While I don't think that serving the WT is a priviledge, helping your fellow man, even by doing menial tasks is a priviledge.
Watch the movie Ghandi, its good
from the smallest to the biggest task in the organization, they will call it a privilege.
cleaning the toilet, passing the microphone, saying a prayer in public and so on.
did you consider each task they gave you to be a privilege?
While I don't think that serving the WT is a priviledge, helping your fellow man, even by doing menial tasks is a priviledge.
Watch the movie Ghandi, its good
the watchtower, august 1, 2002 issue, pages 14 and 22:
the watchtower, june 15, 1957 issue, page 370: .
the watchtower, june 1, 1955 issue, page 333: .
Good job researching, but I feel that its kind of useless to bring it up with JWs because they are quite illogical with their apostate logic errors. It does, however, confirm our non-faith in the GB, FS, and the WTBTS
does anyone remember the old joke about the sadduccees, that they didn't believe in the resurrection and that's why they were "sad-you-see"?
i think that on the whole, the sadduccees get pretty bad press from both jews and christians and i've often thought that maybe they don't entirely deserve it.
i know that they are said to have been "the establishment", collaborating with the romans and trying to keep a lid on the trouble being stirred up by the pharisees, the zealots, and the assorted messianic movements in order to preserve their own privileges and status.
Heres the "problem" with the Sadduccees:
They didn't believe in the resurrection. For them, the here and now was all that there was and you should care for yourself and stay out of sin to avoid punishment from God. Lets say someone was blind, a Sadduccee would conclude that he must have been a terrible sinner to deserve such punishment.
I would have more to say, but its late :)
a friend of mine was recently disfellowshipped (lets call him john, false name but serves the purpose of this).
he was a ministerial servant within the cong (heading for elder).
anyway, he got back in touch after the "fall".
Thanks for affirming that we can make a difference
if jesus were a jw, do you think he would be disfellowshipped for his conduct?
"whatever you do to the least.........that you do unto me" He already has been
Thats quite insightful A Paduan. I also sure that Jesus would doubt a man made organization that claims to be God's prophet to the world (plus he has a beard, they'd expect he was up to something and find a reason to DF him )
just wondering....
If they COULD I wouldn't care, but they can't because I never got baptised
lurkers come in and out of this forum.
some lurkers suddenly have bouts of righteous indignation and become trolls that lash out at some of the subject matter posted here by x-jw's.
they accuse many of "leaving jehovah" for fleshly desires.
Because it wasn't
in bible times the phrase "the son of god" was understood as a claim to the nature of god, not a claim to be a lesser being:.
" john 19:7. .
ron rhodes commments:.
"God replied, "I am who am." Then he added, "This is what you shall tell the Israelites: I AM sent me to you." God spoke further to Moses, "Thus shall you say to the Israelites: The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. "This is my name forever; this is my title for all generations." (Exodus 3: 14-15)
"I am who am: apparently this utterance is the source of the word Yahweh, the proper personal name of the God of Israel. It is commonly explained in reference to God as the absolute and necessary Being. It may be understood of God as the Source of all created beings. Out of reverence for this name, the term Adonai, "my Lord," was later used as a substitute. The word LORD in the present version represents this traditional usage. The word "Jehovah" arose from a false reading of this name as it is written in the current Hebrew text." (Ch 3 Footnote, NAB)
Jesus called himself by the divine name, why else would they pick up stones to throw at him?
in bible times the phrase "the son of god" was understood as a claim to the nature of god, not a claim to be a lesser being:.
" john 19:7. .
ron rhodes commments:.
"Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I AM."
So they picked up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid and went out of the temple area."
(John 8:58)
why do you think that jws are so against putting all their beliefs down into a creed?
is it because they realised it would change so often?.
i always remembered in the das that they would criticise other christian denominations for having creeds, but if you asked them their faith in a nutshell, would they be able to tell you?
Why do you think that JWs are so against putting all their beliefs down into a creed? Is it because they realised it would change so often?
I always remembered in the DAs that they would criticise other Christian denominations for having creeds, but if you asked them their faith in a nutshell, would they be able to tell you? And remember how they always tell stories of a priest who didn't believe and someone told him to think "they believe" instead of "we believe." What I always found interesting about this story is, how could they prove it? I mean, what priest who still practised would spread a story like that, even if he didn't believe. I think its a fabrication, what d'you think?