Posts by Pathofthorns

52

JW prophets or not!!

by Zep in

well they use to claim they were...of course now they dont, at least not in so many words.their very name itself however, implies that they speak for jehovah.but if its the case as they claim, that they are not his prophets & do not neccessarily speak for him then they have no right to the name "jehovah witnesses"....furthermore, if they are not prophets then how can they claim that rev11:3-4 is referring to them....pg164 of revelation..grand climax book.here it says that "my 2 witnesses shall prophesy".....but since they are not prophets then how can they prophesy....how can god cause them to prophesy?.

its all games obviously...an attempt to avoid the label "false prophet" but in the process of doing so they just end up looking even more stupid!....

Pathofthorns

Friend:

While the Society does not insist that they are infallible or divinely inspired the reality is that a large number of Witnesses behave like they are. The expression "The Society says..." while discouraged for appearances sake, still is used as if to lend weight to a matter when an individual is enforcing a "rule" or looking for some authority to what he has to say.

The Society also fails to put any disclaimer on their literature stating that we are simply a Bible Society and this is what we feel at the present time is a reasonable viewpoint or interpretation of a certain passage. Rather they continue to claim to be a "channel" or some sort of means for God to convey his truths to mankind. Interpretations continue to be dogmatically stated until they mysteriously disappear as they become replaced with "new light".

People continue to be disfellowshipped for holding to a different viewpoint on certain matters which are not directly commented on by the scriptures.

While the Catholic Church may be guilty of greater sins throughout history, they do appear to have made efforts to make ammends by acknowledging their error and appologizing for their sins. The Church is infinitely more tolerant of others viewpoints and doctrinal concessions such as those made recently regarding hellfire have been made.

We have also made changes and progress too, but there is still much more to be done as there is to be done in the Catholic Church.

Path

Edited by - Pathofthorns on 9 July 2000 22:35:20

28

Douglas Walsh Trial Testimony

by waiting in

the douglas walsh triah took place in 1954. the vice president of the wtbts, fred franz, and the wtbts legal counsel, haydon covington, each gave testimony before the british court.. fred franz and haydon covington were testifying that some of its members were ordained ministers.. the man asking the questions is attorney for the ministry of labour and national service, part of which follows:.

q. is it not vital to speak the truth on religious matters?

q. is there in your view room in a religion for a change of interpretation of holy writ from time to time?

Pathofthorns

Friend:

That somewhat gets us back to the heart of possible applications of Romans 16:17. Do you think it is possible to be correct about an issue and still cause more damage than good by the manner in which we introduce or circulate that idea? I think that question has merit and is to some degree a necessary one in light of the text of Romans 16:17. What do you think?

I'm not exactly sure of what you are asking. If you mean do I think its better to hold to a false teaching because introducing what is truth could create more problems, I would have to say no.

When it comes to doctrine or matters of truth, one should always be free to uphold them no matter what the cost.

The way I see it is that divisions are often caused by the overly-sensitive, self-righteous ones claiming to be the "strong" ones. It is the failure of these ones to allow that their could be another viewpoint other than their own, and that another viewpoint could have equal merrit, that generally seems to cause "divisions".

This brings us back to the subject of intollerance, which I'm glad to see that at least we agree that there certainly could be more in the Organization.

I feel that just as it would be wrong to introduce divisions just to do so, or to create a following etc., it is also wrong to enforce unity by removing those who conscientiously disagree with your interpretations. I believe genuine truth will unite people of its own accord, and tolerance and love will hold them together as they each respect differences in thought and perception and viewpoint.

Path

52

JW prophets or not!!

by Zep in

well they use to claim they were...of course now they dont, at least not in so many words.their very name itself however, implies that they speak for jehovah.but if its the case as they claim, that they are not his prophets & do not neccessarily speak for him then they have no right to the name "jehovah witnesses"....furthermore, if they are not prophets then how can they claim that rev11:3-4 is referring to them....pg164 of revelation..grand climax book.here it says that "my 2 witnesses shall prophesy".....but since they are not prophets then how can they prophesy....how can god cause them to prophesy?.

its all games obviously...an attempt to avoid the label "false prophet" but in the process of doing so they just end up looking even more stupid!....

Pathofthorns

"This chronology is not of man, but of God. Being of divine origin and divinely corroborated, present-truth chronology stands in a class by itself, absolutely and unqualifiedly correct...." (Watchtower, July 15, 1922 p. 217)

"That is one reason for which I believe the subject text refers to those claiming divine inspiration for prediction rather than those trying to explain what they believe based upon what someone else has said."- (Friend, July 8, 2000)

28

Douglas Walsh Trial Testimony

by waiting in

the douglas walsh triah took place in 1954. the vice president of the wtbts, fred franz, and the wtbts legal counsel, haydon covington, each gave testimony before the british court.. fred franz and haydon covington were testifying that some of its members were ordained ministers.. the man asking the questions is attorney for the ministry of labour and national service, part of which follows:.

q. is it not vital to speak the truth on religious matters?

q. is there in your view room in a religion for a change of interpretation of holy writ from time to time?

Pathofthorns

You are quite the person Waiting. And I'm not easily offended. It takes many different persons and personalities and viewpoints to make DBs work.

Path

28

Douglas Walsh Trial Testimony

by waiting in

the douglas walsh triah took place in 1954. the vice president of the wtbts, fred franz, and the wtbts legal counsel, haydon covington, each gave testimony before the british court.. fred franz and haydon covington were testifying that some of its members were ordained ministers.. the man asking the questions is attorney for the ministry of labour and national service, part of which follows:.

q. is it not vital to speak the truth on religious matters?

q. is there in your view room in a religion for a change of interpretation of holy writ from time to time?

Pathofthorns

I think alot of Witnesses would be somewhat awakened by his testimony. Such ashame that most would not even believe such an exchange ever took place in a courtroom.

Path

28

Douglas Walsh Trial Testimony

by waiting in

the douglas walsh triah took place in 1954. the vice president of the wtbts, fred franz, and the wtbts legal counsel, haydon covington, each gave testimony before the british court.. fred franz and haydon covington were testifying that some of its members were ordained ministers.. the man asking the questions is attorney for the ministry of labour and national service, part of which follows:.

q. is it not vital to speak the truth on religious matters?

q. is there in your view room in a religion for a change of interpretation of holy writ from time to time?

Pathofthorns

Friend:

While there are a couple of lines in the WT articles that say we can offer a suggestion, or perhaps think slightly differently (usually on matters of conscience) we both know how this works out in reality.

- a Witness can write in and offer a suggestion, and after that he must simply leave the matter at that.

- a Witness will be compelled to bring his thinking in line into what is presently taught by the Society, and not encouraged to stand his ground if he believes his understanding is in closer harmony with Scripture. A divergent thought is always considered to be in error where it deviates from the Society.

- A Witness could not publicly state (ie. door to door or congregation) that he diagrees with certain parts of the message. He could be required to distribute and teach things he does not concientiously agree with. That is dishonest.

- A person cannot get baptized if he does not say yes to the 2 questions or has reservations about a quantity of the questions in the OM book.

These are just some things off the top of my head. I could come up with more. I'd also have no problem coming up with articles condemning "independent thinking".

a measure of disagreement is also tolerated amongst fellow Jehovah’s Witnesses. The Society admits as much by admitting that some in our midst hold divergent views or may offer suggestions for changing a doctrine or doctrines.

The amount of tolerance for holding divergent views is so small that it makes an inquisition look good. I've learned the hard way that to fit in you must keep any divergent views to yourself. (Why do you think Witnet now has a "controversial" forum. Try dropping a divergent thought over at Witnessesonline)

Every change of something from a disfellowshipping matter to a conscience one clearly shows that they were teaching as doctrine what was a command of men. People were kicked out and stripped of their dignity for following their conscience in other words. This is horribly wrong.

Unity in organizational teaching/directives is thus put above unity in Christian thought/principles and above the Bible.

Path

5

Psychology Experiment in Causing Pain

by waiting in

jw
friends

"stanley milgram was born on 1933 in new york city.

he grew up during the second world war, right when the nazi atrocities were still fresh in the memories of millions.. milgram's classic experiment pitted the subject's moral beliefs against the demands of authority.

of all the psychology experiments i am aware of, milgram's produces the most startling and disturbing.

Pathofthorns

Thanks for putting that up Waiting. As the one who made that remark, I didn't want to offend. I just feel that I myself thought, said, and did things that with my perspective today I do regret. And had I had that perpective in the past, I would have done things differently.

Today many of us on this board are, have, or will be subject to indignities (likely to a lesser degree) to what you mentioned in your funeral post. I do know many of the ones who do this will one day feel bad as I did, and I pray that I will forgive them as I hope those I hurt will forgive me.

I don't want to excuse mine or others actions for I believe we all must be responsible for them. But I do believe in the power of mind control and how we all make decisions based on the limited information we have, or environments and upbringing. I believe to forgive, even when its difficult and perhaps at times seems undeserved is a form of the highest display of love and compassion.

A major message Christ taught was forgiveness and mercy. The term "undeserved kindness" is frequently used regarding God's dealings with us. Stephen's words "Father forgive them for they know not what they do" indicate that he grasped such things.

I don't want to minimize in any way what you say Waiting. I guess as much as I disliked what happened at that funeral, I would love to have seen that widow carry on with her words with great courage and without bitterness and malice. That to me is a great and strong person.

Path

39

From H20- "The Ultimate Rude Display"

by Dubby in

jw
friends

i found this at the freeminds site.

it's a post from h20 that i just had to post.. .

posted by lovesdubs [lovesdubs] on july 02, 2000 at 16:55:22 {mw75jfstgk0hi4vk0miqsqbw4hhnmw}:.

Pathofthorns

People do the cruelest things when they believe they are doing it out of loyalty and love of God. A friend once told me that we could see our actions with better perspective if we could break out of the bubble that we surrounded ourselves with.

What ever happened to looking after orphans and widows? It is part of our worship, is it not? James 1:27

Path

15

who's the biggest nutbag?

by Zep in

jw
friends

joseph smith or rutherford??????.

i mean rutherford wrote some weird stuff and lots of it, i personnally find his writings hilarious..."the list" is a laugh a minute!..

but surely ol' rutherford never wrote something as weird as the quote below by joseph smith the mormon prophet?.

Pathofthorns

Seven:

"Find a Grave"????? LOL I continue to shake my head at what appears innitially to be completely useless information on the web, and yet that was a facinating link at the same time.

Path

52

JW prophets or not!!

by Zep in

well they use to claim they were...of course now they dont, at least not in so many words.their very name itself however, implies that they speak for jehovah.but if its the case as they claim, that they are not his prophets & do not neccessarily speak for him then they have no right to the name "jehovah witnesses"....furthermore, if they are not prophets then how can they claim that rev11:3-4 is referring to them....pg164 of revelation..grand climax book.here it says that "my 2 witnesses shall prophesy".....but since they are not prophets then how can they prophesy....how can god cause them to prophesy?.

its all games obviously...an attempt to avoid the label "false prophet" but in the process of doing so they just end up looking even more stupid!....

Pathofthorns

Friend,

What would you say it would take for someone to be considered a false prophet as described in Deuteronomy 18:20-22?

Path