To JWs, Jesus only exists on paper for doctrinal purposes only. Outside of that, he's not on the JWs' hearts and therefore not on their lips. You never hear JWs talk about Jesus outside the context of formal doctrine. For example, you will never hear a JW refer to JWs as being "servants of Jesus". you But you will hear them using the term "servants of Jehovah". You will never hear a JW referring to organizational direction as coming from Jesus. But they will speak about organizational direction coming from Jehovah. You will see many NT texts where Jesus is praised by the writer, such as 2 Peter 3:18. But you will never hear a JW praising Jesus. JWs only talk about Jehovah, the organization and the faithful and discreet slave. Jesus is shoved in the background like he's someone they're ashamed of.
Island Man
JoinedPosts by Island Man
-
31
Do Jws even need Jesus?
by TTWSYF injust thinking out loud becauseof some things my elder brother has said in the past.
how his works help ensure his future w/the great crowd on earth.. .
well, i need jesus for my salvation,but perhaps some of you do not.. just asking.
-
-
-
9
Arguably the best debunker on YouTube
by Terry inthis fellow's channel is called watchtower examination.. he is clear, reasonable, thoughtful--but best of all--his teaching method with visuals is perfection!.
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukcep7v1i1o.
-
-
Island Man
He is very good. I think being a never-JW brings an advantage to the table. Ex-JWs - esp. born-ins - can sometimes miss certain disturbing things about JW culture simply because they have been desensitized by long exposure to it, or, as in the case of born-ins, it's all they've known all their life and so it may not strike them as odd. But a never-JW is more sensitive to all the craziness of JW culture because he was never acclimatized to the craziness.
-
18
Have you been J-SNUBBED? HOW RUDE!
by sparrowdown ini got to thinking the other day about how the wt uses loaded language.
and spin to give thinly veiled credence and so-called respectability to their policies.. but why not call a spade a spade.
why not identify the true nature of a policy,.
-
-
Island Man
"After the song, you may wish to remain standing for a few announcements." = just a polite way of telling you that you should remain standing for the announcements. There are other examples where commands are issued with the word may to make therm appear not to be commands.
Kingdom hall = JW church
Governing Body/Faithful and Discreet Slave = JW clergy, JW leaders.
"Our literature is without charge, but we accept contributions toward the worldwide work" = "I'm psychologically hinting to you that you should give me money for the magazines because I can't outright ask you for money for the magazines."
spirit directed = We're not outright saying that we're inspired (because then we'd be accused of being false prophets) but we want you to get the impression that we are inspired and treat our instructions accordingly.
Bible study (the person) = A living trophy for the publisher to show off at the kingdom hall.
Pioneering = The seeking of prominence and elitism disguised as doing more for Jehovah.
Bible study = Study of Watchtower doctrine in Watchtower literature with bible verses quoted and cited (often out of context) to prooftext Watchtower doctrine.
-
54
I have a TASK for you to perform. Come on--it will be FUN!
by Terry inlook up in the right-hand corner of this page.. find where it says welcome (name).. did you locate that?.
now click on your name and observe the new page loading takes you to a top blue bar with a menu.. it should read:.
active topics search members topics started .
-
-
-
33
Are you an "out of the closet" atheist?
by rebel8 ini'm atheist and not ashamed of it.
however, it is so politically incorrect, especially where i live.
i have a legitimate concern that being out of the closet too much will hurt my career or neighborly relations--i know for a fact it probably would.. i'm really cautious about who i tell.. how about you?
-
-
Island Man
"I'm atheist and not ashamed of it. However, it is so politically incorrect, especially where I live. I have a legitimate concern that being out of the closet too much will hurt my career or neighborly relations--I know for a fact it probably would.
I'm really cautious about who I tell."
I'm just like you rebel8.
-
3
The latest Zalkin press conference on a new pedophile case against Watchtower
by Island Man inhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwffgrqgemc.
-
-
Island Man
When you listen to what Zalkin says around the 23 minute mark it becomes obvious why Watchtower is now officially making COs fully responsible for the appointment of elders. It clearly appears to be Watchtower trying to escape legal culpability for the actions of elders. How long do you think it will be before Watchtower officially stops giving the elders policy directives in print and saying that would be the responisibility of the COs? I predict that will a future move to further avoid legal culpability for the policies the elders are told to follow.
-
3
The latest Zalkin press conference on a new pedophile case against Watchtower
by Island Man inhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwffgrqgemc.
-
-
-
3
Matthew 24:36-37
by lambsbottom inmatthew 24: 36 concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the son, but only the father.
37 for just as the days of noah were, so the presence (parousia) of the son of man will be.. i had always thought jws took 36 as meaning christ's coming at armageddon (erchomai), after the 1914 presence (parousia).
however, the greek word in 37 is parousia.
-
-
Island Man
Yes, Jesus was actually talking about the start of his parousia. Contrary to Watchtower's century long, invisible presence claim, Jesus' parousia starts with his final coming - not with a century of inivisible heavenly rule.
Note also, that Jesus was actually using the flood of Noah's day to make the point about his parousia coming at an unknown time. Watchtower inaccurately translates Matthew 24:39 as "and they took no note until the flood came ...". But the greek text doesn't say this. It actually says "and they did not know until the flood came...". Jesus was really saying the flood of Noah's day came at an unexpected time (because they too did not know what day it was coming) so they went about normal activities of life - eating, drinking, marrying, etc - up until the day of the flood. Notice how Jesus continues this point of being caught doing normal day-to-day activities in verse 40 where he says that his presence will catch some grinding at the mill and working in the field. So the whole point of Jesus' comparison with the days of Noah was to make the point about the sudden, unexpected nature of the timing of his presence, such that people will continue to be doing normal life activities up until the day he comes. When you logically follow the writers' flow of thought from verse 36 to verse 42 with an accurate translation and an open mind free of Watchtower bias, this becomes obvious.
The Watchtower is playing a game of linguistic technicalities with the word parousia trying to say it's different from Jesus final coming at armageddon. But really, Jesus final coming is what marks the start of his parousia. This is why Jesus uses the two terms interchangeably at Matthew 24:36-42. His presence starts with his coming so the technical difference in meaning between parousia and coming is irrelevant in the eschatological context that Jesus is speaking. Besides it's basic common sense that a person has to first come in order to be present. But Watchtower foolishes teahes the illogical concept that Jesus is present before he comes. I think they're confusing Jesus presence and coming with another kind of presence and coming, if you know what I mean. LOL.
There are other scriptures throughout the NT that imply that the presence starts with christ's final coming. 2 Peter 3:9 is one. Peter responds to the ridiculers asking "where is the promised presence" by saying that God is not slow respecting his promise (the promised presence) but is patient because he does not desire any to be destroyed, but desires all to attain to repentance. Do you see the implication of this verse? It implies that when the presence starts there would not be any more time left for any to repent. Therefore the presence starts with Jesus coming to destroy the wicked. But according to JWs 2 Peter 3:9 has to be a lie, because people have had a whole century of opportunity to repent after the presence started in 1914. See how screwed up JW eschatology really is? Note also that according to JW teaching, the ridiculers mentioned in 2 Peter 3:4 are actually living during the presence while asking where is the presence - because they're living in the last days which JWs say, started with the start of christ's presence. But Peter - and most JWs - seem to be completely oblivious to this irony.
Another scripture that implies a climactic start to christ's presence is James 5:7 - pay attention to the use of the word until in that verse. It clearly implies that christians no longer need to exercise patience once christ's presence starts as they will at that time be taken out of this trialsome world and receive their promised heavenly reward. But according to JW teaching, a christian who was alive at the start of christ's presence would have to continue exercising patience his whole life. This essentially invalidates the encouragement of James 5:7
-
19
So, are you thinking of coming back?
by kairos inthat's a crazy question.. they really mean, "do you regret your decesion to leave".. ---.
it's just an ice breaker to become nosy into one's personal life.. ---.
btw, last time i was asked this, no, everytime i'm asked this i reply with: "i'm never coming back".. they seem to hear that.. .
-
-
Island Man
My reply would be: "Hell no! What do you take me for, a masochist? Besides, Revelation says: 'get out of her, my people'! It doesn't say anything about returning to her, does it?"
-
17
Excusing the JW Child Abuse Scandals.
by Phizzy inmy question is prompted by a post of terry's on his own thread about a parable for jw's.
in that post terry shows how the standard jw response to any report of sex abuse within the borg is to use the "no true scotsman" fallacy.. i.e "he was not a real jw".. my question is for some time in the future, when the true, horrendous, extent of abuse within the borg is public knowledge, and the cognitive dissonance grows for jw's about this being endemic in "god's organization" for so long, how will they excuse it, or explain it, then ?.
how will they push away the obvious conclusion that jehovah must have approved of this going on, or he would have rectified it, not left it to the courts to pick up the broken pieces years later ?.
-
-
Island Man
A case could be made that the organization is not applying the 2-witness rule properly. A case can be made that JWs are following it by the letter but they are ignoring the deeper principle behind it.
In bible times, there weren't trained police investigators and forensic scientists so the testimony of eyewitnesses was regarded as the strongest kind of evidence. So the underlying principle behind the two witness rule is that a person should not be charged without there being any corroborating evidence to back up the allegation against him.
In modern times we have trained police investigators and forensic scientists who can get at the truth of a matter without having to rely solely on eyewitness testimony. So applying the two witness rule in modern times should mean that any allegations of child abuse should be immediately reported to the police for their investigation and the findings of such a police or forensic investigation should be sufficient to serve in the role of a second witness to act judicially against the offender or to let the matter rest if the investigation can't prove it.
Therefore a case can be made that the JWs are behaving like the pharisees, following the letter of law but ignoring the deeper principle, and in the process they're bringing reproach on Jehovah by insinuating they have no choice but to follow it that way resulting in repeated abuse of innocent children in the name of obeying God. There are always potentially 2 witnesses - if the JWs immediately report every allegation to the police for them to investigate. But the JWs have in the past decided to not opt to listen to the second witness that a police investigation would provide by their deliberate refusal to report to the police.
The GB is a bunch of wicked pharisees who whitewash their ivory tower with the tears of innocent children.