i had this thought while reading the co visit thread, and decided to make it a separate topic.. how much longer can they keep beating the slaves before there is a rebellion?
it is obvious that the trickle of people that are leaving is growing, and growing enough to make them worried.
at some point it may become a flood.
"We would not refuse to treat one as a brother because he did not believe the Society is the Lord's channel... There should be full liberty of conscience." -- WT April 1, 1920, p. 100, 101
Whatever happened to that noble idea? If it was a good idea in 1920, why is it anathema now?
i had this thought while reading the co visit thread, and decided to make it a separate topic.. how much longer can they keep beating the slaves before there is a rebellion?
it is obvious that the trickle of people that are leaving is growing, and growing enough to make them worried.
at some point it may become a flood.
Sad.
The real 'beginning of the end' started with Rutherford, a man whose books the Society never even uses any more. Putting a name on the Bible Students that brought no salvation to the Israelites (Isaiah 43:10) may have been a step backward.
The emphasis should have been on Christ and Christianity all along. Jesus said that honoring the Son meant that the Father would be honored also. Now belatedly there is some emphasis on Jesus. But identity as Christians still suffers.
once upon a time, the people of israel were tired from.
years of corruption and heavy taxation.
so, they told .
While I do not agree with some of your characterizations and conclusions, you do (unfortunately) have a substantial kernel of truth in your presentation.
But is anyone listening?
Will the structure bend, or will it break?
I think the whole thing would have turned out differently if the organization had remained "Bible Students" instead of becoming "Jehovah's Witnesses" as a patented identity. The nation of Israel were "Jehovah's Witnesses," but that alone did not save them.
Maybe it is safer for Christians to be...Christians.
the mighty hand of technology has written the above words on the walls of the wtbts and on every kingdom hall across the world.
there is a war taking place but it is not being fought by "apostates", which term is a clever ploy by the wtbs to claim the "moral highground".
this war is about "social injustice ", abuse of human and civil rights, repression of conscience .this war is not about doctrine or belief.
I think the point being made is that this doesn't matter anymore. "The horse is out of the barn," so to speak, and will not go back. It is no longer just a matter of opposers opposing. There are now also faithful people like Greg Stafford who are demanding that truth be separated from "traditions of men" in current dogma. Rather than hatred of Witnesses driving significant present moves, it is a sincere love for them.
occasionally i will vent my spleen about various bible characters i dont like.
i hope i dont bore all of you who would rather talk about limp bizkit or the size of your willies.. all my life i have had to put up with these seriously flawed individuals being described as marvellous examples to all jws.
ive already had a moan about david, now its jephthahs turn.
Now then, you may think that you have gone "deep" with a dissertation on the idiocy of the Jepthah story, whereas a "size of your willies" discusion is just fluff, but Jehovah disagrees. In fact he indicates that size matters (Ezk. 23:20)
Finally!!! Indisputable proof that the ancient Egyptians were Black! (See verse 19, also Eze. 16:26, footnote)
the society literature has given mixed messages, but older literature tended to lay the basis closer to the bible that those 'anointed' are not chosen according to position, age, or experience, but according to god's will.
as the decades of the 40s and 50s passed, the subsequent decades brought in the view that those chosen to be 'anointed' would be chronologically older, many years as very active jws, likely serving in some position such as pioneer for sisters and elder for men.. the reason for the changed view: given that the society stated that the "general' call to heaven ended in 1935, then only a few replacements would be needed to fill vacancies by 'anointed' who died unfaithful to jehovah.
to the society it stood to reason that jehovah would only call 'mature' individuals with much experience as very faithful jws ... but ... they never made this a hard and fast rule, so at times, some jws would feel they wanted to go to heaven, and managed somehow to overcome the cultural fear of being different by making such a profession of faith.. nevertheless, as jws of the other sheep aged in the 1980s and 1990s, the view toward younger, newer 'anointed' became more and more jaundiced.
Also, ...... to dispell this notion created by the Society that newer 'anointed' JWs must be nut cases ... because I find that even many ex-JWs carry this view with them for some reason.
Au contraire, it seems that you proved the Society to be right, after all. Reading your post, it would seem that events played out to show you were never of the anointed in the first place.
i have a sign in my front yard on a main highway.
it reads, "no child molesters, www.silentlambs.org".. last night evidently, someone took the sign.
now i live one mile from the kingdom hall, do you think it could have been jw's?
Why do you ass-u-me that it was one of Jehovah's Witnesses who took your sign, unless that would be some sort of silly vindication for you?
Jehovah's Witnesses are not the ones in the news now focusing on pedophilia. The perpetrator may just as well have been an irate Catholic.
Or anyone. Pedophiles do not all belong to one religion.
`due to the abundance of dynamic power'.
question; does this translation sound right?
"Sound right" according to what? English translation? Hebrew original?
in the april 1, 2002 issue of the watchtower, an article appears entitled "keep on serving jehovah with a steadfast heart".
paragraph 14 of this article states: "if jehovah's organization knowingly endorsed false teachings, advice to read the bible would never be given to jehovah's witnesses and those to whom they preach.".
i am withholding comment on this statement, because i'd like to hear from any who would like to post a response.
I think the operative word here is knowingly. This is an admission that false (incorrect) teachings may have been "endorsed" in the past due to lack of knowledge at the time.
back in the 1517 the catholic priest martin luther posted his "95 theses" on the door of a church in wittenberg and began the protestant reformation.
martin luther did not mean to start a revolution, though he attacked certain legalistic doctrines of the church and questioned the authority of the pope.
called to recant, he replied, "unless i am convinced of error by the testimony of scripture or by clear reason, i cannot and will not recant anything, for it is neither safe nor honest to act against one's conscience.".
Seems like we posted at the same time :-)
Pre-publication orders were filled first. Other orders seem to be sent late. A lot of people who ordered the book haven't received it yet.
Someone did point out that the name "Elihu Books" may have given an advance indication of what was coming. In the Bible, Elihu is the young man who reproves the old man Job, and was commended for doing so. Even though Job was called an "upright man," he erred in his thinking. Elihu had to set him straight.
