Posts by krejames

50

holding off on my baptism???

by madcow78596 in

jw
friends

so i've been studying with jws since april 2011.

1 year later i decide to become an unbaptized publisher and take steps toward dedicating myself to jehovah.

i'm a single working mother of 2 with what i will call a very "colored" past.

I'm fairly new here too and I know it can be hard to know who to believe. We all have our reasons for being on this board. some of us have had bad experiences. I was born in as a JW and while it was miserable time for me (for doctrinal reasons) I have never had a bad experience with the people - I don't think most JWs are hypocrites or evil. The christians counselled in the bible clearly had serious issues and problems and I don't see JWs, the people, being any worse than them.

My advice, for what it's worth, is if you feel Christianity is the true path, you have to really understand what you're letting yourself in for doctrinally. Look at the christianity described in the Bible and then decide who is adhering most closely to it. The christianity descirbed in the Bible is difficult - it's a daily struggle - Jesus himself said the road was narrow and cramped and to go in through the narrow door. Paul said he pummeled his body to lead it as a slave. I find it incredible when "christians" think the JW daily life is too severe. The christianity described in the bible is severe! So be fair with your critiques against JWs - are any other churches any less reprehensible than the JWs - only you can decide that for yourself based on your own research, knowledge and experiences. There are plenty of arguments for and against being part of "an organisation" so you will need draw your own conclusions on that.

Here you will find a lot of hearsay. But also in the WT publications you will find lots of "quotes" without references. It can be hard to see the wood for the trees. You'll find some interesting articles on JWFacts, which I found shocking when I first read them. Yes the JWs have made mistakes in the past (some would put more weight on these than others, it would seem), and I guess you have to decide whether these allegations are important enough to you to rule them out as being used by God despite any genuine desire to learn and spread "the truth"

As you probably guess, I'm still on my spiritual journey (and have been tending to lean away from the idea that christianity is the truth lately), but I'm trying to make it my personal policy not to believe everything that people tell me - whether JWs or "apostates" - it's a different matter if it's backed up by references and evidence. I haven't ruled out concluding that JWs do have the truth if that's where I feel the evidence leads me in the end (whether I would ever be able to go back there mentally and wholeheartedly live the life is another matter).

Whatever you do I hope you find happiness for you and your family.

22

This was just on channel 4 in the UK

by Mickey mouse in

jw
friends

http://www.4thought.tv/themes/what-happens-when-you-leave-your-religion/rachel-underhill?autoplay=true.

krejames

Replace the word Paedophilia with "gross sin" and I think you'll find that they are treated pretty much equally in the judicial sense. I think what you mean is there should be additional punishments/safeguards against paedophiles and from a personal opninion I would agree with you. It gets more difficult to justify from a biblical perspective because as far as I can see the Bible doesn't really address paedophilia specifically and that's just one of the many things I find inexplicable about the whole thing.

22

This was just on channel 4 in the UK

by Mickey mouse in

jw
friends

http://www.4thought.tv/themes/what-happens-when-you-leave-your-religion/rachel-underhill?autoplay=true.

krejames

I spent last night reading 1 Corinthians 5 in 6 different translations I have. Then spent several hours reading commentaries on that chapter that have been published on line. Unfortunately there's no escaping the fact that to practice the christianity described in the Bible, shunning is a requirement. All of the commentaries interpreted the chapter to go beyond disfellowshipping in the church or congregational setting - it was about ceasing to have any association with that person. Several, such as the New English Bible, are even stronger than the NWT when it says "root out the evil doer from your community". The definition of evil doer is given in the preceding verses... "any so-called christian who leads a loose life, or is grasping or idolatorous, a slanderer, a drunkard, or a swindler..." "sexual immorality" (which we know in the bible includes adultery). All commentaries agreed this chapter was referring to unrepentant sinners calling themselves christian. One commentary even went way beyond the WT and said family members living in the same house should not eat with the one shunned.

Obviously we could argue til the cows come home as to how far shunning should go according to the Bible. But I'm beginning to find it difficult to take seriously anyone who believes the Bible is God's Word who doesn't agree with shunning at least in the circumstances described above. So if Rachel gave everyone the impression she was unrepentantly having an affair, what choice did her congregation have but to shun her, if they claim to be Christian? Does that make them a cult or does that make Christianity a cult?

The more research I'm doing the less seriously I'm taking the many knee-jerk anti JW views and allegations on this board. No doubt they are prompted by personal experiences in their own congregation (if they were Jws) or other agendas, but they serve a purpose in prompting more research. Would any church or religion or individual that claims to be christian stand up to the level of scrutiny that we put the JWs under here? I guess the issue for me that's emerging now is whether I really think the Bible is true and/or whether I can worship a God that endorses shunning (and many other things I have a hard time accepting from the Bible).

24

Do JWs really notice significant doctrinal change?

by keyser soze in

all of these threads about the 'new light' regarding the fds has got me wondering.

as ex-jws, we've trained ourselves to notice such things.

we tend to treat them as if they're of great significance, even convey a certain level of optimism that it will actually wake some up, make some think, even lead to some sort of mass revolution within the ranks.. do rank-and-file jws really see any significance, or is it just wishful thinking?

krejames

LOL @ Outlaw

The photo on the right is correct I'm afraid.

I mentioned the rumoured new light to a close JW friend yesterday. She said in essence, "oh that makes much more sense. That's pretty much what I thought must be the case anyway. After all it's the governing body who dispense the spiritual food".

It's exactly the reaction i expected. So please don't expect a mass exodus. It's not gonna happen.

22

This was just on channel 4 in the UK

by Mickey mouse in

jw
friends

http://www.4thought.tv/themes/what-happens-when-you-leave-your-religion/rachel-underhill?autoplay=true.

krejames

Snare&Racket. That's a lot of maybes. I stand by the last sentence of my previous post.

22

This was just on channel 4 in the UK

by Mickey mouse in

jw
friends

http://www.4thought.tv/themes/what-happens-when-you-leave-your-religion/rachel-underhill?autoplay=true.

krejames

Snare&Racket. To hurt her family by pretending to have an affair, I think many people whether religious or not would raise an eyebrow at that. That was my thinking. I was just having trouble getting my head around the logic of pretending to have an affair instead of just leaving. That said, Theocratic Sedition made a good point that made me think again.

The trouble with these little clips on Channel 4 is that they can never tell the whole story. There's obviously a lot more to this on both sides of the argument. I'm sure (actually I know) there are many families out there religious or not who have shunned other family members for things they have done. Religion doesn't always come into it. If you have read any of my other posts you will know that I am dead set against disfellowshipping and shunning. but at the same time I feel uncomfortable when people appear to think they can hurt people themselves and then not expect any consequences in the way people view or treat them at least for a while. The woman on the clip said she pretended to have an affair. She has a family. It stands to reason that people got hurt. and it stands to reason that some people will have behaved differently towards her after that and indeed might have found it quite easy to shun her whether for religious reasons or not. We don't have enough information in this clip to judge either side of the story in this case - hers or the JWs and that really was the only point I was trying to make.

22

This was just on channel 4 in the UK

by Mickey mouse in

jw
friends

http://www.4thought.tv/themes/what-happens-when-you-leave-your-religion/rachel-underhill?autoplay=true.

krejames

Theocratic Sedition - Thanks. Yes that does make sense. If that's the case I can at least see the reasoning behind it.

22

This was just on channel 4 in the UK

by Mickey mouse in

jw
friends

http://www.4thought.tv/themes/what-happens-when-you-leave-your-religion/rachel-underhill?autoplay=true.

krejames

Sorry if I am seeming ignorant or if this will be interpreted as apologist...but something doesn't ring tru here. Why did she feel the need to "pretend" she had an affair to leave the religion? If she was going to be shunned anyway, why not just stop going? Just seems a bit like she felt the need to justify her behaviour. Two wrongs don't make a right and whatever the reasons she acted this way it isn't the religion's fault she decided to exit in that manner. Sorry but I do understand where Mat28 quoted in Christ Alone's post is coming from. If we are too quick to believe every anti-JW allegation without foundation, we risk being just as gullible and foolish as the JWs we accuse of being the same.

17

Shunning - The Article that started so much pain and heartbreak (WT 1944, May 15)

by bats in the belfry in

jw
friends

my sister and i were just talking about this very topic this morning.

when jesus supposedly chose the watchtower society as the faithful and discreet slave in 1918, no one got disfellowshiped for anything!

how is it that now, in 2012, our disfellowshipping policy is used as proof that they are god's earthly visable organisation, in that they "keep the congregation clean?".

krejames

interesting - thanks

100

Post 607: Reject 607 BC if You TRULY Trust the Bible!!!

by Londo111 in

therefore, if the 70 years period is for the destruction of jerusalem and exile at babylon:.

if zedekiah had not rebelled against babylon, had he surrendered during the final siege that lasted two and a half years, then the destruction of jerusalem and the deportation need not have happened.

then in the jubilee year, they were set free and their hereditary land was returned to them.

krejames

Thanks for posting the articles - I'm going to read these in detail.

Slight side issue that I'll mention - I was staying at a family friend's house a couple of weeks ago (JWs) and in the bedroom I slept in was a thick green book of Charles Taze Russel's sermons (published by the WT in 1917). Very interesting! Obviously I read as much as I could before I went to sleep and then the following morning but at best all I could do was skim read it. But I did find one sermon that discussed the calculation of 1914 (I think the book said this particular sermon was given in 1910). Charles Taze Russel outlined his calculation of 1914 using 607BCE but I was interested to notice he said that many people believe the fall of Jerusalem was in 587BCE and not 607BCE. He acknowledged they may be right but said, even so, it just means the gentile times will end 20 years later...(I may have misquoted the exact words but the essence is right)

I know it's a bit of a non issue really but I just found it interesting that he was not as dogmatic about 1914 as I had expected him to be. The WT on the other hand is dogmatic about everything!