That's retarded. A fringe group within Islam is and has been an annoyance to the Western world. Islam itself is not the enemy of the "King of the South" Besides that, even when viewed through the lens of Witness theology, "Islam" is not a worId power and is in no position to storm forth like a "whirlwind" with "chariots" and "horsemen" (then again.....) and "many ships"
Posts by TD
-
7615th July WT ...Islam is the King of the North??
by caspian inif this has already been posted, i apologise for repeating it.
in the july wt, the writers have come up with the new theory that islam is the new king of the north.
i haven't seen the article yet, .
-
-
-
35
What Watchtower Belief Is The Silliest To You???
by minimus in2 for me---the doctrine of the "faithful and discreet slave" and the whole "blood thing"......and you?????
?
-
-
TD
I would vote for the blood doctine except that I agree with Blondie; It's far to serious for silliness.
This belief is runner up in my book:
-
22
Trying to fade slowly....
by nemo ini am trying to fade slowly, but am finding this increasingly difficult.
i can't sit through a meeting, i had to leave at the 1/2 the other day, because of my recent enlightenment, the hypocrisy is to much for me to take.
as i left you could see the looks on people faces, "oh she's just not spritual enough".
-
-
TD
I would think the interval just before a congregation splits would be a good time to get lost in the shuffle.
Though I have to say I like the way Bradley did it.
-
102
New BLOOD Watchtower - June 15, 2004 Issue!
by UnDisfellowshipped inthe watchtower, june 15, 2004 issue, pages 14-24:.
" for the benefit of current readers, the answer is reprinted on pages 29-31 of this magazine.
19 near its conclusion, the reprinted answer on pages 29-31 says: "does the fact that opinions and conscientious decisions may differ mean that the issue is inconsequential?
-
-
TD
They know their audience well --- both articles were one large appeal to ignorance:
First of all, nobody "abstains" from blood in modern society today. Blood fractions, especially minute amounts of albumin as an excipient or adjuvant are everywhere. Albumin is in allergy shots, it is in childhood immunizations including MMR and IPV, and all post exposure vaccines. It is impossible to avoid and the idea that you could even if you wanted to is simply ignorant.
Second, under the Law, blood was painted on the lintels and door posts of houses, it was smeared upon the earlobe, thumb and big toe of the priests, it was dribbled on the floor of the most holy, it was sprinkled upon tents, houses, people and animals, it was the "evidence" of a woman's virginity. The idea that blood's only "use" was upon the altar is simply ignorant.
Third, the idea that God forbade the "use" of blood is rendered a contradictory tautology when the term "use" is extended to cover blood's design purpose -- circulating in the arteries and veins. The Witnesses, who condemn both autologous as well as allogenic transfusion cannot wriggle out of this contradiction, try as they might. No one can place their fingertips over a bright flashlight and claim that they don't "use" at least their own blood. Anything else is simply ignorant.
Fourth, Jehovah's Witnesses can and do hold occupations that involve the "use" of blood. How exactly would a Witness MD evaluate kidney function if he or she could not order the patient's blood analyzed for BUN/Creatinine? How about a lipid panel for cardio risk? Or thyroxine ratio for thyroid function? Blood tests are the diagnostic staple in medicine today and will be for many years to come.
The fact of the matter is as long as the "use" does not involve either consumption or transfusion of blood than the occupation in question is a "matter of conscience." In other words, a Witness may work in a med-lab that tests blood, but he or she may not work in a blood bank. Witnesses that don't know this is the written policy are simply ignorant. What exactly is a Witness diabetic doing when they test the glucose level of their blood if not "using" it for testing purposes for Christ's sake?
-
32
Answers to elders who ask " Do you consider yourself one of JWs"
by blondie inor similar questions by the elders?
were you asked something similar and how did you answer?.
blondie.
-
-
TD
Have some fun, In a "sincere but confused" manner fall back on the sifting sands of Witness ideology:
****
Elders: Do you consider yourself to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses?
JW: I'm not trying to split hairs here, but sublteties are sometimes important. Would that be with an uppercase or lowercase 'W'?
Elders: What difference does that make?
JW: I consider myself to be one of Jehovah's witnesses --very much so, but by the use of that term I'm not describing an organized religion. As the book Jehovah's Witnesses In The Divine Purpose explained in the chapter, "A People With A Most Ancient History", the term Jehovah's witnesses describes persons living thousands of years before the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of Pennsylivania ever existed.
(Say "organized religion" with as much vehemence and disgust as possible)
Elders: Yes, Yes, We see your point, but our question is a little more specific than that. Do you consider yourself to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses? --With an uppercase 'W' if that makes you happy.....
JW: I'm not sure what that means.
Elders: Why not?
JW: Well as you are also probably aware, the 'W' began to be capitalized in the literature sometime in the 1970's and there was insofar as I am aware never an accompanying explanation. I just want to make sure I understand you because your question frankly puzzles me.....
(If the conversation gets this far, the Elders likely will not be able to get it back on track unless you let them. There is nothing in the literature of JW's that I know of that really describes what the spelling change actually meant and they can't come right out and say. They'll be in hot water with WT legal if they admit that they answer to an organizational authority higher than the congregational level. The CCoJW greatly values this legal firewall.)
Elders: Why are you puzzled by the question?
JW: Because I don't know why you feel the need to ask it. I consider myself a faithful witness of Jehovah. I always have --- It hurts that anyone would doubt this.
Elders: Come now! You yourself brought up the distinction, not us. To be honest we've never even noticed it before and don't even think of it. It almost seems like you're trying to evade a simple question.
JW: Not at all, not at all. I've answered your question to the best of what may be an imperfect understanding . I do consider myself to be a witnesses of the True God. ---along with Able, Enoch, Noah, Moses, Daniel, the Apostles and so on...If it now means something more than that, you'll have to bring me up to speed.
Elders: (Getting nowhere and shifting gears) Well look at it from this angle, Do you believe Jehovah has an organization on Earth today?
JW: Yes, well I've always expressed it differently. I think Jehovah uses organizations on earth.
Elders: OK Good enough. Do you think Jehovah uses the organization known as Jehovah's Witnesses?
JW: I didn't know "Jehovahs Witnesses" was the name of an organization ---- Oh I know there's currently an organization behind the name, just as there was no doubt an organization behind the name in the first century. True Christians after all need to be organized. Organizations may come and go out of convenience, but Jehovah's witnesses are a people with a most ancient history, going all the way back to Able. That's one of the differences between us and the false religionists of Christendom that I'm particularly proud of!
Elders: I think you are splitting hairs...
JW: No brother, I'm sure there was a good reason for phrasing it that way. (Sound shocked that they would even think of contradicting the "slave.")
Elders: OK, OK, the organization behind the name then. Do you believe that it is Jehovah's organization?
JW: (Dismissively) Why all things belong to Jehovah. He certainly owns the legal corporations if that's what you mean. But as it relates to your original questions that's neither here nor there.
Elders: What do you mean by that?
JW: Well I'm not a member of The Watchtower Bible & Tract Society. I've no shares to control either by vote or proxy. For that matter, I don't think I've ever even been to a shareholder's meeting in my entire life or known anyone else that has either.
Elders: (Growing impatient) That's not what we mean at all. -----OK, You've said that true Christians would need to be organized. What organization on earth today do you believe represents true Christianity?
JW: Why I don't believe that true Christianity is represented by an organzation. If anything, I think it would be the other way around.
Elders: What do you mean by that?
JW: Because the tail doesn't wag the dog. Earthly organizations are simply legal instruments at the disposal of true Christians. You know as well as I do that if the work was banned tomorrow and all the legal entities were dissolved and all their assets and chattel seized and liquidated, true Christians would secretly reorganizae and continue to witness. We've had many fine examples in the Yearbooks.....There was even one faithful brother that was in solitary for seven years. He never stopped being a witness of Jehovah....even though he had to celebrate the Lord's Evening Meal all by himself.
Elders: (Again getting nowhere and shifting gears) OK, OK --- Do you believe that Jehovah has a faithful and discreet slave on Earth today?
JW: Why of course! He has ever since Pentacost of 33 CE.
Elders: And who is the Faithful And Discreet Slave today?
JW: My understaning is that it is a composite class of true anointed Christians
Elders: You don't know who the Faithful And Discreet Slave is today?
JW: I didn't say that at all, I just want it to be clear that you're not only asking me to speculate, you're asking me to do something, I'm not sure is appropriate.
Elders: And what is that?
JW: Judge the heart of fellow Christians. A slave may not declare himself righteous, neither may another slave declare his fellow to be righteous. Only the Master may decide that. Besides the very nature of the universal issue facing mankind precludes what all your questions seem to be suggesting.
Elders (Visibly getting headaches) I'm lost, what do you mean......
JW: Well you seem to be suggesting that an exact mirror of Jehovah's heavenly organization exists in the flesh on earth today. I don't see how that's compatible with the universal issue. Jehovah never exerted that level of control, even when inspired prophets walked the earth. It would have raised serious questions as to the degree that humans were being allowed to exert their free will. Were they truly serving Jehovah out of faithfulness or were they being compelled to do so?
(This can be drug out forever)
-
49
Catholic "Just War" Doctrine vs JW Pacifist Doctrine
by rocketman inhaving been a practicing jehovah's witness for 30 years, i had been exposed to their pacifist doctrine, which taught that christians were not to enlist in armies or participate in warfare on any level.
this doctrine was later modified somewhat to allow for non-military "alternative" service as a matter of conscience.. i had always thought of the jw doctrine as lofty.
it was based on bible verses such as isaiah 2:4 and matthew 26:52. the idea was that, if all people were jehovah's witnesses, carnal warfare would be eliminated.
-
-
TD
I think a major factor influencing the current stance of the Witnesses (Functional pacifism) was their refusal to salute the flag in the early 1940's. Prior to this, the most pacifisitic feature about the Witnesses was their refusal to be inducted into the military and this in and of itself was more an act of defiance than pacifism. J. F. Rutherford was an extremely caustic and confrontational individual and one only has to read the 1937 publication Enemies (where he defends the "canemen" at length) to see what I mean here.
The Witnesses therefore had no qualms at all about defending life and property. As the book Judging Jehovah's Witnesses: Religious Persecution And The Dawn Of The Rights Revolution reports, Witnesses at times took their deer rifles to the roofs of Kingdom Halls in defense against mobs. Since the local law enforcement was as often as not actually part of the mob, at least one embarassing incident arose in which a police car was riddled with bullets fired by the Witnesses.
Always conscious of public image, I think those incidents led to the current paradox. The Witnesses (like any other decent human beings) have condemned those that stand idly and do nothing when a woman is stabbed to death in public. (An incident that happened at a bus stop in the early 60's) At the same time though, the Witnesses have published articles that effectively limit a Christian's range of response in the face of violence to: (1) Appealing to the authorities and (2) Praying. (See for example the July 15, 1983 issue of The Watchtower)
Well, neither the Witnesses, nor philosophical pacifists in general may have it both ways. The Witnesses for example have long held that a woman must scream if she is sexually assualted, even going so far as to say that if she didn't scream, she would be in effect, complicit in the act. However the value of a scream, especially a scream from a woman lies in the fact that it is a call for help. The assailant will be set upon and have his clock cleaned by every able-bodied man within earshot. With the average response time of the police in most metropolitan areas at or around 15 minutes, what value would there be in screaming if everyone followed the advice of the Witnesses and did nothing more in reponse than calling the police and praying?
-
49
Catholic "Just War" Doctrine vs JW Pacifist Doctrine
by rocketman inhaving been a practicing jehovah's witness for 30 years, i had been exposed to their pacifist doctrine, which taught that christians were not to enlist in armies or participate in warfare on any level.
this doctrine was later modified somewhat to allow for non-military "alternative" service as a matter of conscience.. i had always thought of the jw doctrine as lofty.
it was based on bible verses such as isaiah 2:4 and matthew 26:52. the idea was that, if all people were jehovah's witnesses, carnal warfare would be eliminated.
-
-
TD
Hey Rocketman,
I understand completely. There is no good word to describe the JW stance, although "Hypocritical" does come to mind.
-
49
Catholic "Just War" Doctrine vs JW Pacifist Doctrine
by rocketman inhaving been a practicing jehovah's witness for 30 years, i had been exposed to their pacifist doctrine, which taught that christians were not to enlist in armies or participate in warfare on any level.
this doctrine was later modified somewhat to allow for non-military "alternative" service as a matter of conscience.. i had always thought of the jw doctrine as lofty.
it was based on bible verses such as isaiah 2:4 and matthew 26:52. the idea was that, if all people were jehovah's witnesses, carnal warfare would be eliminated.
-
-
TD
Six is right. In some respects, JW's are functional pacifists, but they are not pacifists idealogically and actually eschew the term.
Here are three of many quotes in their literature:
"Jesus had given his disciples counsel: ?You heard that it was said, ?Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.? However, I say to you: Do not resist him that is wicked; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other also to him.? (Mt 5:38, 39) Here Jesus was not teaching pacifism or denying the right of self-defense from bodily harm, but he was teaching that a Christian does not need to pay back blow for blow, retaliating, taking vengeance." (Insight Volume I, page 429)
"Were Jehovah?s witnesses today to claim to be pacifists, it would mean for them to denounce all the pre-Christian witnesses of Jehovah who took up arms to uphold Jehovah?s universal sovereignty and his theocratic nation of Israel. But this denunciation we cannot make." (The Watchtower, "Why Jehovah's Witnesses Are Not Pacifists" February 1, 1951)
"True Christians love peace. They stay completely neutral in the world?s military, political, and ethnic conflicts. But, strictly speaking, they are not pacifists. Why? Because they welcome God?s war that will finally enforce his will on earth?a war that will settle the great issue of universal sovereignty and rid the earth of all enemies of peace once and for all." (Awake! May 8, 1997 page 23)
-
22
Unusual things that happen during prayers
by Simon init's a nice warm summer in a welsh sea-side town and the chairman is giving the concluding prayer.
he starts to slow down and then there is a pause.
it lasts long enough to make you open your eyes and lookup in time to see him wobbling backwards and forwards.. two brothers leap to the platform and catch him as he is about to pass out but then, in a rediculous scene, instead of helping him to a chair they prop him up between them and one of them carries on with the prayer!
-
-
TD
LOL Simon
One of the Kingdom Halls I attended with my wife, some few years ago, was so small that it didn't need or have a PA system. I don't know if it was because of this, or if it was simply before JW's instituted some unwritten rule requiring prayers to be given from the podium, but at any rate, the one offering the final prayer would simply stand up from his chair to pray.
One night an elderly fellow was called upon to give the final prayer. But when the song concluded another eqaully elderly gentleman with a similar last name (VanHorn & Vanderwall were their names) also stood up. One had been sitting clear at the back and the other had been sitting in the 2nd or 3rd row. Apparently, they were both somewhat hard of hearing because they gave their prayers at once, completely oblivious to each other
Although this would have been embarassing rather than funny, (I've got a soft streak and can't stand to see old people embarassed like that) their prayers were so scripted that they were virtually identical. They prayed for the same things in the same order and said "Amen" almost in unison.
-
19
I let a friend know I was having problems......
by nemo inhello everyone nemo here...just keep swimming, swimming, swimming.. anyway, i let my closest friend know how i felt currently about the organization and what affect it has had on me.
she has agreed to not share it with anyone, she won't, but these are the questions she possed to me.
i need to reply soon but my mind is overwhelmed with everything i have learned so i would like help formulating some answers.
-
-
TD
Nemo,
Your friend has responded to your concrete concerns with platitudes. This is typical, not just for JW's, but for other religious groups as well.
Any member of any religous group can say, "Yes there are flaws, but when you step back and look at the big picture it is a positive one." This is only a valid excuse in religious environments that allow at least some plurality of thought. Jehovah's Witnesses do not allow any.
In other words Jehovah's Witnesses themselves will not allow you to overlook the flaws. You must accept their views as if perfection was actually being offered. You have absolutely no freedom to accept those teachings that you feel to be correct and reject those teachings that you know to be in error.
From this, your friend then moves on to the "process of elimination game." This is also typical of JW's. "What other group is preaching the good news? What other organization teaches the truth? What other group lives up to Jehovah's requirements better?"
This line of reasoning is ultimately circular in nature, because it is Jehovah's Witnesses themselves that define what the "good news" is, what the "Truth" is and what "Jehovah's requirments" are, all based on their unique interpretations of the Bible.
As you can see, the problem lies in allowing the framer of the question to define its terms in a way that predetermines the answer.
If you were to allow a Mormon to committ this fallacy, you would get much the same answers. For example: What other group is preaching the good news? (As defined by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints)
When the terms of the question are loaded in this fashion, there can only be one answer.
Tom