EdenOne

Joined

• started 155 topics
• posted 2,912 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by EdenOne

• 
  310

  How I recently handled JWs at my door

  by Christian guy in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the jws stopped by my house a couple weeks ago on a saturday morning.

  i knew that with others most likely waiting for them out in the car they probably did not then have much time to engage in any serious conversation.

  so i let them talk while i feigned interest in what they had to say.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  EdenOne

  Julia,

  Usually because someone on the atheist field resorts to insult on someone we, believers, consider in high regard, or make patronizing remarks about our intelligence. That's not the way to pursuit a civilized discussion.

  Eden
• 
  11

  What the hell is a "land?"

  by stillin in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the service reports for jw's always toots their horn about all of the "lands" that the good news is being preached in.. has anybody got a clue?

  how many lands are there, total?

  are lands the same as countries?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  EdenOne

  What Jeffro said.

  The use of "Land" is an attempt to be politically correct. Example: Taiwan. By calling it a "land", they aren't pissing off the chinese, who consider Taiwan part of their territory. "Land" also may referr to an autonomous region. Example "Azores", are a group of islands that belong to Portugal. Yet, in the Yearbook report, they have been treated treated as a separate territory than the mainland Portugal (same for Madeira island too).

  WT geography isn't necessarily tied to geopolitics.

  Eden
• 
  310

  How I recently handled JWs at my door

  by Christian guy in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the jws stopped by my house a couple weeks ago on a saturday morning.

  i knew that with others most likely waiting for them out in the car they probably did not then have much time to engage in any serious conversation.

  so i let them talk while i feigned interest in what they had to say.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  EdenOne

  CG

  Thank you for your comment on Paul's views about women. I wish it had been on a thread of its own. It really opened a lot of new possibilities for me, not only about this sibject, but also about other subjects that Paul wrote about, and his peculiar writing style as well.

  Eden
• 
  310

  How I recently handled JWs at my door

  by Christian guy in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the jws stopped by my house a couple weeks ago on a saturday morning.

  i knew that with others most likely waiting for them out in the car they probably did not then have much time to engage in any serious conversation.

  so i let them talk while i feigned interest in what they had to say.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  EdenOne

  marked
• 
  4

  Who are God's Executional Forces today? (by The Witchtower)

  by processor in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  http://www.svhelden.info/witchtower/2013/11/who-are-gods-executional-forces-today/.

  who are gods executional forces today?reprint from the witchtower, october 2010. gods executional forces strike without regard to age or sex.

  for god instructs them to show no mercy.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  EdenOne

  I wonder if someone in Brooklyn will pick up the prophecy of Ezekiel to say:

  Man of the inkhorn - C.T. Russell

  Six executioners : 1) J.F. Rutherford

  2) Nathan Knorr

  3) Frederick Franz

  4) Milton Henschel

  5) The 1st generation Governing Body post-Henschel (Barr; Barry; Klein; Jarackz; Sydlick; Gangas; Schroder; etc)

  6) The 2nd generation Governing Body post-Henschel (Morris III; Splane; Losch; Sanderson; Herd; Lett; etc)

  Duh ...

  Eden
• 
  25

  How the blood doctrine developed - one of the best descriptions I've seen...

  by EndofMysteries in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i got this from this link.

  http://users.adam.com.au/bstett/jwblooddoctrineorigin10.htm here is the information.

  after reading it all, it really made how the doctrine developed look very ridiculous.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  EdenOne

  marked
• 
  37

  "The Watchtower's Achilles' Heel"

  by Doug Mason in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  if reasoning with a jehovahs witness on the watchtower societys interpretations of the kingdom of god, parousia, the cross, blood, and so on is unlikely to break the wtss mental stranglehold, what then is its achilles heel?.

  http://www.jwstudies.com/the_watchtower_s_achilles__heel.pdf.

  doug.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  EdenOne

  Doug,

  Again, I must say it was a pleasure to read your article. Thank you.

  Here are my thoughts:

  The crux of the issue here is: What is the best acceptable model of governance for the church / congregation?

  The problem with the interpretations of Acts 15 and a supposed "governing body" fuctioning in the first century (I think there was one, but that's besides the point of the considerations I'm going to discuss now), is the legitimation of the current model of governance in place among the Jehovah's Witnesses.

  Back in the 1970's, the majority of the members of the board of directors of the Watchtower Society - much against the opinion of Nathan knorr and Frederick Fraz, who even said that the creation of a Governing Body would only be done 'over his dead body' [boy, was he right!] - decided that there should be a "Governing Body" to govern the organization, rather than the power being concentrated in a single person [the President of the WTS] and then partially abrogated to a board of directors, organized in specialized comitees. How does one justify and legitimate such a change in JW land? In the best JW tradition, the Bible can be bent to say whatever the leadership wants it to say, and the justification for a model of 'theocratic governance' in the shape of a "Governing Body" isn't actually too far-fetched, biblically speaking.

  In the early days of the International Bibe Students, the operational model of organization was a mix of elements taken from congregational and presbyterian traditions, and thus, a model that allowed each congregation a great latitude of operational autonomy, while the doctrine-making was centralized in Russell and his close associates in Allegheny, and later, Brooklyn. However, when J. F. Rutherford forcefully took over the WTS, the model began to change. The new implemented model was now much more hierarchy-dependant, and much more under strict operational and doctrinal control of the Watchtower Society, through their appointed representatives, District and Circuit Overseers, and then even the body of Elders became appointed through direct supervision of the Branch office. The model was now typically episcopal in nature, similar to that of the Catholic Church. The President of the WTS was, for all purposes, the JW's equivalent to the Pope. All these changes were justified using the Bible.

  Problem is: That we know of, Christ didn't spend much of his ministry organizing the church. Aside from appointing the 12 apostles and giving Peter a measure of evidence among them, there isn't any other hint in his words of how the church should be organized, both in operational or in doctrinal terms. If the aspect of how the church was to be organized was crucial for the evolution of Christianity, isn't it obvious that Jesus would dedicate a significant portion of his ministry to train his disciples to run an organized church? Wouldn't he leave behind a set of instructions on how a church should be organized? Truth is, he didn't. The "head of the congregation" didn't do that. We may then conclude that he allowed his disciples a degree of freedom to organize the church in ways that would favor the expansion of Christianity, and the Holy Spirit would bless all the ensuing efforts. The early church was organized around the authority of the 12 apostles, but then came Paul, who was empowered to be an apostle directly by Christ. This comes to show that, if there's anything that Christ was at this point, he was a disruptive force towards a concept of ecclesiastical power centralized in Jerusalem.

  If, then, the concept of a "Governing Body" centralized in Jerusalem was at best no more than a temporary arrangement who couldn't have existed in Jerusalem beyond 66 CE, we can ask ourselves: Are we in anyway bound to the vague organizational model of a "Governing Body" that might have existed for a while, but was by no means an arrangement that should be perpetuated in time? Does modern church need to find legitimacy in the Bible for its organizational model, or should it just be what is more practical, more inclusive, more efficient, while respecting the principle that Christ is the real leader of the Christian congregation?

  I believe that the issue of how the church is organized nowadays shouldn't be bound to the way it was done in the first century. We simply don't have enough elements to make definite assumptions, nor can we conclude that the early church was properly organized in a unified way.

  Eden
• 
  15

  The Russelites explanation and documentation of what happened when Rutherford took over the WT by force after Russel died.....

  by EndofMysteries in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  674 kb.

  496 kb.

  229 kb.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  EdenOne

  marked
• 
  37

  "The Watchtower's Achilles' Heel"

  by Doug Mason in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  if reasoning with a jehovahs witness on the watchtower societys interpretations of the kingdom of god, parousia, the cross, blood, and so on is unlikely to break the wtss mental stranglehold, what then is its achilles heel?.

  http://www.jwstudies.com/the_watchtower_s_achilles__heel.pdf.

  doug.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  EdenOne

  Doug,

  Congratulations on a well-reasoned article. I find a couple of objections about it, but overall, very clear, concise and to the point.

  Eden
• 
  32

  Why does it matter?

  by tenyearsafter in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i have been on this forum for a number of years now, and one thing that seems to be a persisting theme is the "battle" between atheists and believers.. what i have not understood is the extent to which the supporters of either side engage in showing their position to be the correct one...and in turn debunking and demeaning the opposing position, or in many cases, insulting the intelligence of the holder of opposing belief.

  i guess the simple question is, why?

  does it really matter, or cause harm to be a supporter of either side of the coin?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  EdenOne

  I personally don't have issues with whatever beliefs or lack thereof others hold true. I only engage in such discussions when someone challenges me by claiming or implying that people of faith are intellectually challenged.

  Eden