Posts by Nitty-Gritty

38

Evidence of WT bad intent - How they handled changing the meaning of "porneia"

by AlainAlam in

sorry, long post :) i'm considering evidence that at least at some point, the gb/watchtower had bad intentions.

i would like to share the following: *** w74 11/15 p. 703 questions from readers ***do lewd practices on the part of a married person toward that one’s own mate constitute a scriptural basis for the offended mate to get a divorce?there are times when lewd practices within the marriage arrangement would provide a basis for a scriptural divorce.. based on this, some jw chose to divorce.

but then:*** w83 3/15 p. 30 honor godly marriage!

Nitty-Gritty

@AlainAlam

So what was your point? I thought you were looking for proof of maliciousness. Not apologizing properly and not admitting a mistake is no proof of malicious intent, it's more to do with a lack of humility. I must admit, the WT is not known for apologizing for their mistakes. Fruits of repentance though are not apologies. They are more than words, they are "fruits" which means they are actual actions. The mistake was rectified and I suppose that was deemed sufficient in the eyes of the WT. Of course in the end everyone will have to answer for their mistakes to God.

Second, if someone divorces their mate on account of lewd conduct, you KNOW they were not prepared to work things out, either the offended mate or the one causing the offence. Also, the one causing the offence may have not been a JW, so may have had different standards. There are several scenarios. but it was obviously something not intended to be taken lightly, just as an excuse for divorce at slight sign of trouble or sexual preferences. It had to be very disturbing to one mate, with no sign of a resolution, or compromise as it was with the example of the sister I mentioned.

27

Need help - How do you determine whether to show a JW the truth or not?

by AlainAlam in

jw
friends

how do you determine whether to show a jw the truth or not?.

now some of you still believe in the bible.

to you the answer would be obvious - we preach to anyone as much as possible.

Nitty-Gritty

@AlainAlam (sorry, posted this in the wrong topic)

38

Evidence of WT bad intent - How they handled changing the meaning of "porneia"

by AlainAlam in

sorry, long post :) i'm considering evidence that at least at some point, the gb/watchtower had bad intentions.

i would like to share the following: *** w74 11/15 p. 703 questions from readers ***do lewd practices on the part of a married person toward that one’s own mate constitute a scriptural basis for the offended mate to get a divorce?there are times when lewd practices within the marriage arrangement would provide a basis for a scriptural divorce.. based on this, some jw chose to divorce.

but then:*** w83 3/15 p. 30 honor godly marriage!

Nitty-Gritty

@AlainAlam,

I think you need to rephrase "they played a direct role in breaking marriages up" . The reason why the question of lewd practices within the framework of a marriage even came up was because one of the marriage mates abhorred such practices, this is why the original article mentions "the offended party". There was a sister in my old congregation whose husband wanted her to perform oral sex on him. She was disgusted with this and found him disgusting. She was torn between "obeying" her husband and her belief that what he wanted was a "lewd" practice. This was in the late 80's so no divorce for her! However, she would have loved it if she could have divorced him on the grounds of porneia.

What I find disturbing though is by whose authority can the WT say it's ok if you got an unscriptural divorce? I guess they must reckon that since whoever did this, did so in good faith, i.e. believed what the WT said about lewdness within marriage being porneia and therefore Jehovah will not hold them accountable. But the question remains, will Jehovah hold those who made such assertions accountable? Well you already mentioned that this mistake was not intentional, therefore perhaps Jehovah did overlook it...

In summary, I do not think this was a case of breaking marriages apart. The marriages were already broken if there existed sexual disharmony among the marriage mates. And as regards unscriptural remarriage, well that was no fault of the marriage mates who were only acting on the WT's misinterpretation, and this misinterpretation was a mistake and not done out of malice.

10

Wouldn't it be ironic that Easter services were given the green light right after the memorial being cancelled?l

by nowwhat? in

just sayin.

Nitty-Gritty

@longhairgal

Sounds a bit like the Great Tribulation to me......just sayin...

49

The rise and rise of Paul Gillies?

by JWB in

jw
friends

the rise and rise of paul gillies?.

here are a view details about the 57-year-old paul stuart gillies.. .

2011: appointed as a director of international bible students association (ibsa) on 2 november having resigned as a director of watch tower bible and tract society of britain on the same day.

Nitty-Gritty

Thank you for all that information, but I was asking whether anyone has proof that Paul Gillis has begun partaking of the emblems.

49

The rise and rise of Paul Gillies?

by JWB in

jw
friends

the rise and rise of paul gillies?.

here are a view details about the 57-year-old paul stuart gillies.. .

2011: appointed as a director of international bible students association (ibsa) on 2 november having resigned as a director of watch tower bible and tract society of britain on the same day.

Nitty-Gritty

Sorry, this post is a year old.

A poster here, mentioned Paul Gillies has begun partaking. Is there actual proof?

23

Active JW's: If asked, can you explain/defend this belief?

by The Fall Guy in

as all jw's and awakened ex-jw's know, the very existence of the religion is dependent on people's belief that the "holy trinity" of the wtbts, the ccojw, and the governing body (aka the organization) were personally selected by god/christ.. 1) mr. rutherford claimed that this divine choosing occurred circa 1919, and that all anointed members were personally chosen by god/christ to be the faithful slave.

2) in 2013 this long-held, "profound scriptural truth" was discarded by apostates in brooklyn (the present-day governing body) when they personally decided that only gb members were chosen by god/christ to be the faithful slave.

(wt july 2013, p.22, par.

Nitty-Gritty

@ The Fall Guy

@ Nitty Gritty - Par. 2 says this - "It is vital that we recognize the faithful slave. Our spiritual health and our relationship with God depend on this channel."

- And the scripture quoted to support that idea was Matt 4:4 "....‘Man must live, not on bread alone, but on every word that comes from Jehovah’s mouth.’ meaning the Bible. And the other is John 17:3- Get to know God....again through the Bible.

As far as I know, rarely did God instruct anyone personally, it was always through either an angel, a prophet, or some other person. The Bible is how God speaks to humans now. The FDS is supposed to "feed" by means of the Bible, not invent anything new separate from the Bible. As long as the Bible is at the core of that food then this is sufficient. If someone doesn't agree with how the FDS interpret the Bible, and they prefer the interpretation of some other religion, then that is their choice to make of course.

"Christians were instructed to test the teachings they were being given, (1 John 4:1) but as we both know, as an active JW, cannot question or disagree with anything the literature says - due to fear of the consequences".

Yes. This is the prerogative of everyone and anyone who studies the Bible with anyone, including with JWs. Their subsequent baptism (into any religion) confirms that the person is in agreement with those teachings. If they have agreed without testing the teachings then they have not listened to those instructions have they? Logically, the time for questioning is before, not after commitment. For whatever religion. So if down the road they suddenly find for whatever reason they no longer agree with those teachings why bother questioning at that point? With JWs, the logical option is to quit associating with the congregation. I don't know why folks like you find it so hard. If I don't like a club I leave the club. There are plenty of "faders" who still hang out with family and close friends but no longer go to meetings.

23

Active JW's: If asked, can you explain/defend this belief?

by The Fall Guy in

as all jw's and awakened ex-jw's know, the very existence of the religion is dependent on people's belief that the "holy trinity" of the wtbts, the ccojw, and the governing body (aka the organization) were personally selected by god/christ.. 1) mr. rutherford claimed that this divine choosing occurred circa 1919, and that all anointed members were personally chosen by god/christ to be the faithful slave.

2) in 2013 this long-held, "profound scriptural truth" was discarded by apostates in brooklyn (the present-day governing body) when they personally decided that only gb members were chosen by god/christ to be the faithful slave.

(wt july 2013, p.22, par.

Nitty-Gritty

"Easy. Paul could do miracles to give prove:

(Acts 14:8-11) 8 Now in Lysʹtra there was a man sitting down whose feet were crippled. He was lame from birth and had never walked. 9 This man was listening to Paul as he was speaking. Paul, looking intently at him and seeing that he had faith to be made well, 10 said with a loud voice: “Stand up on your feet.” So the man leaped up and began walking. 11 When the crowds saw what Paul had done, they cried out in the Lyc·a·oʹni·an language: “The gods have become like humans and have come down to us!”

That hardly proved that Paul was hand picked by Jesus. The Lycaonians were pagan and believed in many gods. They thought Paul and company were gods.They called Barnabas Zeus, and Paul Hermes. And even when Paul explained who he was they still tried to sacrifice to him. Obviously nothing that Paul said convinced them he was not Hermes.

Which proves my point; you are going to believe what you want to believe, regardless of evidence. No matter how many miracles Jesus performed and how many prophecies regarding himself he fulfilled, people still did not believe he was the messiah.

23

Active JW's: If asked, can you explain/defend this belief?

by The Fall Guy in

as all jw's and awakened ex-jw's know, the very existence of the religion is dependent on people's belief that the "holy trinity" of the wtbts, the ccojw, and the governing body (aka the organization) were personally selected by god/christ.. 1) mr. rutherford claimed that this divine choosing occurred circa 1919, and that all anointed members were personally chosen by god/christ to be the faithful slave.

2) in 2013 this long-held, "profound scriptural truth" was discarded by apostates in brooklyn (the present-day governing body) when they personally decided that only gb members were chosen by god/christ to be the faithful slave.

(wt july 2013, p.22, par.

Nitty-Gritty

Question: Apart from these men's (conflicting) claims, is there a shred of Biblical evidence to support either of these claims and the timing, and to justify your "faith" in this self-appointed hierarchy?

I thought the WT you quote showed Biblical evidence to support these claims. As for justifying ones faith in this; when it comes down to it, it's a personal thing, you either find the evidence sufficiently believable or you don't.

17

November broadcast makes thier strategy clear.

by Crazyguy in

thier talk at this summers district conventions about shunning faders was a bit unclear and many said it was pointing out that only jws were to shun wrongdoers not specifically faders.

this new broadcast makes it now obvious that those who leave the meetings have left jehovah so therefore they are to be shunned as a form of discipline.

there can be no mistake that they do not want any of thier cult members associating with faders or those that have left the cult.

Nitty-Gritty

Levy was disfellowshipped because it was announced that he was no longer one of JWs (20:48). Further he was living some kind of lifestyle which was incompatible with Bible principles, (22:8) which means he wasn't just a fader, but was doing something actively wrong (immorality etc.)