Posts by Torn

103

Keeping it in perspective

by Torn in

i've just joined up to silentlambs.

basically i still consider myself a jw, although i'm no longer active.

i do frequent the odd sunday meeting tho, as i still consider 95% of it to be the truth.

Dear everyone...someone else on this forum recently brought my attention to a website that is like an answer to my prayers and has really spoken to me. It echoes perfectly the insight and honesty, yet balance and perspective, I have been looking for for the last few years, and reflects amazingly many of my thoughts and ideas on where the Organisation is right now in the eyes of Jehovah and Jesus and likely developments in the future.

The website is www.e-watchman.com. It's a fairly new site, and I'd encourage anyone who is looking for a moderate, no bitterness or spleen-venting opinion to visit there and have a look. Depending on your own degree of antipathy for the WBTS you may find the information presented in this site very refreshing and reasonable.

No doubt I'll still pop into this site now and then, and in the meantime, thanks to Frank, TJ and everyone for helping distill and refine my feelings and beliefs. It has been an excellent process in my experiencing a working through and reaffirmation of what I truly know is the truth and believe in. And don't worry I've been perusing this site for yonks, not just the last couple weeks.

Unfortunately despite all your hard work, I'm pretty much exactly at the same place I was when I first joined this forum, and I know in my heart no would could ever convince me that JW's are the monstrous wicked organisation that so many here have convinced themselves it is, no matter how much one argues about flipflops, doctrinal changes, etc etc etc. In fact it will pain you all to hear that I now feel much more mellow towards the so called big bad 'organisation' than I have been for a long time.

In summary, yes, JW's have some major flaws and problems at the moment, but Jehovah and the master Jesus are going to adversely Judge the Organisation in the future and do some major 'housecleaning' (as another postee put it). The paedophilia scandals, UN affiliation, and clinging to old chronology etc etc are demanding a judgement, and it is coming. But I can still see, thanks to God, very much the 'wood for the trees', the 'baby in the water', and 'the big picture'. I can still distinguish 'right AND wrong' - Heb 5:14, not block my mind to the right just because there is wrong.

Agape love and prayers to you all. Romans 8:38, 39.

Torn (no longer).

103

Keeping it in perspective

by Torn in

i've just joined up to silentlambs.

basically i still consider myself a jw, although i'm no longer active.

i do frequent the odd sunday meeting tho, as i still consider 95% of it to be the truth.

Torn

Dear Shakita. Firstly, sorry to get your gender confused; feel a bit silly now.

Thanks for an excellent posting. This is really a subject close to my heart. I havn't read Mr Jonsson's books as you've probably guessed by now, but who knows, one of these days I might.

A lot of what you said about Matt 24 makes a lot of sense to me.

As I think I've mentioned before, I do see some real anomalies with the WBTS's current understanding of the timing and nature of Christ's return (and when I say 'the nature', don't get me wrong, I most certainly do not believe he will be physically returning to earth and that 'every eye' will literally see him. Easy to say this has a clear meaning Frank, but I'm 'fraid Revelation isn't quite so easy as that. If you are to take that verse literally may as well go on and say he will float down on a cloud, sitting on a white horse, with a shiney big crown on his head, wearing a white robe with blood on it, and he'll have to have fiery red eyes for everyone to see, and not forgetting the big mean sword he must be carrying. Plus he is said to return with the angels on horses too, so I guess they might have to materialise as well and grow some wings for everyone to 'see' them also. Would be difficult for 'every eye' to see him given that half of them would be asleep on the other side of the globe while he floats down, unless the whole of the world's population decided to make a once in a life-time pilgrimmage to 'see' him, like Muslims do to Mecca, sitting on his throne in Jerusalem I suppose - I guess that would be one way to stop the crazy suicide bombers over there. Do ya think Yasser Arafat would have him around for tea?. Mind you, could buzz a few helicopters up there and film him coming down from the sky, but hmmm I really doubt a lot would just accept TV evidence as enough I'd say. Would watching tv constitute 'ever eye seeing him' anyway, hmmm, another moot point. But I've gone WAY off the subject :-).

As I've mentioned in a previous post of mine, I think the Society do have a kind of 'double' vision in saying that Christ become King in 1914, and sat on a throne back then, yet they say that the throne Jesus is to sit on mentioned at Matt 25:32 is a different type of throne altogether, a 'judgement throne'. Looks suspiciously like dubious interpretation to me.

The way I see it, all the wars, famine, pestilence, lawlessness, etc that Jesus spoke of, are a sign for his followers to know that he is 'near at the door', ie, NOT that he has already returned as taught by the WBTS, and as you've mentioned, but rather for his future followers to know they would be living in the 'season', for his imminent return. He compared it to an autumn season,ie, a definite season or era in time when things would be especially bad, causing more distress than usual. A season has more or less a beginning and an end where there is physical evidence for it; it is not some vague long drawn indeterminate period of time. So I don't really see that he was mentioing wars, famines, and pestilences etc in the context of trying to reassure his followers that these things merely 'indicate that as long as mankind holds sway there will be such disasters indefinitey until his sudden return'. That is far to general an interpretation I feel.

The disciples asked jesus 'what will be THE SIGN of your presence/return, and of the conclusion of the system of things". If there were no clues at all by way of worldwide conditions and events to signify that he is 'near at the doors', and his return is going to be so absolutely unsuspected and out of the blue then what need for a sign? The sign would just be when he returns, which wouldn't be a sign at all really. His presence or returning is not the sign but the reality, the actual event. Ya get me?

As I see it, when Jesus says 'see that you are not terrified, for these things must take place, but the end is not yet' he is not talking about wars and disasters etc spanning centuries of time, which seems to be the interpretation your putting forward. There have always been these things since the dawn of time, so why would Jesus bother mentioning these things now - just to give his apostles some general reassurance. Rather to my way of thinking he was referring to these disasters in a much smaller time context. In the first century this time context was between when he would die until the destruction of the Jewish system of things in 70 AD, which occurred before that 'generation' that was living when Jesus uttered these words 'passed away', ie, within a biblical 40 year generation

Jesus says 'all these things are a beginning of pangs of distress'. If he was referring to general wars and bad conditions and disasters etc spanning many centuries, then they must be the longest darndest pangs imaginable. Rather it seems to be that Jesus was referring to some shorter period of time, when one could pinpoint some sort of 'beginning' of these distressful conditions, leading up to an ending, a climax. These pangs canvass a shorter period of time, similar to the definite 'pangs' suffered by a pregnant woman leading up to when she gives birth.

Please consider this however as an interesting point. The disciples asked for what - A SIGN! right. Matthew 24: 30 says, inter alia, "And then THE SIGN of the son of man will appear in heaven". So could this actually be THE SIGN that Jesus said in answer to his disciples question (compare Revelation 12: 1 "And a great sign was seen in heaven,.."), ie, not some so-called composite sign as the WBTS says, but a sudden and undeniable supernatural phenomenan in the sky, to occur as Jesus commences 'coming on the clouds of heaven (denoting invisibility, just as the clouds hid him from human vision when he ascended in Acts 1:8 - they could only seem him UNTIL he went into the cloud, not while he was in it. And why would there be a need for 'a SIGN of the Son of Man' to appear in heaven if every eye is to literally see him? Any sign wouldn't be needed if we could all see Jesus with our literal eyes. ) with power and great glory' - Matt 24: 30. Food for thought.

Also, how does one harmonize the 4 horseman of of Revelation 6 with jesus words describing world conditions in Matt 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21. It doesn't seem reasonable to suggest that these 4 horsemen with their wars, famine, and death, ride for many centuries. Rather they ride during a much lesser period of time. There have always been wars, famine, and death since since man's original rebellion, so these riders must ride within some shorter boundary of time then millenniums or long centuries. Their ride indicates the immanence of Christ's return to 'shepherd them with a rod of iron'. The WBTS says that because Revelation portrays Jesus as the first one 'out of the block's on his horse and the other macabre riders follow, this proves that Jesus is enthroned first and then these terrible world conditions happen. I've actually heard another JW (who is still an active JW) propound a different explanation for this. Anyone know what another interpretation of this might be - I'm all ears?

Also, may I ask Shakita what bible version you were quoting from in your post. Certainly the wording is totally different from the NW translation?

cheers

Torn

Edited by - Torn on 14 November 2002 3:31:4

103

Keeping it in perspective

by Torn in

i've just joined up to silentlambs.

basically i still consider myself a jw, although i'm no longer active.

i do frequent the odd sunday meeting tho, as i still consider 95% of it to be the truth.

Torn

Thanks for the tip SYN, much appreciated.

cheers

Torn

103

Keeping it in perspective

by Torn in

i've just joined up to silentlambs.

basically i still consider myself a jw, although i'm no longer active.

i do frequent the odd sunday meeting tho, as i still consider 95% of it to be the truth.

Torn

Hi PurpleV

Are very profound and interesting question . Yes, how could an organisation claiming to be the restoration of true christianity in the end times, the wheat amongst the weeds, get it wrong initially (old light) and make changes to doctrines saying it is 'new light'.

It's a difficult concept, but I'm not prepared to say that just because there have been changes and 'flipflops' to some of the beliefs of JW's that this must of necessity mean they are not God's true christian organisation, at least for the most part.

I think the answer lies in the question: Just to what extent does God and Jesus, in these end times, have some kind of personal beam of inspirational 'light' that he transmits to human beings. Of course, who can know this? There are many who claim "God spoke to me", or "The Lord Jesus spoke to me personally", but the truth is he does not do this in the times we live in. Maybe Benny Hinn claims Jesus speaks personally to him, but I let's not go there, haha. Jehovah did in ancient times as recorded for us in the bible have DIRECT COMMUNION by means of inspired prophets, Jesus, the apostles, visions, and dreams, but how does he do it today? - quite simply, by means of his holy Word THE BIBLE, of course, and indirectly by his holy spirit.. No, Jehovah does not 'beam down' or shine new light directly into the minds of 12 old men in New York, as if they are inspired prophets. I don't think he ever has. It's my contention that he searches the heart of those who truly love his word and believe it is truth and has opened up the minds up of certain spirit-begotten individual christians in the last 130 years or so to perceive and see the truth about fundamental truths and teachings in the scriptures that were hidden from mankind and perverted for about 1800 years, while 'the man' (Jesus) has been 'sleeping' and weeds have grown around him, to quote one of Jesus parables about the Kingdom. That was all that was needed for Jehovah to reestablish pure worship at his mountain again, when the appointed times came to fruition for restoration of this. For the main part he leaves it to honest-hearted truth-seeking men to then search hungrily for the rest of the truth in the bible, which all stem from these fundamental truths.

It's easy to think that God surely would have, right from the start, somehow 'beamed' into the minds of persons in these end times brilliant and sudden flashes of insight regarding every tiny detail and doctrinal nuance to be found in scriptures for any Organisation he is using to accomplish the Kingdom preaching word and make the truth known. But is that really realistic and how God would operate? I don't for one second claim to have much of an inkling for knowing how God's mind works, but the way I see it, it's quite reasonable to believe that Christ has allowed very gradually and slowly allowed his true followers on earth to see certain lesser obvious truths and clarifications in the bible. Jesus did say to his apostles that 'it was not for them to know the times and the seasons' at that time in the first century. Certain God and Christ DO choose to progressively reveal truths and understandings to their servants. They have done so in the past and it is not unreasonable to imagine he would do so today. There are after all 'some things hard to understand', (2 Peter 3:16), in the bible for which it may take time to many to get a clearer picture on, including the GB and the writers and policy setters of 'the Borg' (had to say that..Star Trek is sooo good don't ya reckon).

Let's also keep in mind that the correct application and context of the use of this concept of 'new light' is of course the scripture from whence it is taken, ie, Proverbs 4: 18 "for the path OF THE RIGHTEOUS ONE is like the bright light that is getting lighter and lighter", is referring to persons, individual christians, not necessarily flashes of doctrinal light from God. So when the WBTS says some change in thinking or policy is 'new light', it doesn't necessarily mean they are claiming God has somehow zapped them with a perfect and miraculous understanding of something, rather it means that 'we as a body of christians are making our PATH lighter and lighter, our path is becoming clearer. It may still be murky in some places, but it's getting clearer and clearer.'

And what is greater evidence of real humility and a desire to be mouled by God's Word: to be willing to change one's beliefs when one can see scripturally that one has been wrong, or to dogmatically and stubbornly stick with what one considers to be correct despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary (some may say the Org does this already, eg, 587 v 607 - well maybe it is to some extent, but just wait and see what will develop rather than arbitrarily right the whole Organisation off).

Finally, the 'new generation' understanding I must admit is hard to swallow. It does seem that the WBTS have to quite a degree forsaken a scriptural interpretation (a biblical generation is easily shown to be 40 years) in favour of a secular one, to try and prop up the 1914 thing it appears, or to settle for a half truth to save face and minimise losses?. Still, I'd hardly say this teaching is one of 'life and death'! No one died as result of this change of teaching!, and while, yes, some may have lost out financially because of looking to a date of some sort, and 'expectation postponed makes the heart grow sick' ,the reward of everlasting life for a faithful christian is not to be viewed like some sort of lotto draw to be got all upset about cause it didn't happen when someone thought it might and we really believed them. If they are a true sheep and faithful christian, they will 'listen to the Shepherd's voice' and 'follow the lamb' no matter where he goes', knowing that the prize of everlasting life is still the prize we all hope to attain to, whether it comes soon, (and despite some Organisation, headed by IMPERFECT men who are not infallible, getting a bit carried away and all excited about when it MIGHT be), or whether we do not see it during our natural life course and have to get it by means of a resurrection. If we have lost out on some temporary and fleeting wealth in this system thru christian sacrifice and whole-souled service our God, then is it really a matter of 'life and death'? On this one I'd like to quote the scripture Frank quoted in one of his posts - Phillipians 3:8 "I consider them as a lot of refuse", ie the shallow and temporary things this sick old system (to coin a favourite Watchtower phrase Ozziepost) offers. Riches in Heaven are all that really matter in the final say.

103

Keeping it in perspective

by Torn in

i've just joined up to silentlambs.

basically i still consider myself a jw, although i'm no longer active.

i do frequent the odd sunday meeting tho, as i still consider 95% of it to be the truth.

Torn

Hi Frank. I had spent about an hour preparing a detailed reply to your last message to me wherein you replied to my private email to you, but alas, when I hit 'submit reply' it just didn't appear in the thread...nnggaarrr! (pull my hair out). If I find time in the next week or so I will be sure to have another go at doing this. Not to try and win points against you Frank and nitpick (1 Tim 2:8; 6:4), but 'for the benefit' of anyone caring to read this thread, for what it's worth.

In the meantime, I didn't say in my post that I PERSONALLY know ones who I consider have been left in a vacuum of some sort, did I. If I did I apologise for I didn't mean that. And if you want me to say it should really be 'a few', well, ok, that's fine. Maybe it is just a few. I don't know the whole number who have left the organisation so cannot give an accurate demographic and statistical representation expressed in one word of the English language that would do justice to the volume of such ones in comparison to the total number of JW's worldwide. Many, a few, whatever. Certainly 'quite a few' (how is that?) I've seen on this forum I see as falling into that category, ie, having lost sight of the Wood for the Trees doctrinally. If you feel I'm being judgement, so be it. For any JW to have turned their back on such precious truthssuch as the true identify of God, the truth about the condition of the dead, the truth about the resurrection hope, and so on and son on, and go back to the pagan myths and old lies as taught by Christendom in general is a very sad thing I feel. Sounds harsh this, but a spiritual 'returning to the vomit'. If one has decided to leave JW's because they feel it doesn't show any love, or it's ruined their family, or it does flip-flops of some of the more minor doctrines, well thats one thing, but to then reject wholesale the core truths as discovered by the early bible students after centuries these diamonds being buried and suppressed by the clergy and Christendom, well, that's entirely a different matter.

And do you really feel I am inaccurate in saying that MOST, ie, NOT ALL, elders are sincere and honest God - fearing men? Do you sincerely and honest not believe that whenyou examine your heart Frank. Are JW's that bad that MOST elders are dishonest, not God-fearing and sincere?

Cheers

Torn

103

Keeping it in perspective

by Torn in

i've just joined up to silentlambs.

basically i still consider myself a jw, although i'm no longer active.

i do frequent the odd sunday meeting tho, as i still consider 95% of it to be the truth.

Torn

Hi Frank. I had spent about an hour preparing a detailed reply to your last message to me wherein you replied to my private email to you, but alas, when I hit 'submit reply' it just didn't appear in the thread...nnggaarrr! (pull my hair out). If I find time in the next week or so I will be sure to have another go at doing this. Not to try and win points against you Frank and nitpick (1 Tim 2:8; 6:4), but 'for the benefit' of anyone caring to read this thread, for what it's worth.

In the meantime, I didn't say in my post that I PERSONALLY know ones who I consider have been left in a vacuum of some sort, did I. If I did I apologise for I didn't mean that. And if you want me to say it should really be 'a few', well, ok, that's fine. Maybe it is just a few. I don't know the whole number who have left the organisation so cannot give an accurate demographic and statistical representation expressed in one word of the English language that would do justice to the volume of such ones in comparison to the total number of JW's worldwide. Many, a few, whatever. Certainly 'quite a few' (how is that?) I've seen on this forum I see as falling into that category, ie, having lost sight of the Wood for the Trees doctrinally. If you feel I'm being judgement, so be it. For any JW to have turned their back on such precious truthssuch as the true identify of God, the truth about the condition of the dead, the truth about the resurrection hope, and so on and son on, and go back to the pagan myths and old lies as taught by Christendom in general is a very sad thing I feel. Sounds harsh this, but a spiritual 'returning to the vomit'. If one has decided to leave JW's because they feel it doesn't show any love, or it's ruined their family, or it does flip-flops of some of the more minor doctrines, well thats one thing, but to then reject wholesale the core truths as discovered by the early bible students after centuries these diamonds being buried and suppressed by the clergy and Christendom, well, that's entirely a different matter.

And do you really feel I am inaccurate in saying that MOST, ie, NOT ALL, elders are sincere and honest God - fearing men? Do you sincerely and honest not believe that whenyou examine your heart Frank. Are JW's that bad that MOST elders are dishonest, not God-fearing and sincere?

Cheers

Torn

103

Keeping it in perspective

by Torn in

i've just joined up to silentlambs.

basically i still consider myself a jw, although i'm no longer active.

i do frequent the odd sunday meeting tho, as i still consider 95% of it to be the truth.

Torn

Dear Shakita (like the name, reminds me of Shakira, mm mm)

Thanks for your very well put together and thought provoking post. That account of the blind man being healed in the bible and being 'booted out' by the Pharisees is a very powerful one isn't it. I always enjoy reading that account.

Quite honestly I agree that someone shouldn't be disfellowshipped for merely airing their own ideas on things that may not necessarily be in total harmony with the WBTS. The bible says to keep helping those who have 'doubts', not kick them out and ostracise them.

However, I think the point is it is the DEGREE that someone does this thought that determines if he is d'd or not. For example, I have discussed my views regarding the order of events in the last days pertaining to Christs return and the 1914 thing with quite a few JW's, family, and even with an elder recently at a shepherding visit (that I had to request I might add). None have expressed shock at what I was saying or warned me of apostasty, etc. Many in fact sympathised (if that is the right word) with my feelings are the Generation thing. (there are tonnes of witnesses who have puzzled over this one you know.) The elder didn't chastise me for this, and didn't go running to the body of elders to say I should be hauled up for questioning. He listened and took in all that I was saying. He is, incidentally, a very caring elder who manifests a genuine concern for people, and in between his weighty and bogged down schedule of little meeting parts and administration matters, who tries hard to find time for those more or less 'on the fringes' of the congo, like a true shepherd should (goes searching for the stragglers, haha). Shortly after the shepherding visit he even rang me up and invited me to dinner and a social occasion with some other witnesses. I declined however.

Anyway, I digress. The point I'm trying to make is I believe it is HOW FAR one tries to push a view diferent to their own. Someone like Olof Jonsson obviously was so cocksure that his newfound research and ideas was correct and that the JW's were so wrong in their current understanding that he aggressively pushed and pushed until, well, we saw what happened. If you do this in ANY organisation, ie, challenge aggressively enough those at the top you will inevitably suffer an equallye strong negative reaction. To take this point further, the Society do not expect us to believe in things without having pretty strong evidence they feel to back it up. Now even tho the overwhelming secular evidence does point to 587as opposed to 607, isn't it just a little freaky that World War 1 did start bang on 1914, followed by the Spanish Flu, economic collapse, then the second world War, etc etc...so can you see what I'm saying. Can you see how hard it is for JW's to let this go because of all the dramatic world events that started in this year and followed. Rev 12 - 'woe for the earth and see,for the devil has come down to you, having great anger, knowing his time is short...' I am skeptical of the 1914 thing, but I can EASILY see how history does APPEAR to strongly back this date up as having special signficance. The generation thing is a different matter however (they have insulted our intelligence a bit with that one, which is the MAIN bugbear I have with the Org at the moment). SO, it is not as if the present argument propounded by the WBTS is just so plainly dumb and ridiculous that anything new presented to overthrow it, like Olof Jonsson's research and new theories, is going to be instantly accepted and gulped down! One has to appreciate the enormity of the psychology behind all of this.

Mr Jonsson was brave and bold to do what he did, and make this research available to all, but he paid the ultimate price for it in an organisation sense sadly, rightly or wrong. Could he have expected anything less. Did he really expect the GB to say "oh wow Mr Jonsson, you have had a revelation from God. We've been dying for someone to come up with this and sort out the anomalies that seem to be appearing in our 1914 thing. There's just no way there is the slightest bit of evidence at all for our 1914 belief,there's just no history in the last century that harmonizes with teh 1914 date and the 'sign' (so-called) Jesus gave to indicate the 'season' before Christ's return, and our chronologically is just so glaringly 100% way off. Here come fly to New York expenses paid and we'll begin re-writing the publications together".

We do know from Ray Franz's books however that there ARE some of the GB who have indeed expressed concerns about the Society's chronology and there HAS been confusion and debate amongst them about what really is the truth on this. Brother Barry was it I think who said "I believe in this..and that...but this 1914 thing...we'll I'm just not so sure sometimes". So I wouldn't be at all surprised if some of the GB have indeed considered different ideas, theories, chronology and arguments, and probably quite likely Olof Jonsson's (and John Denton's, who has also sent his material to the GB - theres my plug for this totally independent bible researcher again). In coming years there could well be a dramatic change of teaching on this whole score...I wouldn't be surprised and half expect it. For something cherished and long held to be true to change, it's gonna take a slow filtering down often for the light to become apparent. Sometimes the dawn can seem to dawn slowly, creeping up on us. Other times it's like a bright light suddenly being turned eye, that we have to cover our eyes. The truth about the dodgy chronology of the GB may take time to seep into the psyche of the Organisation. Jehovah does allow error to exist for a while at times before finally cleansing and refining in the smelter.

re DF'ing - It's hard to deny that there is quite obviously a lot of benefit to be gained (not talking about those who merely postulate different ideas) from 'removing the wicked man from among yourselves' when it comes to rank immorality that is done unrepentantly. It's what the bible teaches. What would become of a christian organisation if, for example, like many of the mainstream religions, they rationalised fornication, homosexuality, etc etc and allowed everyone to just stay in that religion. The congregation, church, flock, whatever u want to call it. Would I personally rather be in a religion that just says "oh come on in, don't get too worried if you're living in sin, committing adultery, ridiculing the bible'...Jesus will forgive you unconditionally, no questions asked, just accept him in your heart....do that and you're ALWAYS saved: etc etc, or would I rather be in one which set the pole high, that upholds and maintains a higher standard for it's followers, to keep the congregation as clean as possible (child molesters who hide in it aside). I'd rather have the latter. It may seem a bit rigid and suffocating at times, but there is also plenty of room for personal choice and freedom of conscience too.

The trouble I have with the disfellowshipping arrangement and procedure that ones own family and loved ones are cut off. I feel this is going to far and the WBTS have got this wrong. It is emotional blackmail and cruel to do such a thing to problem. I've been there. It has always disturbed me this, even before I 'slipped off the wagon'. I have absolutely no issue with anyone who takes the WBTS to task for this, but I DO NOT agree that disfellowshipping per se is wrong.

Agape always

Torn

Edited by - Torn on 13 November 2002 5:2:0

103

Keeping it in perspective

by Torn in

i've just joined up to silentlambs.

basically i still consider myself a jw, although i'm no longer active.

i do frequent the odd sunday meeting tho, as i still consider 95% of it to be the truth.

Torn

Bit disappointed Ozziepost that after my very candid, honest, heartfelt and sincere (as you say) responses to you about where I see JW'S, trying to be as dispassionate and objective as possible, that all you can come back with us some nitpicking snippet taken from the media about something an elder purportedly said about 'spiritual warfare'. For a start, who would deny the media and journalists are marvellous at misquoting people, deliberately and unintentionally. I have seen numerous misquotes and half-quotes presented by the media about JW's and many other religoius persons and organisations. So we have to take anything the media says as someone saying with a pinch of salt a lot of the time.

If in fact this elder was lying, and I don't believe for a second many elders would dare deliberately lie to a journalist, (most are totally honest, god fearing men - let's be realistic here), then he is a corrupt elder, yes, and will have an accounting to Jehovah for that.

I could also produce, with sufficient time and research, a 100 quotes from ministers, priests, right reverents, to 1 from any JW elders or representative, that are lies, deceitful, mis-truths, and distortions.

So what point were you trying to make Ozzie? That your minister and priest friends that you socialise with prove that all of christendom is not corrupt and we can still claim to be true christians and be actively involved in them, even being a minister of one?. That the Catholic Church and the other mainstream churches are not part of a false religious empire and are not bloodguilty? That they have not misled the masses about the doctirnal truth contained in the bible and perpetuated pagan teaches instead? Those who water down the morality of the Bible, who embrace higher criticism and say much of it is myth and allegory, who deny the resurrection of Jesus, who say God took their baby to heaven, who teach that some of the bible is mere allergoy, who say sinners will roast for eternity in a real burning hellfire, who promote war and bless troops and side with political leaders.....and so on and so on ad nauseum.

No matter how much an ex-JW, who I gather you are, now hates the JW organisation, it seems extra-ordinary to me that one could then go to the other end of the spectrum and openly embrace and wink at ministers of religion.

To try and prove JW's are wrong and not who they claim to be and are riddled with corruption etc etc is one thing, but to go to the other extreme and insinuate that Christendom ain't so bad really, we'll, I can't really fathom that. They don't have to go hand in hand. Surely, one can intensely dislike the JW organisation and reject it, if they so choose, without having to start sipping from the filthy polluted cup offered by Christendom, can they not? From my observation it seems many ex-jw's find leaving the Organisation creates such a big spiritual vacuum in themselves and leaves them feeling so insecure, and often with so much bitterness and antipathy, that they really lose sight of the wood for the trees doctrinally (not meaning you personally in this paragraph Ozziepost. )

Nevertheless, there are certainly some good ministers and priests in christendom, with good hearts and intentions, obviously, eg, Nicodemus who came to Jesus in the night knew Jesus was the Messiah. And other pharisees the bible record tells us believed in Jesus but just wouldn't admit it and were too bound up in their religion and organisation and seeking 'the glory of men' and their community to leave at that point. I'm sure there may be some ministers in christendom who are in a similar boat.

I was however not talking about individuals, but rather referring to these large pagan-originated religions in the broad sense, as A WHOLE, and calling to mind their WHOLE HISTORY AND RECORD through time, not just modern day isolated examples.

May I ask you Ozziepost - do you even believe there is a such a thing as false religion (besides Satan worshippers and Wiccan etc). Do you believe Jesus words at Matthew 7:21 - 23 (oh let me guess, you only apply this to JW's?), Mark 7:6, 7, Pauls words at 2 Cor 11: 14, 15. Do you believe Satan does transform his ministers into ministers of light? Do you even believe in the Devil I wonder (oh yes, he's operating fully through JW's I suppose you'd say?)

Is there one little thing at all about JW's that you think is positive Ozziepost?

I don't blame this younger Tom you mentioned for not frequenting this website anymore quite frankly. There is not much constructive to be gained for a sincere JW looking for something objective and moderate to help guage his religion. Just about the only person I have read so far who has promoted a logical, well thought out, scripturally sound objective middle ground is RAY FRANZ.

Edited by - Torn on 12 November 2002 6:25:44

Edited by - Torn on 12 November 2002 6:36:27

Edited by - Torn on 12 November 2002 6:39:31

103

Keeping it in perspective

by Torn in

i've just joined up to silentlambs.

basically i still consider myself a jw, although i'm no longer active.

i do frequent the odd sunday meeting tho, as i still consider 95% of it to be the truth.

Torn

Dear Syn - not sure if there would be much point in us having any discussions. In fact I wonder why on earth you are even on this forum. From your message to me it seems you obviously do not believe in Jesus Christ has having come in the flesh, being sent by our Creator, in turn denying the ransom sacrifice. And you attached a link sending me to some joke-like version of the bible. Not amusing I can tell you.

You hardly seem like anything resembling a christian, more like a pseudo feminist of some spiritual sort more interesting any bashing anything that upholds the santity and truthfulness of God's inspired Word.

Torn

11

Enigma Listeners?

by santacruzchick in

does anyone listen to enigma?

i recently started listening to a few of the songs, i love the song gravity of love , all of the songs are so relaxing

Torn

I'm pretty sure on the inside cover of one of Enigma's albums there is an image of The Tetragammaton somewhere. Rather spooky kinda. Check it out.