Watchtower actually abuses the Lord's Evening meal for marketing purposes. It's basically a public spectacle, giving them an opportunity to sell the religion to the public by essentially saying: "See! we believe in Jesus. We do honor Jesus, contrary to what you've heard.". Of late, it's also an opportunity to boast about having a website with information available in over 700 languages. Is it really necessary to tell the public how many languages the information is available in? No. They're shamelessly and opportunistically capitalizing on what should be a sacred event, honoring christ, to bring glory to their man-made organization and website.
Island Man
JoinedPosts by Island Man
-
21
It's so awkward that people have to touch the emblems
by thedepressedsoul init's just so weird to me.
for a group that is against idolatry so much and yet each person has to "touch" the bread and wine.. one lady was standing and holding a baby.
she called the server over just so she could put her thumb on the bread and wine.. did jesus ever clarify what he wanted them to do in remembrance of him?
-
-
-
21
It's so awkward that people have to touch the emblems
by thedepressedsoul init's just so weird to me.
for a group that is against idolatry so much and yet each person has to "touch" the bread and wine.. one lady was standing and holding a baby.
she called the server over just so she could put her thumb on the bread and wine.. did jesus ever clarify what he wanted them to do in remembrance of him?
-
-
Island Man
I think it boils down to human psychology and outward appearances.
Jesus commanded his followers to eat of the bread and drink of the wine. That is the objective behind him passing it to them. He didn't want them to pass it just for the sake of passing it. Passing the emblems is not an end in and of itself. Also, Jesus was not commanded the mere attendance at the event. Attendance is not an end in and of itself. Attendance is only a means toward the ultimate end of partaking. Thus, if one is not going to partake then there is no need to pass the emblems to him. In fact there would be no need to be present at all! But this reality would raise very ugly implications for the JWs.
In most congregations there aren't any anointed JWs. So there is no need to pass the emblems. In fact, there is no need to have the observance at all since the observance is ultimately about partaking of the emblems. So if JWs were to really be truthful and practical about this issue, most congregations should not be having this observance, and for those that do have it, only the anointed should be in attendance. Did Jesus instruct his disciples to make the event a public spectacle inviting all, including non-christians, to be "respectful observers"?
But if JW congregations were to rightly not have the observance (based on JW theology of who is not to partake) that would show up the JWs in a very ugly light. Their disobedience to Jesus would be shown up too starkly to the public. So to resolve this they have to dishonestly shift Jesus' requirement for the event from one of partaking to one of being in attendance. That is why you will hear JWs say, without thinking, that they attend the Lord's evening meal in obedience to Jesus. Really? Did Jesus command his followers to be present? No. He commanded them to partake. Being present is only a means to that end. If you're present but not partaking then you're not obeying Jesus' command. So they have the event to give the impression of obeying Jesus. But even that is not enough.
If they had the event and did not pass the bread and the wine that too would show up their ugliness too starkly. So they go even further by passing the bread and the wine to people they know are not anointed and will not partake! Why? Again it's to give the impression that they're obeying Jesus. "Jesus disciples passed the bread and the wine and so do we. See? We're doing exactly what the first century christians did. We're not strange! We're not a cult! We're passing the bread and the wine in obedience to Jesus, see?"
So it all amounts to this: They (Watchtower) are acutely aware that they're not doing exactly what Jesus commanded and they feel self-conscious about it. They are worried that it shows them up in a bad light. So to combat this they do their best to do as much as possible to produce the outward atmosphere and image of partaking, without actually partaking. This is why they put so much effort effort into having the observance on the right day and at the right time - after sunset - and making sure the bread is without salt and the wine is unfortified, etc. All of this minutiae of legalisms is a psychological way of professing their righteousness and making up for the fact that they're disobeying Jesus' command to partake.
Here's an interesting thing to ponder on: when was the last time you saw, in Watchtower literature, an evening meal scene showing one of the disciples actually in the process of biting of the bread or drinking from the cup? I can't remember ever seeing that. It always shows them passing the emblems but never in the moment of eating it. So Watchtower is shaping the subconscious of JWs to associate the memorial with passing the emblems - not actually partaking.
-
15
You are tomato sauce...
by rrb2016 inthe wife and i went to the memorial strictly out of respect for my mother-in-law last night.
luckily our 20 month-old grand-baby was restless and making noise, so i quickly volunteered to take him in the back.
so i didn't have to listen to the presentation.
-
-
Island Man
That illustration is an insult! It implies that the anointed are inherently better people than the other sheep. I doubt that illustration would have been approved by Watchtower. I believe the outline gives the speaker the freedom to use his own illustration based on local culture. This speaker's choice of illustration was thoughtless. -
23
Why did Jesus have to suffer?? Something I never thought about.
by ttdtt insomething dawned on me last night.
jesus was suposed to be a corresponding sacrifice for adam right?.
a perfect life for a perfect life.
-
-
Island Man
I think the explanation for why Jesus had to suffer is that Jesus served in a role similar to Job in that he proved it is possible for a human to remain faithful to God even under great trial and suffering. So they say that Jesus' faithful endurance of suffering proved false Satan's charge that humans only serve God in favorable circumstance and abandon him when things get bad. But there's another side to the subject of human integrity that neither Job or Jesus answered and that has never be tested and it's this:
Do humans serve God because they truly love him, or because of the promise of a future reward for the faithful and destruction for the unfaithful?
This is the more important test of integrity that the bible does not address. As long as there is a reward for obedience and punishment for disobedience, it cannot be demonstrated that human's obedience to God is borne of pure love untainted by selfish motives.
-
-
-
Island Man
-
1
The Kindness of an Atheist
by undercover ina song lyric i heard the other day, paraphrased:.
nothing is as good as the kindness from an atheistan act of selflessness that never has to be repaid.
interesting thought.
-
-
Island Man
Jesus is quoting as saying: "Happy is he that believes without seeing". I say: "Righteous is he that does good without believing. For if you do good expecting to be rewarded by God, or for fear of punishment, of what credit is it to you? Do not sinners also do good with the expectation of a reward, or to avoid punishment?"
You know that point JWs make about God allowing Job's integrity to be tested, so it can be seen if Job only served God because things were going well with him? Well I believe the point you're making actually raises an even bigger question about worshipers motives in serving God. How is it that Satan never challenged man's integrity on the grounds that humans are only obedient because they look forward to a future reward from God and/or to avoid future punishment/destruction? Isn't that a far bigger and more pertinent issue when it comes to human integrity. You would think that Satan would have addressed that first because the story of Job does not address it, for even while Job was suffering he was still looking forward to future reward for his faithfulness - the resurrection. (See Job 14)
The bible does not in any way address this issue. So what if a rebel accuses God of bribing and scaring humans to be good by promising them future reward or future destruction? How is god going to handle that issue transparently for all creation to see that such accusations are false? I think this is a major moral issue that the bible and JWs have overlooked.
-
59
Sweet 16 - Happy Birthday to Us !
by Simon init's the forum's 16th birthday today!.
amazing that not only have we lasted so long but we're still thriving and growing.. thanks to all the people and often colorful characters who've contributed to the site over the years.
some are still here with us, some have since moved on, but all have touched each others lives in some way along our different journeys.. .
-
-
Island Man
Simon's first OP - as far as I can tell - from16 years ago:
Welcome to the newest Jehovah's Witness discussion forum on the Net.
Please register so that you can post to the forum and turn this into a welcoming place for other brothers and sisters online
A little further down the thread Simon writes:
Hi ManofTrueGod
We've had a few introductions from people (on another topic somewhere) but I'm hoping it won't need to become as formal and intimidating to register with as some of the other forums.
It does mean that we only know about people what they will tell us. I think it's more important to go off what people say than who they say they are (after all, imposters will tell us that they are JWs the same as genuine ones will so how can we tell if not by what they say)Wow! Simon was a died in the wool JW, paranoid about apostates and all! LOL. It's amazing how much we can change in life once we practice intellectual honesty and follow the evidence no matter where it leads.
-
95
Evolution is a Fact #31 - Ten Questions for Creationists
by cofty ini thought this would be a good time to pose some questions based on the series so far.. if creationism is true these should be easy.
answers that don't involve copy-paste would be really interesting to read.. ... .
1. since some proteins can be assembled in more ways than there are atoms in the universe why do the sequences of amino acids and bases vary between species in exactly the way evolution predicts?
-
-
Island Man
"In answer to all your questions: We do not have all the answers at this time. Perhaps Jehovah will fill us in on the details in the New System. We just need to wait on Jehovah and put faith in what bible says and not be swayed by the satanic propaganda being spouted by worldly scientists."
LOL.
-
29
Is this a site controlled by atheists?
by The Rebel inunder the exterior of being an ex- witness site, is this site simply converting atheism?.
i pose the question, because many come here in distress and insecurity with the realization that the w.t is wrong but still retain a belief in god.
my personal opinion is the threads on god are not challenged by an atheists personal animosity to believers, they are challenged and become confrontational because the atheist wants an elaboration and factual proof to a believers faith.. is this unreasonable?
-
-
Island Man
Simon is an atheist, so yeah, this site is controlled by atheists. Atheists rule! Yeah!!
-
6
The Original Sin - Emperor’s New Suit
by learnaway inintroduction: most religions based on the bible, have been teaching paul’s propagated doctrine for thousands of years which claims that human beings are born with the original sin, inherited from adam, thereby redemption is required.
it is not enough to be described with a few lines of explanation that paul’s doctrine is false, because this examination goes against the faith of the redemption doctrine, which cultivated by tertullian, augustine, calvin; and gave a source of power and enormous wealth for the church for many millennia.
however, hopefully readers could grasp the undeniable truth regarding original sin and redemption..
-
-
Island Man
According to the Genesis account, Satan never lied to mankind. Their eyes opened just like he said it would. And they did not die in the very day of eating it - just like satan said they would not - contrary to God's claim that they would. Also, because of eating of the fruit, man has the opportunity to go to heaven and live like a god with God, forever! Would man have had that glorious opportunity had Adam and Eve not eaten of the fruit? So Satan's claims turn out to be spot on! It is God's claim that they will die in the very day of eating the fruit, that turned out to be a lie.
I don't believe the writer of Genesis 3 was attempting to portray Satan as a liar. In fact I don't believe the writer of Genesis 3 was even knew about Satan! The first 3 chapters is obviously an ancient creation myth in the tradition of "Just So" fables designed to provide answers to such questions as:
Where did the world and all humans and animals come from?
Why are people ashamed to be naked?
Why do women have painful childbirth?
Why do men have one shorter rib than women?
Why do men dominate women?
Why do we have to work so hard to live?
Why do we die?
Why do serpents not have legs?
The chapters were later coopted and reinterpreted as having deeper symbolic meaning and that's how the serpent came to regarded as being satan or satan's puppet. There is nothing in the text itself to indicate the snake is being manipulated by satan, In fact, the text itself explains the serpent's conversation with Eve by saying that serpents are by nature very wise/crafty. So not only does the writer not give any indication of the snake being manipulated by a higher power, he also give the impression that the snake is acting that way because of its own inherent nature!