Posts by cedars

45

Am I on thin ice with my friend?

by cedars in

i'm a former mts graduate, and it's a long story but i recently became inactive after realising it was all nonsense.

the problem is, i've noticed that my mts background makes it almost impossible for people to accept my new status as an "inactive" one.

people think that, given the amount of knowledge i have, there is surely no excuse for me to reach this preposterous decision.. a friend from my mts recently began emailing me to find out my reasons.

cedars

How do you forward a reasonable argument for being inactive while at the same time voicing complete admiration and conviction towards the society?

45

Am I on thin ice with my friend?

by cedars in

i'm a former mts graduate, and it's a long story but i recently became inactive after realising it was all nonsense.

the problem is, i've noticed that my mts background makes it almost impossible for people to accept my new status as an "inactive" one.

people think that, given the amount of knowledge i have, there is surely no excuse for me to reach this preposterous decision.. a friend from my mts recently began emailing me to find out my reasons.

I'm a former MTS graduate, and it's a long story but I recently became inactive after realising it was all nonsense. The problem is, I've noticed that my MTS background makes it almost impossible for people to accept my new status as an "inactive" one. People think that, given the amount of knowledge I have, there is surely no excuse for me to reach this preposterous decision.

A friend from my MTS recently began emailing me to find out my reasons. I've mostly been avoiding giving my reasons to anyone, because the last thing I want is for anyone to accuse me of being an apostate, so I figure the more elusive I am the better. Apart from anything else, certain members of my family are still witnesses, and I can't bear the thought of being unjustly separated from them.

However this particular friend is an elder, so I figure what's the harm in explaining why I am so "confused" and unable to go on the ministry so long as it's just between me and him as an elder?

Is this a dangerous strategy? Could this backfire on me? Any tips?

I look forward to hearing your thoughts...

9

A warped view of the "Anglo-American World Power"

by cedars in

a relative of mine recently asked me to comment on what was said in the final talk at the latest convention.

i obviously didn't attend the convention, but i was able to get hold of a recording.

here is a transcript from a recording of the final talk, entitled god's kingdom will crush all other kingdoms - when?

cedars

james_woods - you make a good point. Just because two countries work together as allies doesn't make them an empire!

sd-7 & mad sweeney - interesting how you highlight the subliminal disdain for the common people in the society's rhetoric.

I really wish convention audiences would analyse what is said in more detail and compare what they hear with reality. It worries me that certain ones will be watching news coverage of the UK riots and saying "Ooooh, the society warned us of this at the convention!"

Just because a few hoodies opportunistically run amok smashing shop windows, stealing TVs and burning homes and businesses, doesn't mean an "Empire" is being "hindered" from "acting decisively" with "traditional authoritarianism" by "devisive elements".

34

Are you an "apostate"?

by cedars in

jw
friends

i'm quite new to this site, and i've noticed that many of you are more than happy to call yourselves "apostates", even though many of you evidently believe in the bible and in jesus as saviour, etc.. i'm aware that the society brands anyone who disagrees with them as being an "apostate", but just because they choose to do this, does this mean we should be comfortable with being so branded?

should we "bend over" and take it?.

here is what the insight book says on apostasy:.

cedars

It seems that opinion is divided on this one!

Some object to any label the society would wish to slap on them, some see the whole thing as meaningless and aren't bothered either way, some are willing to accept the label of apostate in its broadest possible sense, namely that it simply means to deviate from something.

I find it interesting because there's people from a variety of different backgrounds and beliefs on JWN, and it's fascinating to see how these backgrounds and beliefs shape their reaction to that label. I personally can't stand it, purely because it has negative connotations. Who are the society to insist, without any evidence, that they have the truth, and that therefore I have deviated from it?

I should point out that I have yet to be labelled an apostate by any Witness, but I have some fairly strong reactions waiting for anyone who tries.

34

Are you an "apostate"?

by cedars in

jw
friends

i'm quite new to this site, and i've noticed that many of you are more than happy to call yourselves "apostates", even though many of you evidently believe in the bible and in jesus as saviour, etc.. i'm aware that the society brands anyone who disagrees with them as being an "apostate", but just because they choose to do this, does this mean we should be comfortable with being so branded?

should we "bend over" and take it?.

here is what the insight book says on apostasy:.

cedars

Thanks mummatron, you make a good point. I've noticed that many on here don't believe in the bible anymore. I'm not quite at that stage yet! If they want to apply the term in a "tongue in cheek" way to themselves, then, you're right, it makes no odds. However if you're still serious about the bible and what it contains, surely you would object to being called an apostate given the meaning of the word?

34

Are you an "apostate"?

by cedars in

jw
friends

i'm quite new to this site, and i've noticed that many of you are more than happy to call yourselves "apostates", even though many of you evidently believe in the bible and in jesus as saviour, etc.. i'm aware that the society brands anyone who disagrees with them as being an "apostate", but just because they choose to do this, does this mean we should be comfortable with being so branded?

should we "bend over" and take it?.

here is what the insight book says on apostasy:.

cedars

Hi everyone. I'm quite new to this site, and I've noticed that many of you are more than happy to call yourselves "apostates", even though many of you evidently believe in the bible and in Jesus as saviour, etc.

I'm aware that the society brands anyone who disagrees with them as being an "apostate", but just because they choose to do this, does this mean we should be comfortable with being so branded? Should we "bend over" and take it?

Here is what the Insight book says on apostasy:

This term in Greek (a·po·sta·si′a) comes from the verb a·phi′ste·mi, literally meaning “stand away from.” The noun has the sense of “desertion, abandonment or rebellion.” (Ac 21:21, ftn) In classical Greek the noun was used to refer to political defection, and the verb is evidently employed in this sense at Acts 5:37, concerning Judas the Galilean who “drew off” (a·pe′ste·se, form of a·phi′ste·mi) followers. The Greek Septuagint uses the term at Genesis 14:4 with reference to such a rebellion. However, in the Christian Greek Scriptures it is used primarily with regard to religious defection; a withdrawal or abandonment of the true cause, worship, and service of God, and hence an abandonment of what one has previously professed and a total desertion of principles or faith. The religious leaders of Jerusalem charged Paul with such an apostasy against the Mosaic Law.

It may properly be said that God’s Adversary was the first apostate, as is indicated by the name Satan. He caused the first human pair to apostatize. (Ge 3:1-15; Joh 8:44) Following the Flood, there was a rebellion against the words of the God of Noah. (Ge 11:1-9) Job later found it necessary to defend himself against the charge of apostasy on the part of his three supposed comforters. (Job 8:13; 15:34; 20:5) In his defense Job showed that God grants no audience to the apostate (Job 13:16), and he also showed the hopeless state of one cut off in apostasy. (Job 27:8; compare also Elihu’s statement at 34:30; 36:13.) In these cases the Hebrew noun cha·neph′ is used, meaning “[one] alienated from God,” that is, an apostate. The related verb cha·neph′ means “be inclined away from the right relation to God,” or “pollute, lead to apostasy.”—LexiconinVeterisTestamentiLibros, by L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, Leiden, 1958, p. 317.

I don't know about you guys, but I personally take exception to someone telling me that I am (like Satan) an adversary of God, and inclined away from true worship. Surely, to accept that we are "apostates", means that we are sub-consciously accepting that Jehovah's Witnesses have the true faith (as we have deviated from it), and that we have become enemies of God? Shouldn't we be actively distancing ourselves from the word "apostate" instead of (as I have seen on some threads on this site) embracing it?

Was Martin Luther an apostate for splitting with the Roman Catholic church? Doubtless the catholics viewed him that way, but that is not how history remembers him, nor how he would wish to be remembered.

Surely if any group of people are apostates, it is those who are asking people to believe something other than what is in the scriptures (thereby deviating from truth), and to do so on pain of being separated from their families etc if they deviate after they have been baptised?

I'm interested to hear your thoughts...

26

Has anyone, other than me, tried to get your friends/loved ones to prove 1919?

by garyneal in

jw
friends

has anyone, other than me, tried to get your friends/loved ones to prove 1919?.

did they really try to prove it to you or did they write you off as hopelessly lost or somewhere in between?

as some of you are aware, i have been trying to get my wife to prove it to me, and if not her, another believing jehovahs witness.

cedars

Since my wife feels that she will be held 'blood guilty' for not instilling these 'spiritual qualities' in our children, I asked her if she should prove 1919 to me as I have stated numerous times that if it can be proven true then I will be baptized at the next assembly.

I had a friend email me and tell me I am bloodguilty because, as an inactive person, I am no longer going on the ministry. He said this was "a pretty basic thing". In my reply, I told him that of the 23 references to "bloodguilt", "bloodguilty" and "bloodguiltiness" in the bible, not one of them referred to any failure to participate in preaching or warning people. Furthermore, every single reference was in the Hebrew scriptures, before Christian disciple-making was even invented. How could a word as strong as "bloodguilt" (effectively accusing me of being a murderer) be applied to me with no scriptural basis whatsoever? Surely for something to be a "pretty basic thing" it would need to have a watertight scriptural basis?

My friend referred me to a Watchtower article (w88 1/1 p 28) which tied in Ezekiel 33:1-11. The scripture in Ezekiel discusses the fact that if you fail to warn someone wicked that their wicked deeds will result in their death, then you have their blood on your hands. When you read it in context, the scripture clearly has a judicial application rather than an evangelical application, but the society blur the two to emotionally blackmail people into feeling obligated to preach. They reason that "wicked" as defined in Ezekiel can also mean "comparitively wicked" in relation to Jehovah by roping in Matt 7:9-11 when Jesus said "Therefore if you, although being wicked, know how to give good gifts to your children...." etc.

So to sum up, EVEN THOUGH there are NO scriptures linking bloodguilt with the ministry, we are still bloodguilty (manslayers) if we fail to go on the ministry because we have failed to warn people who, like us, are comparitively wicked (in relation to Jehovah) that their comparitively wicked deeds will result in their deaths.

How all of the above can be applied to your kids is completely beyond me mate, I feel for you!!

26

Has anyone, other than me, tried to get your friends/loved ones to prove 1919?

by garyneal in

jw
friends

has anyone, other than me, tried to get your friends/loved ones to prove 1919?.

did they really try to prove it to you or did they write you off as hopelessly lost or somewhere in between?

as some of you are aware, i have been trying to get my wife to prove it to me, and if not her, another believing jehovahs witness.

cedars

I raised this with some elders once, and they both just looked at eachother. One seemed to be more decisive about the significance than the other. I have a theory that deep down at least 50% of witness adults don't believe that huge chunks of the bible were fulfilled in the early part of the 20th century by a series of conventions, kingdom news campaigns, watchtower articles etc. The only way to prove my theory would be to do an anonymous survey of 7.5 million people, so I won't be testing that theory any time soon.

The elder who seemed more certain said "but you must understand the significance of the truth being discovered by these people after centuries of apostasy?!" or something like that. You can add that to your list of objections for what it's worth.

The most convincing way in my mind to disprove the society's stance on 1919 is to ask someone to look at "The Finished Mystery". This was being written/published at the time that Christ was supposedly inspecting his spiritual temple. Your wife shouldn't have a problem reading it if it is a part of witness history that is mentioned in the publications. You can ask her to try and read it from Jesus' perspective given that the Bible Student's were supposedly selected as the Faithful and Discreet slave based on their understandings of scripture as published at that time.

Here's the link for the Finished Mystery on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Finished-Mystery-Charles-Taze-Russell/dp/0559508220/ref=pd_sim_sbs_b_1

16

Hebrew scholars are actively correcting "mistakes" in the Bible!

by wearewatchingyouman in

jerusalem a dull-looking chart projected on the wall of a university office in jerusalem displayed a revelation that would startle many readers of the old testament: the sacred text that people revered in the past was not the same one we study today.. an ancient version of one book has an extra phrase.

another appears to have been revised to retroactively insert a prophecy after the events happened.. scholars in this out-of-the-way corner of the hebrew university campus have been quietly at work for 53 years on one of the most ambitious projects attempted in biblical studies publishing the authoritative edition of the old testament, also known as the hebrew bible, and tracking every single evolution of the text over centuries and millennia.. and it has evolved, despite deeply held beliefs to the contrary.. for many jews and christians, religion dictates that the words of the bible in the original hebrew are divine, unaltered and unalterable.. for orthodox jews, the accuracy is considered so inviolable that if a synagogue's torah scroll is found to have a minute error in a single letter, the entire scroll is unusable.. but the ongoing work of the academic detectives of the bible project, as their undertaking is known, shows that this text at the root of judaism, christianity and islam was somewhat fluid for long periods of its history, and that its transmission through the ages was messier and more human than most of us imagine.

(cont....) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44117239/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/.

cedars

I'm sure it would speed things up considerably if they skipped the "phonebook" part with all the names and tribes, along with the instructions on how to build the tabernacle, and what types of sacrifices to offer for which sin etc. They should focus on the prophetic areas of the bible, publish an expose of that and other curious bits like the first few chapters of Genesis, and then return to the other bits that are less important.

49

The Convention Pretty Much Sucked

by Franklin Massey in

jw
friends

i feel better now.. but just in case you are wondering why i think it sucked, here you go:.

- it was clearly an "insider's only" convention.

why invite the public if you are just going to engage in crazy talk that only jws can decipher?.

cedars

I have my own thread on the latest incarnation of the Anglo-American World Power that was put forward in the final talk of the convention. Among other things, Britain and American are beset by "independence movements". I'll admit, I've completely missed that one, unless Texas is now threatening to separate?!

This was my first year not attending, but I managed to get hold of an mp3 recording of the final talk. It struck me that the most ludicrous things can sound plausible when spoken with stirring resolve by a sage old bethel representative with a booming voice down a convention PA.

I've transcribed a key point that was made about the AAWP which you can read here:

http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/214257/1/A-warped-view-of-the-Anglo-American-World-Power

Let me know your thoughts. I'm anxious to know whether it's just me who things the governing body are losing their grip on reality!