bows his head and gives a closing prayer along the lines of the first one. And then sends them out the door.

Ok so this is his point. He says that the whole discussion is irrelevant. He says the point is in the two prayers. For six minutes he says, the JWs have to listen to HIM as he gives a testimony about Christ Jesus, his divinity, etc. etc. during his prayers. (thus the "subliminal seeding" name)

Martin says that every time he has done this (and he says he has done it many times) that the JWs allways bow their heads and don't dare interrupt him during the prayers. And that he has noted that on a few occassions the Witnesses were genuinely touched "to hear the real truth."

My thoughts/questions:

When I was an active Witness and when growing up one, I had always understood, that generally speaking, we do not permit others to pray for us like this. (At a ball game or public event, we would be respectful but not say "Amen" whenever a public prayer was offered) - but in a private setting like this - I am not sure what the response would be from the average JW. No doubt that is why he doesn't give any warning and just launches into prayer.

I suppose that if I were in the situation that I would not interrupt someone praying either - even if they were saying a lot of things that I disagreed with. I would just bring them up, you mentioned in your prayer that Jesus is God.....blah, blah, blah....

So anyway I was wondering:

have any of you ever tried this method? and if so what was the response from the JWs?
As JWs (for those who were) did you ever encounter this when you were in the ministry?
What do you think of the overall effectiveness of such a method
How far do you think that you could push this method? For example, do you think that you could get a Witness (once you have them in a settng like this) to listen to a prayer in which you discussed things like the blood doctrine, disfellowshipping, 1914, etc. or would that carry things so far that some Wtinesses would actually excuse themselves?

anyone? anyone? Bueller? anyone?

-Eduardo

(PS: the Dr. Martin died in 1989)

10

Nation of Islam 1914 belief

by Oroborus21 in

.

i did not know before that the nation of islam had a 1914 belief that was akin to that of jws.. i thought this was interesting is all.. does anyone know whether this is a current teaching of theirs?

(googling it myself now...) but just thought i would throw it out to the knowledgeable crowd here..... -eduardo

Oroborus21

I did not know before that the Nation of Islam had a 1914 belief that was akin to that of JWs.

I thought this was interesting is all.

Does anyone know whether this is a current teaching of theirs? (Googling it myself now...) but just thought I would throw it out to the knowledgeable crowd here....

-Eduardo

45

Something significant changed in the WTS in 1984... but what was it???

by Elsewhere in

jw
friends

looking at this chart i can't help but notice that pre-1984 the growth statistics were extremely erratic.

then, all of the sudden in 1984 the growth statistics calmed down and have ever since fallowed a much more stable trend.

it's almost a straight line after 1984.. so what happened?

Oroborus21

It's not hard to figure out. Just listen to Billy Joel's We Didn't Start the Fire

these are WORLDWIDE growth rates on the chart. (I reiterate my concerns about using growth percentage - see the other thread).

Think about it for a moment. (just dealing with the years of the chart)

We had World War II (including the entering of the Atomic Age and growing fears over nukes, Self-Annilation) and then Korean War

That was like dropping a rock in the pond causing reverb for JW growth for decades.

Then Vietnam and the 60s turbulence (Social Reform and Civil Rights Movement) JFK, MLK, Robert Kennedy etc.

more reverb

70s Economic Crisis, Egypt-Israeli war, Cold War worries, Arms Race

more reverb plus the 1975 Fiasco and build-up

drop-off from that

then the 80s, suddenly things are starting to brighten even before the end of the Cold War, Soviet Union Break and Advent of Internet among general population (circa 1989)

during the early 80s, Reagan ushered in a new era of hope with a bag full of rhetoric and one-liners, and the effects were not just limited to the U.S.

Terrorism was still going on and places like Central America were still hot zones, but most of the world started feeling cozy.

No major wars involving multiple countries, new territories opening up on former communist countries, etc. and

voila! the line stablizes to an extent

of course as others have noted if you go small enough there are still hills and valleys due to different things like the Generation Doctrine, etc.

the bottom line is that the 80s was a pretty mellow and hopeful decade, hense New Wave music and really big hair-dos

The 90s were also hopeful with the insane Internet Economy and looking forward to the new Millennium

the world climate affects to a significant extent the growth of JWs who as far as new converts are concerned (not those born within) rely upon the fears regarding the "Last Days" to convince persons to join. If the world conditions seem turbulent you have more fluctuation. If the world conditions are pretty much stable then so is the growth rate. I think that the growth line just reflects this fact.

-Eduardo

14

Who did Russell get his anti Trinity doctrine from?

by jwfacts in

a lot of russell's doctrines were taken from the adventists.

however, seventh day adventists worship the trinity, so i am wondering who russell took his anti trinity doctrine from.

christadelphians started in the mid 1800's, was it from them?

Oroborus21

Acceptance of the trinity is only a later development within Seventh-Day Adventism which occurred during the 1970s - among most but not all Seventh-Day Adventists. Some other Adventists and many of the independent Bible Students (also children of 19th Century Adventism) do not have the trinity doctrine. And of course neither do JWs which are surely Adventist also.

In The Kingdom of the Cults, Walter Martin takes a very curious position towards Seventh-Day Adventists and blesses them with the non-cult label apparently chiefly because of their acceptance of the trinity doctrine - thus reversing his earlier determination in his 1960 book, The Truth About Seventh-day Adventism.

Arianism which goes back obviously to the roots of Christianity is only one view which rejects the trinity but it is not the only non-trinitarian view.

Jehovah's Witnesses are very clearly a sect of 19th Century Adventism and as such they represent a specific branch of Adventism.

Contemporary JW theology still includes most of the tenets of Adventism and of course central to the theology is the premillenialist eschatology.

Also not to be overlooked is that the three Adventist institutions namely: the press, the general conference (aka conventions), and the association or corporate form (e.g. "the society") still remain fundamental features of Jehovah's Witnesses.

To answer your question, it is uncertain whether Russell developed his non-Trinitarian views on his own, or due to the influence of the cloud of his Adventist associates, or a combination of this.

-Eduardo

PS: I recently understood (came upon) for the first time the direct connection from Russell to Miller (aside from Russell's high opinion and references to Miller of course) through the George Storrs - Charles Fitch - Josiah Litch connection. Fascinating stuff. This combined with the others I already knew about such as Barbour, Jonas Wendell, George Stetson and B.W. Keith leave no doubt in my mind that Bible Students & JWs are sects within the Adventist family. (Just as Melton classifies them.)

21

Are Winter Olympics Boring?

by Oroborus21 in

jw
friends

is it just me or are the winter olympics boring?.

i dunno, maybe ice hockey sometimes is interesting and a few of the short speed skating events...but ice skating, all the skiing events, even snowboarding....it all seems pretty boring to me.

and i like to ski but watching it on tv - boring.. the summer games are so much more interesting.. -eduardo

Oroborus21

Is it just me or are the Winter Olympics Boring?

I dunno, maybe ice hockey sometimes is interesting and a few of the short speed skating events...but ice skating, all the skiing events, even snowboarding....it all seems pretty boring to me. And I like to ski but watching it on TV - boring.

The Summer Games are so much more interesting.

-Eduardo

14

Get your Mohammed tshirt!

by jstalin in

.

lol... a company is making tshirts of the evil mohammed cartoons now:.

.

Oroborus21

Tiger,

I think it is easy for us (most of us) to agree with you in principle.

The problem is that someone depicting Muhammad, for muslims is essentially a form of hate speech.

It is similar to the way a Jew might view a Swastika or the way a Black might view a KKK symbol.

(and isn't it interesting that in the latter two cases the issue of survival or threats to survival is raised - so maybe MerryMagdalene was on to something in her post-thread)

In the U.S. we permit a limited amount of this hate speech under the protection of the constitution, but it isn't surprising that when the neo-Nazis want to hold a march in a Jewish neighborhood or when the Klan wants to hold a rally - that there are protesters and sometimes violence from the groups that are touched very deeply by the hate speech.

So maybe you are the kind of person that would where a Swastika shirt, or one with KKK on the breast and a burning cross or White Power slogan on the back or as you say, a cartoon of Mohammad.

No one in the U.S. says that isn't your right. But don't be surprised if by engaging in such protected hate speech, someone else decides to break the law by breaking your neck. Is it right no? Is it reality, Hell yes.

-eduardo

24

Radical Jehovah's Witnesses POSSIBLY responsible for burning down churches?

by sf in

jw
friends

a thought just occured to me while reading metatrons recent thread:.

[ http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/107410/1.ashx ].

could possibly, a few radical jws, who adhere to what the wtbts [fds/governingbody] says is "promoting false religion", go as far as destroying said churches in the south right now?

Oroborus21

Some of you, whose obviousness is not worth naming, show how little you know either the culture or the psychology of Jehovah's Witnesses with your comments in this thread, not to mention the post' originator.

It is true that anything (almost true at least) is possible, but is is highly unlikely that a JW would have anything to do with the church burnings. As for a radical element (no doubt after the cliche "some bad youths") of JWs, that is just silliness. If there were some such JWs or ex-JWs upset to this point and willing to act, they would be more likely to burn down Kingdom Halls.

You really don't understand JWs at all and really just show your bigotry if you think JWs are the ones burning the churches.

My vote is for a single Ted Kaczynski-type or some other person with a political agenda. Or possibly a fire-fighter that was facing pay-cuts or lay-offs.

-Eduardo

3