Posts by TonusOH

49

Q about Jesus' sacrifice

by oncebitten in

jw
friends

i have several jw family members.

i have been shunned many years now.

i was not baptized, but i was indoctrinated as a child.

TonusOH

oncebitten: There is a vast difference between the two.

I don't see it. The JW explanation is that JWs can ask forgiveness from Jehovah by using Jesus as an intermediary. He offers his blood to pay that price. Thus, his sacrifice covers the sins of humanity. Adam's actions locked the door to salvation, and Jesus's actions unlocked it. If the objection is that his sacrifice is not automatic (that is, that one must repent before it can be appliced), I don't see an issue. It's the opportunity that matters.

Don't get me wrong, I think the whole concept is overwrought. Nothing stops god from simply forgiving us without requiring that blood be spilled. But I don't see a difference between "Jesus dying for Adam's sin" and "Jesus dying for our sins," because the mechanics lead to the same end result. If anything, the JW version is a poorly-worded explanation that was probably borne out of their need to be contrary about even minor details. The Rutherford Effect, if you will.

40

1963 Resolution Condemning the United Nations

by Sea Breeze in

quote from that world wide resolution: .

that, in order to prevent the destruction of the nations by their own means in war, the nations further refused the surrender of their sovereignty to god’s messianic kingdom by setting up a society of nations, which, since 1945, has taken the form and the name of the united nations, with international headquarters at new york city.

this international organization stands for world sovereignty by political men.

TonusOH

Thanks, Earnest. That's pretty funny, that one of their own sub-organizations is making Russell's old work available.

49

Q about Jesus' sacrifice

by oncebitten in

jw
friends

i have several jw family members.

i have been shunned many years now.

i was not baptized, but i was indoctrinated as a child.

TonusOH

oncebitten: Jesus didnt die for our sins- he died for Adam's sins

I don't think I ever heard it expressed that way. To me, both statements are saying the same thing. If Adam's sin is what condemned humanity, then Jesus's sacrifice is what saved it. By balancing the scales to negate the cost of Adam's sin, he has given humanity a path for the expiation of their own.

But it does sound like the kind of thing some JWs would say. They seem to have a need to "correct" almost any statement made by a non-JW about Christianity.

21

Vomit Eaters and Filthy Whores

by Sea Breeze in

the watchtower characterizes christians not affiliated with the watchtower corporation as vomit eaters and filthy whores: .

“how well they pictured the spiritual drunkards of christendom at the present time!

besides actual wine and intoxicating liquors, there are other things to intoxicate the priests and preachers in christendom so as to induce drowsiness in them, to make them reel, to confuse things before their religious vision, to induce them to belch out the vomit of spiritually filthy things” - w59 3/1 pp.

TonusOH

When I was a JW, 'Christendom' was basically a slur. Every other religion is false and part of Satan's world, and so on. Non-JW Christians were singled out, I think because JWs in the early part of the 20th century took a lot of abuse from them in the USA. Not unexpected, from a relatively new religious group that seemed to delight in poking every other religion in the eye.

I don't know how they would view other Christian denominations now, but they still have a mostly rigid concept of salvation. If you had a chance to hear the JW message and chose not to (or rejected it), you are doomed. I guess the new approach to judgment at Armageddon might have changed that.

40

1963 Resolution Condemning the United Nations

by Sea Breeze in

quote from that world wide resolution: .

that, in order to prevent the destruction of the nations by their own means in war, the nations further refused the surrender of their sovereignty to god’s messianic kingdom by setting up a society of nations, which, since 1945, has taken the form and the name of the united nations, with international headquarters at new york city.

this international organization stands for world sovereignty by political men.

TonusOH

Just for clarification: in what way does the WTBTS "own" the IBSA? Legally? Metaphorically? Is there any way to verify this ownership, once it is defined? Is it because they're selling Russell's old works?

I'm almost curious about what happened after Rutherford changed their name from IBS to JWs.

43

VERY NEW AT THIS BUT LOST IN SPACE

by stephenlettclownface in

jw
friends

i apologize if this post ends up in the wrong place.

i have been a lurker here for several years.

i thoroughly enjoy this site, have for years, and read something or another on this site many times a week.

TonusOH

jehovaxx: Surely this is true of any feeling of brotherhood?

No. Even without context, we can understand how some bonds are much stronger than others.

But in context, we also understand that the conditions for brotherhood as a JW are not healthy. The requirement to treat someone as a pariah at the drop of a hat, only to reverse course just as suddenly, is emotionally jarring. Especially when the action is not due to something between you and that person, but a decision handed down without explanation or detail, and enforced with the threat of your own disfellowshipping. And, if that person is readmitted to the group, you must welcome them back and pretend that everything is as it was before. It's not.

Add the family dynamic to this, and the consequences are that much more painful. Moral relativism is not going to ease that suffering.

43

VERY NEW AT THIS BUT LOST IN SPACE

by stephenlettclownface in

jw
friends

i apologize if this post ends up in the wrong place.

i have been a lurker here for several years.

i thoroughly enjoy this site, have for years, and read something or another on this site many times a week.

TonusOH

Hi SLCF, and welcome.

I wouldn't say that the feeling of brotherhood was fake, but it was conditional. It is built on a false premise. The idea is that extreme isolation and distancing is the only way to deal with those who are not in 'good standing.' The organization demands that its members act in ways totally anathema to the way they are used to treating each other, but also to go right back to being brothers and friends if a person's status reverts to 'good standing.' This is stressful, especially when we've been conditioned to be loving and brotherly and generous with one another.

And this conditioning can last a very long time. Glad to see you've come to terms with it and have freed yourself.

7

Materialistic and Soon

by OnTheWayOut in

i was reading a bart ehrman book, .

armageddon: what the bible really says about the end.

no, i won't bore you with complicated various theories i was reading.

TonusOH

It's easy for us to wrap our mind around physical rewards, since they can be quantified without much effort. Even Jesus spoke of dwellings being prepared in heaven and building up spiritual treasures for oneself. There wouldn't be money or houses in heaven (at least not in the traditional sense), but it was an effective frame of reference. So I'm not suprised that religious groups would use commonly-understood concepts to help believers idealize the spiritual.

The stuff about living in nice places left behind by the dead always struck me as quite gruesome. But we grew up in a poor and downtrodden area, and the homes weren't ostentatious or in good shape. The thought of it all being crushed and buried would have been more to our liking. I guess that's just about as creepy.

40

1963 Resolution Condemning the United Nations

by Sea Breeze in

quote from that world wide resolution: .

that, in order to prevent the destruction of the nations by their own means in war, the nations further refused the surrender of their sovereignty to god’s messianic kingdom by setting up a society of nations, which, since 1945, has taken the form and the name of the united nations, with international headquarters at new york city.

this international organization stands for world sovereignty by political men.

TonusOH

I was thinking about the way the mind can compartmentalize stuff to keep contradictory things from creating dissonance. But I didn't even hear about the UN stuff until years after I was out. It's the information bubble that the organization creates that keeps the rank and file in line. If someone had told me that the WTS had registered as an NGO, I would have surely called them a liar. And if I had learned the truth, I would have deflected with "they just want to use the library" and "they still criticize the UN." And if someone had pointed me to the more supportive articles, I would have dismissed it as reading too much into nothing.

That bedrock assumption that the GB was god's voice and the WTS was god's organization had to be defended at all cost. First by rejecting any information that did not come from them, and otherwise using jusitifications and rationalizations to defend against anything that did not fit the assumptions. Being free of that is great. Recognizing how it works made me never want to get stuck in that kind of trap ever again.

19

Leaked Info: Watchtower Received $497 Million From One Country (Britain) In Last Six Years! [Must Watch!]

by Golden4Altar in

jw
friends

leaked info:watchtower received $497 million from one country (britain) in last six years!

[must watch!].

this video was just released with documented proof, see this link: https://jehovahstruth.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=187#p187.

TonusOH

Maybe the complaints came at a time when they still charged a cost for the books and magazines they printed? I suppose some people would see it as using their tax-exempt status as a religion to sell books (ie, a business) while not being taxed? In other words, that what they were doing was legal, but immoral?

Wasn't it Rutherford who called religion "a snare and a racket"? He certainly would have known!