Wednesday, September 10, 2008

September 1st Watchtower Regarding Higher Education

On Page 10 of the magazine:
What will be the "End Afterward"?
Young people are often exposed to temptations and pressures to experiment with things that seem popular. Here are some likely scenarios.
Someone dares you to smoke a cigerette.
A well-intentioned teacher urges you to pursue higher education at a university.
You are invited to a party where alcohol and possibly drugs will be freely available.
"Why don't you post your profile on the Internet?" someone suggests.
A friend invites you to watch a movie that features violence or immorality.
If you are ever confronted with any of such situations, what will you do? Will you simply give in, or will you carefully consider what the "end afterward" could be? You would be wise to ask yourself: "Can a man rake together fire into his bosom and yet his very garments not be burned? Or can a man walk upon the coals and his feet themselves not be scorched?" - Prov 6:27,28
Can you believe that they equate smoking, drugs and violence with a university education? How many young intelligent young people will be coerced into making a lifetime decision based on "wisdom" like this from the Governing Body.
When the Watchtower was still using dates they made this prediction in the May 22, 1969 Watchtower.
If you are a young person, you also need to face the fact that you will never grow old in this system of things. Why not? Because all the evidence in fulfilment of Bible prophecy indicates that this corrupt system is due to end in a few years. Of the generation that observed the beginning of the "last days" in 1914, Jesus foretold: This generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur" - Math.24:34. Therefore, as a young person, you will never fulfil any career that this system offers. If you are in high school and thinking about college education, it means at least four, perhaps even six or eight more years to graduate into a specialized career. But where will this system be by that time? It will be well on the way toward it's finish, if not actually gone!
(Oh, yeah. They really know what they're talking about!)

163 comments:

kimmy jo said...

If they keep them uneducated they keep them in the watchtower. It all reads as scare tactics, they must produce fear of the outside world in order to keep them IN the WATCHTOWER.

Why would they not encourage the 'natural inclination' to learn and be creative? What are they trying to keep from their members?

The watchtower does not want them to learn to 'think'. THINKING may cause followers to take a closer LOOK at the religion, and judge it with REASON.

OH MY, THEY MAY 'LEARN' TO USE THEIR 'GOD GIVEN' THINKING ABILITY!!!!!!
That would spell trouble for the watchtower.

Free said...

Education = The Devil
Smoking = The Devil
Internet Profile = The Devil
Testing WT Teaching = The Devil

What is this, The Waterboy?

Answer: Yes.

Anonymous said...

There is no such thing as a May 22, 1969 Watchtower. It has to either be a May 1 or May 15 Watchtower or a May 22 Awake.

Freynar said...

"There is no such thing as a May 22, 1969 Watchtower. It has to either be a May 1 or May 15 Watchtower or a May 22 Awake."

Very smart of you noticing that. This is another profe about the lies you get on this internet page.

Anonymous said...

I suppose the question might be, why the fear of colleges and education? The college enviornment is not always the best and the attitude toward God and any religion is not welcoming. But if we have trained our children and they know what the Bible says, this should not be as big a problem. By college age, these young people should be trained and well equiped to handle the temptations of the college enviornment.

The problem is...they are not, and that is partly the fault of their parents.

Advanced education is not always in the form of college, but striving to always learn more and become accomplished should be everyone's goal. We live with a view to "eternity" wherein we will be "forever" learning. Knowledge and learning isn't limited to a 12 year stint as a "student". We, should have a better attitude about learning all the time.

Some have not gone to college but because of their work ethics they have advanced and done well in some company or job. Even then they are constantly learning and will go to college to take some classes for help at that job. They have the attitude of continual learning.

College doesn't necessarily equal an educated person and no college does not equal an ignorant person either. The advantage of the college education is the certificate that says you did the leg work.

But either way, it is the individuals choice, baring economic restraints and pressure from others. Let the individual decide and then accept the consequences. Everyone needs to mind their own business.

Finally, I do not think the most Intelligent being in the Universe would ever discourage taking in knowledge. But I do think Jehovah would want us to be discerning as to what kind of garbage we might shovel into our imperfect brains at this time. Be careful!

Nathan said...

Summed up quite nicely "anonymous"

steve said...

'Very smart of you noticing that. This is another profe about the lies you get on this internet page.'

For your information it was the AWAKE! and it was a typo, not a lie.

HERE IS A LIE:

'Therefore, as a young person, YOU WILL NEVER fulfil any career that this system offers.'

I was 11 when this Awake came out. I am 51 now. I could easily have FULFILLED a career. Instead, I never went to college, have been a window cleaner for most of my life, and do not have a pension. Why? Because I believed the LIE..another one this article contains:

'If you are a young person, you also need to face the fact that you WILL NEVER GROW OLD in this system of things. Because...this corrupt system is due to end in a FEW years.'

Well, I am getting old and here they are churning out the same crap to a new generation of JWs.

BrotherInFlorida said...

Anon, you're getting dangerous close to what the Society would term "independent thinking." Be careful not to slip up and say that at a meeting.

My elders would flip if they heard you say that!

Anonymous said...

It is amazing how defensive ones are of the society, but that is the way we have been trained from infancy. It has been eye opening for me to read the references referred to on this web site & others. The back and forth talk, the prediction of dates-come on- I would let the truth Then.

slouch said...

I know exactly what broinflorida is saying. The body here in Oklahoma would perform a public hanging if they heard any brother say something like anon. free was sorta right when he said higher ed is the devil. Personally i like anon's view, but i've seen brothers get removed and privileges lost for saying less from the stage.

Anonymous said...

Can you please provide a correct reference to the AW that was used. I have the May 22, 1969 and have not found that quote...please give a page # at least

Anonymous said...

To Steve:

Fifty one isn't old in this day and age. Thousands of people have started a whole new career or vocation later in their life.

Are you going to sit around for the next thirty years and whine. You are a grown man, stop "blaming" the Watchtower. Whaaaa.... It is people like you that make the above arguements seem plausable. Get a life!

Right this minute make a decision to move ahead and be productive. Haven't you heard that retirement isn't always the best thing to do for your health. Be productive, start some new projects, go to college NOW.

Get off your butt and stop whining on this blog. DO SOMETHING!

Anonymous said...

page 15

kimmy jo said...

Steve,

you are right...

anon,

you are rude in your reply to Steve and it shows off your ridged limited thinking ability. you MUST be a JW.

higher education causes one to 'exercise' their brains rather than just listen and follow directions.

steve said...

Thanks Kimmy Jo

Typical JW response from 'anonymous'. Attack the person and avoid the truth.

I was giving a personal account of how the GB has lied over the years and how it affects people.


1. 'Fifty one isn't old in this day and age'

I didnt say it was old. I stated I am growing old as opposed to what the magazine said.

2.'Are you going to sit around for the next thirty years and whine.'

How do you know if I am sitting around or not? I wasnt whining. I was stating facts.

3. 'Haven't you heard that retirement isn't always the best thing to do for your health.'

What has that got to do with anything? Just a red herring thrown in as well as the ad hominens.

4. 'Get a life!'

I have one. It started when I left the JWs.

5.'It is people like you that make the above arguements seem plausable.'

Yes, because I told the truth. It's people like you that help others to see what the JWs are really like.

You know nothing about me. But you assume so much. Just like the Watchtower magazine does about 'apostates.' You should hand your resume in at Bethel. They will have you on the Writing Committee in no time.

Nathan said...

"You know nothing about me. But you assume so much."

Maybe all those posters here who don't like JWs (as a religion) should think about that statement a little, because this is what they usually do!

Anonymous said...

A headline said:

Student Auctioning Virginity at Brothel

A 22-year-old woman in the United States is publicly auctioning her virginity to pay for her college education, sparking a heated online debate about sex and morality.

Ronde said...

I don't believe anyone is here defending the Watchtower Society.

The JWs here are defending the faith from attacks from Satanists.

Anonymous said...

Kimmy Jo:

I am sorry if I sounded rude to the 51 year old window washer who can't seem to find the registration office of the local Community College.

Since he is so young I was trying to give him a kick in the ass since he has so much life left. I may have been too harsh, but someone who has no pension and has washed windows all those years without planning for the future....well I just thought he needed a boost, not a scape goat to blame.

I am not attacking the person. I have no idea why this man had not made much progress. He stated it was because he was waiting for Armageddon due to what the Watchtower wrote.

I am sorry I thought the man was whining. I guess I misunderstood his stated complaints and couldn't find any statements of progress after leaving the Organization of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Many people from all over the world have regrets over their past. Some move toward better times and some just live in the past. I am sorry I misinterpeted Steve's post.

I hope he is able to move on and be happy in life.

Anonymous said...

Ronde,

How long have you been a JW if I may ask? Ive been one for 10 years (AZ spanish cong). Whats the highest rank or position you have held in your congregation? Ive been recommended to several positions by our circuit orverseer but thats about it, at periods I can stay active while other times its just going to the meetings and answering questions. Im just curios about the type of brother you are.

Bullhead city AZ, Riviera Cong. Spanish

Anonymous said...

anyone else 'defending the faith' wants to share with me their cong. and or the general activity they are actively pursuing(goals)? Like goals to become an elder, prioneer, go to bethel, ect. Ronde?....anyone? Its just that I see people like ronde defending our faith vigirously which I would take it he is very sealous in his ministry and should have long term ministry goals. My parents want me to become an elder (im in my 20's).

Bullhead city AZ, Riviera Cong. Spanish

Anonymous said...

Oh...I am just wondering????Is it rude and showing limited thinking when I encouraged college to Steve, but not rude when you belittle anyone who is a JW and did not get a college education?

Is this a double standard or what?

You can't have it both ways Kimmy Jo!

Ronde said...

So much for eduction and JWs being poor and the lack of university leads to poorness.

Tampa's newspaper reports on one of Tampa's wealthiest men.
They quote him as saying" As you know, we are Jehovah's Witnesses, and our No. 1 priority will always be church. Doesn't mean we need to write a big check — nobody gets a salary — but there are bills that need to be taken care of."

And his wife said:" As Jehovah's Witnesses, we're very concerned about our neighbors. Makes us more sensitive to the needs of the community."

Reporter: "How do you choose which causes to help?"

"You get a lot of requests, more than you ever dreamed, and you have to decide what's important to you. We sat down and put them in order. First thing is at-risk kids and families. Second is medicine and health research. Third, education, which is really tied to kids and families. Fourth is community, giving money for a new park or the Riverwalk. Last is cultural things and art. That's how we allocate our resources.

Reporter: "Just last month, he and his wife gave $2 million to Tampa General Hospital."

Ronde said...

anon said;
"How long have you been a JW if I may ask? "

22 years.


"Ive been one for 10 years (AZ spanish cong). Whats the highest rank or position you have held in your congregation?"

Our congregations do not have ranks or positions. They have areas of oversight.

" Im just curios about the type of brother you are."

I don't define activity by field service and appointments and such.
In the summer I don't get much service because it is too hot.

I am very studious in things that are not from the watchtower, that is why I don't like people saying that I follow the WT only.

I'm not really interested in being a MS or elder as one has to be a people person or brown noser even, or get lots of service time in.

What types of brothers are there?

From what I see, there are liberals who focus on the Society but ridicule it such as the ones here, and there are conservatives who focus on the Society and follow it. And then there are independents who don't focus on the Society but wisely use what is best from the Society. I am that.

Ronde said...

anon:

Kimmy Jo is a troll

Anonymous said...

'I'm not really interested in being a MS or elder as ONE HAS TO BE A PEOPLE PERSON or brown noser even, or get lots of service time in.'

I think that sentence speaks volumes about you Ronde.

ALL JWS should be 'people persons.'

Anonymous said...

Thank you Ronde for chairing that with me..

but then what are 'we' doing here? I don't think we are that devoted if we are haning around here. I remmember a dramma about a brother surfing the net that was shocked to read some thing against JW's, he immediatly closed his laptop and prayed for forgiveness to Jehova for having even just 'looked' at it and promised he would not do it again. Any one remmeber seeing that? (A couple of years ago) since then our organization has greatly emphasized avoiding websites like these, no matter how 'strong' you might thing you are. I think ronde, and all other anon(s) that are JW's, including my self are not doing so good in their cong. Im sure there's more they can do in the ministry but dont, and if the circuit orverseer reviewed our preacher cards, he would find that we are not exemplary witnesses or are 'weak'. For some odd reason we like returning to these websites for what? To defend our faith? Well, as far as our directions from our organization is that this is not one way of doing it, but rather going door to door or in public, by phone, or other means, never, ever has it been encouraged to be done by internet. Surely we want to be obedient, therefore we must avoid sites like these if we are to remain loyal, and follow the guidance of 'our' discreet slave.

(I don't like the way I sound....lol)

Bullhead city AZ, Riviera Cong. Spanish

steve said...

'Therefore, as a young person, you will never fulfil any career that this system offers. If you are in high school and thinking about college education, it means at least four, perhaps even six or eight more years to graduate into a specialized career. But where will this system be by that time? It will be well on the way toward it's finish, if not actually gone!'

Sorry I misread this, but to me (and to thousands of others)it is saying, Dont go into higher education!

In the early 1970's there was a great deal of pressure to pioneer when you left school. In England you left school at 16. You were the odd one out in the congregation and made to feel it if you didn't get a part time job and pioneer.

I remember a CO giving a talk and saying, 'Can you young single ones give a reason to Jehovah why you are not pioneering? If you are working full time when you could be giving that time to Jehovah, do you think that He is pleased with you?

Circuit Overseers had a lot of influence, especially on a young impressionable person, who believed they were passing down Jehovah's thoughts from the men in Brooklyn.

You can say all you want about JWs having free will and being able to do whatever they want, but just because you can pull out a story of some rich man who is a JW, who would be viewed, (simply by dint of the fact that he is rich) as not very spiritual (like the 'celebrity' JWs) does not mean that there is not great pressure upon JWs to forsake going to college, and embarking on a chosen career in life.

As to pensions, either the new system is 'just around the corner', like it has been since the late 1800's, or Jehovah will look after you.

I am sorry anonymous (the one who insulted me) I thought you were a JW. You obviously have never been one or you would understand why I chose to wash windows and not plan for my future financially.

Anonymous said...

'Well, as far as our directions from our organization is that this is not one way of doing it, but rather going door to door or in public, by phone, or other means, never, ever has it been encouraged to be done by internet.'

Now that is a true JW speaking and I respect you far more for being honest than the mavericks that frequent this blog, trying to convince us that it is so different from what we all have experienced.

Ronde said...

"I think that sentence speaks volumes about you Ronde.
ALL JWS should be 'people persons.' "

Jonah wasn't.
Sampson wasn't.

They were used by Jehovah.

Ronde said...

"but then what are 'we' doing here?"

Kicking apostate butt like we should.

" I don't think we are that devoted if we are haning around here."

Why not? Isn't the US forces devoted when they search caves for Bin Ladion?

" I remmember a dramma about a brother surfing the net that was shocked to read some thing against JW's, he immediatly closed his laptop and prayed for forgiveness to Jehova for having even just 'looked' at it and promised he would not do it again."

That was in a demonstration at the 2006 DC outline. They are often exaggerated.

To need forgiveness, it must first be a sin.

" Any one remmeber seeing that? (A couple of years ago) since then our organization has greatly emphasized avoiding websites like these, no matter how 'strong' you might thing you are. "

And those that are afraid and stay out choose to be weak.

"I think ronde, and all other anon(s) that are JW's, including my self are not doing so good in their cong. Im sure there's more they can do in the ministry but dont,"

I am doing great but my congregation does not need me, we have more pioneers than territoires, plenty of elders and servants. I serve where the need is greater, the internet.


" and if the circuit orverseer reviewed our preacher cards, he would find that we are not exemplary witnesses or are 'weak'."

But judging by cards is not the best way.

" For some odd reason we like returning to these websites for what? To defend our faith?"

To kick apostate butt.

" Well, as far as our directions from our organization is that this is not one way of doing it, but rather going door to door or in public, by phone, or other means, never, ever has it been encouraged to be done by internet."

Well, if I could meet these people in those areas I would do that.


" Surely we want to be obedient, therefore we must avoid sites like these if we are to remain loyal, and follow the guidance of 'our' discreet slave."

I am not one who goes by those guidelnes. Loyalty is not about following guidelines. It is about kicking apostate butt.

Ronde said...

Steve said:
"
Sorry I misread this, but to me (and to thousands of others)it is saying, Dont go into higher education! "

No, it is saying "you will never fulfil any career that this system offers"

The job of the WT writers and the KM writers and the COs, etc is to encourage ones to increase their service to Jehovah. That's their job. that's what they do. They do it well.

But it does not mean that we have to follow it. We can be JWs and be the kind we want to be.

Ronde said...

"Now that is a true JW speaking and I respect you far more for being honest than the mavericks that frequent this blog, trying to convince us that it is so different from what we all have experienced. "

Well, that is not representative of JWs as a whole.

chocolatepuddingeyes said...

I'd like to see some scriptural support for "kicking apostate butt."

I know the scriptures that support preaching the good news and forgiveness of sins through Jesus (Matt. 28:19,20, Luke 8:1, 24:47; Acts 2:38, 13:38, 17:30, 26:20).

Apparently, most of those that post here that support what GBL is doing have already been baptized as JW's, some (if not most) having spent decades in the religion.

Those who are here to "kick apostate butt" are not providing any solid basis or reasons for those who have left the JW religion to repent and return to it. Why is that?

The arguments made by the opposers of this blog only confirm the reasons why many of us have left the JW religion. Which likely assists those who are sitting on the fence, wondering if they should stay in or get out. The end result is that opposers, like Ronde, are actually supporting the efforts of GBL and others to make JW's aware of the real issues.

For decades I was convinced that I had to be a member in good standing inside the JW religion in order to have any hope of surviving Armageddon. It's brothers and sisters who posted information on the internet who helped me to see the truth about the whole situation and what taking sides with Jehovah really means.

All those years of being taught by the WTS how to identify false religion and what to do if you find out that the organization you are associated with is not in harmony with the Bible, have finally come to fruition.

So-called "apostate sites" were the key that opened up the door to leaving, but it was the teachings of the JW religion that convinced me that I had to leave.

One of the most significant illustrations that I remember over the years was the one where they talk about a glass of water with one drop of poison in it. Anybody else remember that illustration?

Even so, it took more than one drop of poison before I could let go of the org. because I had been convinced for so many years that my everlasting life depended on being a member in good standing.

The real message of the good news is so simple.

(John 8:31-32) . . .“If YOU remain in my word, YOU are really my disciples, 32 and YOU will know the truth, and the truth will set YOU free.”. . .

kimmy jo said...

"One of the most significant illustrations that I remember over the years was the one where they talk about a glass of water with one drop of poison in it. Anybody else remember that illustration?"


Yes, this I remember well and it stuck in my mind along with all the talks about identifying false religion. Putting it all together and using this to look at the Watchtower Society and JW's who follow them I found that they fail the true religious standards they themselves set and they have lots of specks of shit in their water.

The warning that the Watchtower sends when you discover that you are part of false religion is to 'get out of her' because 'babylon the great' will be destroyed!

What then will you do, keep drinking that water?

I am with you chocolatepuddingeyes...OUT of the lie.

chocolatepuddingeyes said...

Kimmy Jo,

Exactly my thoughts. I see how the religion has played a part in Bible education worldwide, but I also see how it is being used to achieve Satan's goals. That's where understanding about the wheat and the weeds, the evil slave and the good and faithful slave comes into play, imo.

I think it's very important for people to take sides with Jehovah by not supporting that religion in any way, shape, or form. I know a lot of brothers and sisters that disagree with me, but I figure if they aren't ready to let go, I'm not going to force the issue. They have to come to that understanding on their own, by doing the same things I did.

Anonymous said...

ronde

your such an idiot.

JoePublish said...

And, he's proud of it! Look at his comment (quoted below):

"Kicking apostate butt like we should."

I can hear that Rocky theme playing in her room now! LOL

What a whack-case.

JoePublish said...

Great posts on this site and this particular thread (Kimmy Jo, Chocolatepuddingeyes, Steve and others - who are currently JW's but wavering or weak).

Any JW viewing these expressions is going to have their eyes opened wide!

Interesting how the Governing Body opts not to defend their faith but leaves it up to their JW mavericks in the organization - I say mavericks because no JW's is suppose to be on this web-blog - IT'S NOT BEING FAITHFUL TO THE FAITHFUL AND DISCREET SLAVES'S DIRECTION... YOU KNOW, THE PEOPLE HAND-PICKED BY GOD.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for your answers Ronde, you have every right to do what you please- "kick apostate butt" I wish I could say that my congregation does not need me.....sounds like you congregation is active.

I want to kick some butt too.....but im undesisive on to who....(im confused, lol).

I get some of the points you have made in this post, but I also get some of the points LGB makes. Im just trying to keep an open mind (I read the "keep an open mind" article on the watchotwer or awake mag) good stuff.

Bullhead city AZ, Riviera Cong. Spanish

Anonymous said...

Joepublish...

You are very correct sir,

I would never tell an elder or especially the circuit overseer "oh I like to hang out on apostate sites" even if its to kick but. The circuit overseer is very pushy...hes allways asking me questions and trying to push me to get more privilidges. As you indicated I am 'weak' in their eyes but I remain thruthful to you and everyone else....why would I make myself seem like im in good staning...I am a sinner just like everyone else. All I can do is listen, think, rationalize, share ideas and reach a better understanding of no matter how much we 'debate' I would treat everybody with the outmost respect they deserve. And if I ever run into any one of you in person, I will greet you with a smile and a hand shake, and win everyone of your friendship. I am just trying to be a better christian.

Bullhead city AZ, Riviera Cong. Spanish

Anonymous said...

Hey, have any of you guys seen that comedian Gabriel Iglesias? That guy is hilarious. You guys really should look him up in youtube and check out one of his skits. Me and my wife are going to go see him perform today in las vegas. My wife is so exited.

AZ, Riviera Cong. Spanish

Nathan said...

@ chocolatepuddingeyes:

Well I don’t like the term “kicking apostate butt”! I would prefer, refuting untrue assertions and statements of apostates and others here and elsewhere on the net. It is pretty much the same as going from door to door, with the exception that on the net, the doors of others are carried in front of my pc.

Preaching the good news has also to do with refuting wrong statements as can be seen through Jesus’ example. Forgiveness of “sins” is not our business, except for sins that are committed against us directly. All other sins one might commit can only be forgiven by God and Jesus. It is not up to us to judge people.

I for my part do not think that it is my responsibility to provide reasons for returning and repenting here for apostates directly. If they want to repent and return it has to be their own wish and they must take the first step. Moreover they are visited by their elders, and if they want they can choose to talk to them. But still, a lot of things I already wrote here can help a serious man to see the truth and repent if there is a need for it. But in general I think I can use the opportunity here to help people who are still JWs and are a bit of the track now.

I don’t think that any of my arguments serve those throwing mud on JWs. Those who left and now behave like angry children speak for themselves and everybody can see it for themselves.

Being in harmony with the Bible surely is the most important. The question is where do you think JWs are not and who do you think is more in harmony than JWs?

I disagree that the “real message of the good news is so simple”. While what is stated in John 8 is perfectly true, off course, the question remains what it means to be in Jesus’ word. And to answer that question more is needed than just one sentence of answer. And that is what makes the whole issue a little more complicated.


@ Anonymous from Bullhead city AZ, Riviera Cong. Spanish:

I would be interested in further discussion with you. If you have concrete questions and if I can help answering them, I would love to do so. Please let me know!

kimmy jo said...

joepublish,

I am not a JW(as defined by the Watchtower) and I am not weak or wavering.

I am strong and steady and I love Jehovah God.

chocolatepuddingeyes said...

Nathan,

-You forgot to cite scriptures.

-I have never posted anything on this blog that is untrue.

-Your comments about those throwing mud on JW's reminds me of the people who criticize a person for going to the authorities to report abuse saying that the person doing the reporting is bringing reproach on Jehovah's name. See, in that situation, it's the perpetrator who committed the crime who brought reproach on Jehovah's name, not the victim. In the same way, speaking up about the problems going on inside the organization is not throwing mud on JW's, it's merely bringing the problems out in the open. To tell us that we're throwing mud is to ignore what the real problems are and is an attempt to divert attention away from them.

-I could write a whole book on the topic of how the JW religion is not in harmony with the Bible, but I'll just list a few things here that come to mind.

1) The false teaching that Jesus returned invisibly in 1914.
2) The false teaching that Jesus inspected the congregation in 1918/19 and appointed the good and faithful slave over all of his belongings.
3) The false teaching that JW's are living in a spiritual paradise.
4) The lie about the UN-NGO affair.
5) The WTS's disfellowshipping and shunning practices.
6) The practice of baptizing minors.
7) That the man of lawlessness is the clergy of Christendom.
8) That the 7th trumpet was blown in 1914.
9) That the 7 trumpet blasts correspond to district conventions held from 1922-1928.
10) Their teaching of what the Gentile times are.
11) The new teaching of the illustration of the leaven in Matt. 13:33 (completely contradicts the Insight book, yet as a JW you must now accept the new explanation).
12)The teaching that 2 Tim. 3:1-5 applies to conditions going on in the world. See Bible Teach book, chapter 9, page 90. (Read the scripture in context, you'll see it applies to things going on inside the congregation).
13) The change in baptism questions (http://www.freeminds.org/doctrine/baptism.htm and http://www.jwfacts.com/index_files/baptism.htm)
14) The glorification and idolatry of the FDS class.
15) That elders are appointed by holy spirit.
16) That Satan has already been ousted from heaven (Rev. chapter 12).
17) The way the GB applies all the favorable scriptures about spiritual Israel to themselves and all the judgment scriptures they apply to Christendom.
18) The ever-changing teaching on what a generation is and what "this generation" refers to.
19) The practice of discounting/ignoring the 2nd witness if the 2nd witness is related to the accuser.
20) How victims of sexual abuse have been victimized the second time around by the WTS.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21917798/

"Internal records now coming to light from the settled lawsuits may help explain why the church agreed to settle the cases. Documents show that the church knew for years that some prominent members were sexually abusing children and did little. Church officials allegedly became aware of several of the cases in question through what amount to internal judicial proceedings, at which local elders confronted suspected abusers, obtained confessions, then meted out punishments."

-As to who I think is in more harmony than JW's....the people that I have found to be closest in harmony with Bible teachings are those who have woken up to the truth about the organization. They are both inside and outside the congregation. You would call some of them apostates. I call them sincere worshipers of Jehovah.

-The good news really is simple. It's men who make the message complicated. You may come to understand the simplicity of the message some day, I sure hope so.

JoePublish said...

Hi Kimmy Jo, I believe that my message was mis-interpreted. Sorry for not making myself clear.

I was referring to some JW's who are on this site who belong to the WTS and are weak or who have starting to see the holes in this religion which "claims" to be the only true religion.

I do believe the you are a strong Witness of the True God and I LOVE YOUR POSTS!

JoePublish said...

Dear Chocolatepuddingeyes, thanks for taking the time to respond above... I love what you posted and believe you to be very astute.

Nathan said...

Chocolatepuddingeyes,

Well before your last posting I thought that you were a little more serious.

- No I did not forget to quote scriptures. As far as I remember you said: “I'd like to see some scriptural support for "kicking apostate butt."”. I said that I don’t like the phrasing of “kicking apostate butt”. Afterwards I told you what I do here. There was no need to quote scriptures in this case, for I do not “kick apostate butts”

- I never said that you posted untrue things on this blog, so your comment regarding this is senseless.

- Throwing mud for me means to come up with lurid headlines that then are not backed by any evidence. It means making assertions without presenting rationale for it. Etc., etc. This is the very definition of throwing mud! This site is full of such things and I already pointed out some of them. I never said that everything that was said here is wrong. Maybe you should read more carefully! For example I was the first one who admitted that there is child abuse among JWs. That is the truth and not mud. But as I said that is not inherent for the religion. But some people here try to put it like it was inherent. This IS throwing mud then! But I guess you are intelligent enough to know that, and so I believe your paragraph was only written for self-indulgence.

- Regarding your “not in harmony with the Bible” topics. I would prefer if you would provide rationale for the points instead of providing headlines. If you are really interested in discussing those topics, I would suggest that you choose a single topic and we discuss that then. And another one later. Discussing 20 topics on the surface does not seem to be the best idea.

- Well those people who you think are closest in harmony to the Bible is obviously your subjective choice. Maybe some have nice ideas concerning certain topics, but that does not mean to live in better harmony with the Bible. But this too will be a big topic for itself.

- Your last paragraph is just a repetition of your last posting and does not even touch my point regarding the issue. I hope you can do better next time. I did not say that the truth is complicated, but there are several things to know about the truth that exceed what is written in John 8!

JoePublish said...

Here's a topic I would like to see discussed.

How come the WTS/GB feel it's okay to mention "child abuse" in other religions in their own literatue while they were fully aware that their own religion has this problem?

Ronde said...

joepub.

If you want to post a topic,
get your own blog.

Ronde said...

chocolate pud,
"I'd like to see some scriptural support for "kicking apostate butt.""

I would like to see scriptural support for being an apostate.

Ones here talk against the WTS and label it a false religon, but the WTS is not a religion, it is a printing company.

The religion is Jehovah's Witnesses.

Ronde said...

Kimmy Jo
The WTS is not a religion and does not tell lies.

Ronde said...

"Anonymous said...
ronde
your such an idiot."

And you hide behind anon status so that makes you one too.

But if that is the best you can do...

Ronde said...

Joepub.

If being anti-apostate means being a whack case. Put me first in line.

Ronde said...

Joepub;
"say mavericks because no JW's is suppose to be on this web-blog - IT'S NOT BEING FAITHFUL TO THE FAITHFUL AND DISCREET SLAVES'S DIRECTION... YOU KNOW, THE PEOPLE HAND-PICKED BY GOD. "

Joepub, we don't believe that.

Ronde said...

anon from AZ said
"I want to kick some butt too.....but im undesisive on to who....(im confused, lol). "

Huh.

Stick to Jehovah and Jesus,
and those who follow Jesus.
Such as those who attended the Follow the Christ convention and what is taught there.

And don't worship the Watchtower like kimmy jo, joe pub, GBLetters, etc, do.

Ronde said...

anon from AZ:
"I would treat everybody with the outmost respect they deserve. And if I ever run into any one of you in person, I will greet you with a smile and a hand shake, and win everyone of your friendship. I am just trying to be a better christian."

Apostates deserve no respect. That is the definition of apostate.

I can't see being friends with apostates because they are enemies of God.

Ronde said...

choco the clown said:

"Your comments about those throwing mud on JW's reminds me of the people who criticize a person for going to the authorities to report abuse saying that the person doing the reporting is bringing reproach on Jehovah's name."

Well, no one says that. The problem is that the news will report that such one accused is a Jehovah's Witness. It is then that Jehovah's name is tarnished. But then that is part of the cleansing process that the holy spirit does to remove the badness.

"See, in that situation, it's the perpetrator who committed the crime who brought reproach on Jehovah's name, not the victim. "

The reproach is that it happened at all.

"In the same way, speaking up about the problems going on inside the organization is not throwing mud on JW's, it's merely bringing the problems out in the open."

But you are not talking about problem inside the organization, you are talking about the Watchtower. If you have problems, then take care of them from the inside.

" To tell us that we're throwing mud is to ignore what the real problems are and is an attempt to divert attention away from them."

I am saying that you are throwing mud and not dealing with the problems by bringing solutions.

"I could write a whole book on the topic of how the JW religion is not in harmony with the Bible, but I'll just list a few things here that come to mind."

We are in harmony and no one has presented anything otherwise.

"1) The false teaching that Jesus returned invisibly in 1914."

We don't believe that he returned in 1914. We believe that he became king in the heavens in 1914 as per Rev 11&12.

"2) The false teaching that Jesus inspected the congregation in 1918/19 and appointed the good and faithful slave over all of his belongings."

That is not false. Facts showed that he inspected all religions and chose the ones who were serving him and then he found that they needed cleaning and purifying.


"3) The false teaching that JW's are living in a spiritual paradise."

That is not false. WE are.

"4) The lie about the UN-NGO affair."

That is not related to the JWs and the religion and not a lie.

"5) The WTS's disfellowshipping and shunning practices."

The WTS has no dfing and shunning practices. The congregations do because the Bible teaches that it is the proper thing to do.

"6) The practice of baptizing minors."

Nothing wrong with baptizing minors if they believe and have faith and have repented of sins and have dedicated their lives to Jehovah.

"7) That the man of lawlessness is the clergy of Christendom."

Well, it is.

"8) That the 7th trumpet was blown in 1914."

Well, the kingdom of the world did become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ in 1914. But the 7th trumpet was in 1928.

"9) That the 7 trumpet blasts correspond to district conventions held from 1922-1928."

Got a better idea?

"10) Their teaching of what the Gentile times are."

Got a better idea. It is fully scriptural. The kings in the line of David lost their sovereignty in 607 and 2520 years later, the one who was destined, Jesus got the throne in heavenly Jerusalem.


"11) The new teaching of the illustration of the leaven in Matt. 13:33 (completely contradicts the Insight book, yet as a JW you must now accept the new explanation)."

No, we don't must now accept it. I don't believe there is a new teaching. But whatever.

"12)The teaching that 2 Tim. 3:1-5 applies to conditions going on in the world."

Wow, going against the Bible now. That is exactly what is happening in the world and the congregation.
It is not limited to the world.


"13) The change in baptism questions "

Nothing changed in baptism questions. There were just ones who just stated that they were not accountable to the congregation but they questions were showing that they were.

"14) The glorification and idolatry of the FDS class."

That is what the people do.

"15) That elders are appointed by holy spirit."

How do you interpret Acts 20:28

"16) That Satan has already been ousted from heaven"

Then explain what is happening in the world since 1914, 9/11/2001, etc.

"17) The way the GB applies all the favorable scriptures about
spiritual Israel to themselves and all the judgment scriptures they apply to Christendom."

Well, because it is true.

"18) The ever-changing teaching on what a generation is and what "this generation" refers to."

Why worry about it. Just ignore it.

"19) The practice of discounting/ignoring the 2nd witness if the 2nd witness is related to the accuser."

No one is ignored. People focus too much on the wrongdoing part of things, something that people are not supposed to be doing.

"20) How victims of sexual abuse have been victimized the second time around by the WTS."

No one has been victimized by the WTS.

Anonymous said...

Ronde said:
'And you hide behind anon status so that makes you one too.'

And you think that the avatar RONDE tells us anything about you? Give us your full name and email and I will believe you are not 'hiding.'

Ronde said...

"And you think that the avatar RONDE tells us anything about you? Give us your full name and email and I will believe you are not 'hiding.' "

I posted my email and no one sent me anything.

james said...

So, Jesus chose the WT org in 1919 did he? How did this happen then? Did Jesus appear to Rutherford and tell him? Did the FDS here a voice from heaven saying 'I choose you! I don't think so. The reality is the WT org/FDS have appointed themselves to this position and then say that Jesus did it.

chocolatepuddingeyes said...

JoePublisher....muchos gracias for the comment.

Nathan....you like to play with words, don't you? Well, it's hard to have a serious discussion with someone who does so much tap dancing around the issues. If you had scriptural support for your assertions, I'm sure you would have posted them. I'll give you another chance. Show me the scriptures that tell you that you need to be here refuting the information being posted. Of course you know I'll be posting the scriptures right after that that tell you why you're not supposed to be here.

You made broad generalizations about this blog, I responded in regard to my own postings here, and you have to pick on me, instead of just acknowledging that what I post is true. Okay, whatever.

In regard to the things that are not in harmony with the Bible, do your own homework. You asked a question, I answered. Now you want me to write the book? Maybe I will some day. But in the meantime, do your own homework. All 20 topics are easily researched on the internet and in the publications produced and used by the WTS/Jehovah's Witnesses.

You asked me for my opinion, and then dis me about my opinion being subjective? LOL!

Nathan, I have no desire to discuss anything with you because you already have your mind made up. You're right, I'm wrong, no matter what. So what's the point? We're at an impasse.

It's possible, that if you do your homework on the 20 topics I raised that one day you may understand the simplicity of the message of good news that Jesus wants preached. I wish you well in your studies.

Ronde the joker.....you call me an apostate, but I don't believe I am an apostate. Still, you should have provided the scriptures for kicking apostate butt. The fact that you didn't says a lot about you.

You obviously cannot be a real JW because you don't understand the relationship between the WTS and the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses. What you have done is devised your own version of the religion to suit your own purposes. You don't have much in common with the JW's I know.

1. *** w05 1/15 pp. 15-16 par. 3 Foregleams of God’s Kingdom Become a Reality ***

As early as the 1870’s, before “the last days” commenced, Jehovah God began to shed more light on “the sacred secrets of the kingdom of the heavens.” (2 Timothy 3:1-5; Matthew 13:11) At that time a group of Bible students discerned—contrary to popular opinion—that Christ’s return was to be invisible. After being enthroned in heaven, Jesus would return in the sense of focusing his royal attention on the earth. A visible, composite sign would alert his disciples that his invisible presence had begun.—Matthew 24:3-14.

Are you sure you want to argue about point #1? I have over a hundred other references that prove that JW's teach and believe the Jesus returned invisibly in 1914. Granted, the GB is in the process of revising its doctrine on Jesus' invisible return, since the passage of time is proving them wrong once again.

2. When Jesus does return and appoints the faithful slave over all of his belongings, we're going to know it because the weeds will be harvested. Since the weeds are still around, obviously the faithful slave has not yet been appointed.

When Jesus returns the man of lawlessness is not only revealed, but done away with and brought to nothing. That hasn't happened yet. Read 2 Thess. chapter 2.

You are going to get the surprise of your life when the man of lawlessness is revealed.

3. Ezekiel 34:25-27 proves you wrong. There are still "injurious wild beasts" such as pedophiles and drunk shepherds, in the congregations. Also, the yoke of slavery has not been broken. Who are being used as slaves to promote #1 and #2 above? It will be a fine day for them when that yoke is broken.

4. The GB signed up as an associate with the UN's DPI and agreed to support the UN's charter, principles, and goals AND agreed to disseminate information about UN programs and goals.

http://www.un.org/dpi/ngosection/pdfs/watchtower.pdf

The GB not only knew what they were doing, but had to send in proof every year that they were complying with the requirements. It doesn't matter if you don't consider this as spiritual adultery. What matters is Jehovah's point of view.

If the GB were not guilty of wrongdoing, why did they withdraw their membership immediately after the UK Guardian told them they were doing an exposé?

If you're next argument is to say this has nothing to do with the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses, well that's just more proof that you created your own religion because I don't know of anyone else on this planet that claims to be a JW that sees the religion as distinctly separate from the WTS or the GB.

5. If you want to pick at words okay, but the disfellowshipping and shunning policies promoted in the congregations go beyond what is written in the scriptures.

http://www.jwfacts.com/index_files/disfellowship.htm

Where is the scriptural support for the reinstatement policy? The scriptures indicate that a person is to be welcomed back once they leave their sinful course. The story about the prodigal son indicates that there is no scriptural support for making a person seeking reinstatement wait for many months or years before being allowed back into the congregation. If they are no longer following their sinful course, there is no reason to make them wait month after month,, or sometimes many years before reinstating them.

Disfellowshipping is tool to keep the congregation clean of unrepentant sinners. Once a person has repented there is no longer any justification for keeping them in a disfellowshipped state. I don't know of ANY congregations that reinstate repentant sinners without making them go through months or years of proving themselves. That is an unscriptural practice (2 Cor. 2:5-9). That scripture shows that Paul was asking the congregation members to ascertain proof that THEY were being obedient!

6. Puh-leese! Baptism is a serious commitment, even more so than marriage, yet we don't allow minors to get married in their early or mid-teens. Allowing that would be considered ludicrous.

7. Read 2 Thess. chapter 2 over and over again until you get it. Got it? LOL!

8. Sorry, the trumpets haven't blown yet. When they do, you'll notice it.

9. Yeah, it hasn't happened yet. We're still waiting for it to happen.

10. http://www.e-watchman.com/essays/did-the-gentile-times-end-in-1914.html

http://www.e-watchman.com/audio/gentile-times/hifias1.htm

11. You must not read the WT magazine. This came out in the July 15, 2008 issue. It's on page 19. You must be unaware that all baptized JW's must agree to and support all the teachings coming from headquarters as dispensed through the pages of the WT magazine and other publications. If you do not agree that this is true, then you cannot be a real JW. Real JW's know that they must consult the LATEST magazine or publication in order to have the correct light on any subject.

What I find disturbing about this particular change is that the explanation in the Insight book is correct and valid, but the new understanding coming from the weeds (evil slave) is designed to further mislead the sheep. If you were a real JW, you would find the change disturbing too.

12. The WTS uses those scriptures out of context. I was pointing that out. Your comment makes no sense to me.

13. Wrong again. The change has to do with God's spirit directed organization being inserted into the baptismal vows, a place where it does not belong (Matt. 28:19).

14. The GB not only allows it, but encourages it by telling the members they MUST trust, respect, be obedient to the FDS in order to have everlasting life. The GB puts themselves on a pedestal by claiming that the things they publish are spirit-directed. They imply that Jehovah God's spirit is directing them. There is too much evidence that showing that a different spirit is directing some of the writings. But you would have to understand about the wheat and the weeds, and the evil slave residing in the same house as the good and faithful slave in order to comprehend what is really going on. The Revelation Climax book is a good example of which spirit was directing the publishing of that book. No way did that come from Jehovah God. The explanation of the trumpet blasts is just one indication. There are hundreds of others in that book.

15. That would be nice if Acts 20:28 was happening. The actual process for getting appointed as an elder is that a brother has to be recommended. He will not be recommended if he's not turning in at least the congregation average in publisher hours. If he's recommended, then during the visit of the CO, the CO will review who is being recommended and send off a letter to headquarters.

*** w01 1/15 pp. 14-15 par. 15 Overseers and Ministerial Servants Theocratically Appointed ***

The Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses directly appoints all members of Branch Committees. When deciding who can assume such a weighty responsibility, the Governing Body has in mind Jesus’ statement: “Everyone to whom much was given, much will be demanded of him; and the one whom people put in charge of much, they will demand more than usual of him.” (Luke 12:48) In addition to appointing Branch Committee members, the Governing Body appoints Bethel elders and traveling overseers. However, they do commission responsible brothers to act for them in making certain other appointments. There is Scriptural precedent also for this.

The above referenced article contains a lot of double-speak that makes one think the appointments are by holy spirit, but they are actually decided upon by men. Obviously, Jehovah's spirit would not appoint a child molester in a position of responsibility, yet men in the organization have done just that.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21917798/

You can read in the Yearbook about infiltrators who made it to positions such as CO, you can read about CO's who were convicted as child molesters, who did their molesting while active as CO's. More than one country has had this problem.

16. (Matthew 24:23-28) 23 “Then if anyone says to YOU, ‘Look! Here is the Christ,’ or, ‘There!’ do not believe it. 24 For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will give great signs and wonders so as to mislead, if possible, even the chosen ones. 25 Look! I have forewarned YOU. 26 Therefore, if people say to YOU, ‘Look! He is in the wilderness,’ do not go out; ‘Look! He is in the inner chambers,’ do not believe it. 27 For just as the lightning comes out of eastern parts and shines over to western parts, so the presence of the Son of man will be. 28 Wherever the carcass is, there the eagles will be gathered together.

Russell was expecting Armageddon in 1914. The great tribulation was said to have previously started in 1874. When that didn't pan out, the doctrine was revised. 1914 became the starting date for the great tribulation, with Armageddon to closely follow. When that didn't pan out, the doctrine was again revised. As memories faded and people forgot that the GT was supposed to have already started, a new doctrine concerning 1914 and "this generation" developed. This one has the members looking for the destruction of Babylon the Great to signal the start of the GT. Only it's not going to happen that way. The disgusting thing that causes desolation will strike first, BtG doesn't get destroyed until later. This is going to throw JW's for a loop all right.

Entertain the idea, please, that Satan has created situations to mimic what people are expecting in order to mislead us. Why do you think Jesus gave us so many warnings about false Christs and false prophets? We have go back and re-read the Bible with the WT filters/blinders removed.

18. You ask for evidence that JW teachings are not in harmony with the Bible and this is how you fluff off my response. Instead, you should be figuring out why the doctrine has to keep changing. If Jehovah's spirit is directing this teaching, why can't his spirit get it right the first time around?

19. Another sad attempt to dismiss something I said that is totally accurate. I suppose you want depositions? LOL!

20. When headquarters knew of the problem of molesters in the congregations (repeat offenders no less) and did nothing about it, they caused an untold amount of heartache to the victims and their families. Some of these situations could have been avoided if the men in positions of authority had cared about the children more than keeping things hush-hush. The whole reason the WTS settled out of court was because evidence surfaced that they knew about these molesters and did nothing about it. They did not protect the sheep entrusted in their care. They never would have settled out of court if incriminating evidence hadn't surfaced. They victimized the victims also by insisting on a gag order.

Thanks for your help Ronde, you've been invaluable in assisting me with the outline for a book.

Nathan said...

chocolatepuddingeyes… would you please show me where I played with words man? I guess you won’t because this would be the first time you would provide rationale.

I already told you, that no scriptures where needed to see that you could not apply the account you quoted for your point. That was simple logic. It’s the same as if you tell me that I have to provide scriptural support to show that a circle is round. But never mind.

I guess that there is no scripture that tells me that I NEED to be here. And I guess there is not scripture that tells me to knock on a specific door either. But everybody chooses his own territory, because we are preaching to all sorts of man. There are several JWs out on the net who are confused and there are several disfellowshipped out there that may be interested in the truth. That is why I am here. And I am really looking forward to your scriptures that will show me that I am not supposed to be here. Have fun looking for them!

Could you please tell me where my broad generalizations were (do you mean that I said that wrong things were and still are posted here? Where is the generalization in that statement?)? Well in fact it was me who responded to you, but ok. Again please show me where I picked on you, where you didn’t pick on me! And why should I acknowledge that what you posted was true, if I don’t think it is?

Why should I do homework? It is not MY homework. I admit my question was a bit sloppy! I only asked you to tell me where you though JWs are not in harmony with the Bible. I should have asked this way: “Where do you think JWs are not in harmony with the Bible and why”. But I thought you would provide rationale for you assertions, without being reminded to do so. Sorry for that. I don’t want to you to write a book. I offered you to write a book for you. I asked you to concentrate on one specific topic and then tell me why you think this is not in harmony with the Bible and then I will try to answer. So my contribution to your book would at least be 50%. I don’t believe that this is unfair.

I said: “Well those people who you think are closest in harmony to the Bible is obviously your subjective choice. Maybe some have nice ideas concerning certain topics, but that does not mean to live in better harmony with the Bible. But this too will be a big topic for itself.” Could you please tell me where that paragraph dissed you? But true, I asked for your opinion. As said above my question was sloppy, because I always think that if somebody tells me his opinion he will not just throw in a line and don’t give me reason for his opinion. But that is my fault. I should also have asked you why you think so. What I wanted to say, when pointing out that your choice was subjective, was that without providing rationale it simply remains an opinion and it can be either right or wrong. That is why I prefer rationale behind an opinion. But again, it was my fault to formulate my question too sloppy.

May I quote you? “I have no desire to discuss anything with you because you already have your mind made up. You're right, I'm wrong, no matter what. So what's the point? We're at an impasse.” I believe that the same is true for you. Obviously you have made up your mind! And so have I. What is so special about it? I don’t believe that I am right in every point we might discuss and you are wrong. Do you believe that you are right and I am wrong in every single point? Then please accuse yourself not me. The point is that I have no problem to change my standpoint if someone provides rationale or evidence that my arguments or my point of view is wrong. No problem with that. But I do have a problem if zero rationale is provided and someone still tells me that I am wrong! If the same is true for you, I ask myself why you don’t provide rationale.

The simplicity of the good news issue serves as a good example. Three times now you said the same: that the good news is so simple. I commented on it and showed that while it is not complicated several questions need to be answered in order to really understand the good news. Did you provide rationale for what you said? No.

Man that is making me tried…

JoePublish said...

Thank you again for a masterful response Chocolatepuddingeyes! You are so correct that some JW's have their own version of their faith/religion. (I believe they have to do this because they don't agree with all of the direction from the F&DS.) I've seen this time and time again. That includes those pedophiles that existed (and probably still exist) in this religion.

JoePublish said...

[Ronde elusively replied above.] "joepub. If you want to post a topic, get your own blog."

Once again, I prove Ronda a liar. Previously he said why won't people dialogue with me?

Apparently when the questions are tough he resorts to elusive responses.

Chime up the Rocky music for Ronde.

Anonymous said...

Ronde

This is a different anonymous.
I agree with the other one.
Your such an idiot.

JoePublish said...

A JW apologist stated above to another poster: "And I am really looking forward to your scriptures that will show me that I am not supposed to be here. Have fun looking for them!"

Couldn't the same question be asked of the GB??? (If the GB doesn't have a problem with these sites, why don't they join in??? They are in the best position to defend "their" faith and the GBLs that appear on this blog.)

Nathan said...

Lol, the GB consists of 11 men. There are maybe sveral hundred sites like this. And they have a lot of other things to do as well. Why wouldn't they write on every weird site like this? Let me think.

Maybe for the same reason why trhey do not visit every one of the 7 billion people on earth personally. Maybe because there are 7 million JWs who do that more effectivley because they together spend nearly 1.5 billion hours a year in the ministry (compared to the less than 100.000 hours the members of the GB could spend in it).

Huh the question really is why...

J said...

To:chocolatepuddingeyes
Great Posts! Keep up the good work. Do you have your own blog?

Nathan said...
"Regarding your “not in harmony with the Bible” topics. I would prefer if you would provide rationale for the points instead of providing headlines"

Nathan often when we do this people say 'your just picking on a point'. Take Blood, Trinity, Cross, etc. Things the JW think they have light on.

Ronde states: "The WTS has no dfing and shunning practice"

Dude I have no idea what you smoke. But you don't live anywhere close to reality.

Your one crackpot comment killed me:

"defending the faith from attacks from Satanists"

ROTFL!!

JoePublish said...

Welcome back from Sat. morning service.

Now, give me one example where JW's are encouraged to witness on the apostate Internet sites - an example found in their publications. Also, provide me with an example from the C.A. or D.C., where elders encouraged JW's to witness on apostate Internet sites - because your friend Ronda needs to hear it from a convention (as apposed to the "official" and "main" means of communicating doctrine to JW's, like the Watchtower).

JoePublish said...

Welcome aboard J Said. I don't know if this is your first post, but you seem to be laughing as hard as I am at some of these JW apologists.

Nathan said...

have you been on saturday morning service man? I haven't. At least I did not went out to do so.

I did not say that JWs are encourgaed to do so on a CA or a DC. You asked why the GB is not here answering and I told you why this is a nonesense question.

As I already said in this thread: I don't NEED to be here, but it is my choice to do so, since here I can reach people I can't reach anywhere else. If I am refuting assertions here I am not doing it for the sake of those who present them. I am doing it for those who are not decided yet. If I might also make some of th authors of such assertions think that is a kind of extra cookie I would accept gratefully.

Maybe you can contribute something more meaningful next time joe? Give it a try man!

Nathan said...

@ j (who is called "J Said" by joe who obviously did not understand the thread system until now! lol):

you can pick on a point as long as you want, if you provide rationale. I don't have a problem with that. I only have problems with mere assertions and headlines. Bring in arguments and I am just fine with it.

Admin Staff said...

Just a brief comment.

One thing Ive noticed about us humans, we defend whatever it is from the standpoint of our own understanding and beliefs.

Might I suggest that each current JW look hard at statements and doctrinal stances made by the GB through the WT on THEIR OWN MERITS and stop giving the benefit of the doubt or submitting to their viewpoint.
http://futuretruth.wordpress.com/2008/09/13/watchtowers-own-dating-system-for-607-proves-them-wrong/

is an article using the sources of the WT only and you will see that the 607 date is not sustainable even in their math.

We did this on every doctrinal issue and soon realized that the WTBTS appears not be Gods chosen vessel.

I have faith in God that he will give us all wisdom to understand, however if we continue to ignore his directives....

J said...

Nathan,
Unlike ronde you seem to be not a moron. Or in more polite terms you seem like a reasonable intelligent person who I could converse with.

I understand your response regarding one point at a time. I agree with it and respect it. So here is my question.

Why does the so called 'Faithful Slave' have nothing to do with printing the Watchtower?

If you feel they do, please explain how.

Just to clarify what I mean, since people often don’t seem to understand what I am asking.

I want to know about all those anointed ones in the KH. They are part of the ‘Slave Class’ yet they don’t write the articles, or ever see them till they come off the presses. Having been at Bethel I know many of these articles are not written by anointed ones.

Do you see what I am asking?

JoePublish said...

Nathan, you are very condescending. I have written many meaningful comments here. They are not meaningful to you because they expose your religion as NOT the truth that they say they are.

You are on a pedestal, but it sits on shaky grounds as it is founded on a religion that is NOT TRUE - and one that is man-made.

Take a look at all these non-JW apologists (who were JW's for decades!).

I see their arugments crystal clear, but your arguments and others have used slight of hand to twist what honest facts are brought out about this secretive religious cult.

JW's is not the ONLY true religion. The Bible is where real truth lies, not in any man-made religion. (That fact will become apparent to you in time... trust me.)

Ronde said...

Anon:
"This is a different anonymous.
I agree with the other one.
Your such an idiot."

Thank you. I try to be on apostate forums.

In real life I am loved by all.

Anonymous said...

Joepub said:
"I have written many meaningful comments here. "

BA HA HAHAHAHAHAHH AHAH AHAA HAHAHAHAH

james said...

Ronde, you said the facts show that Jesus chose the WT org in 1919 as the faithful slave to be entrusted with all his belongings. Once again i would say, do you or any other JW have any suggestions as to what actually happened in 1919 to make this true? Did Jesus appear to Rutherford and tell him? Did the F&DS here a voice from heaven saying 'I choose you good & faithful ones' If not how do the F&DS know they were chosen by Jesus in 1919. What happened in that year that meant they could then say, ' well, there you go, Jesus has just chosen us'?

Nathan said...

@ J:

Hey thanks for your comment and for your ability to judge the quality of arguments objectively. I did not forget your question, but I did not find time to answer it yet (Sunday is family day). But I will do so in this thread as soon as possible. Thanks for your patience.


@ joe:

You said: “Nathan, you are very condescending.” And that from a know-it-all like you who insulted me several times personally with statements like “egghead”. Are you kidding me?

You said: “ I have written many meaningful comments here.” Show them to us. Moreover I could say the same thing. Does that bring us any further? No. Again a zero substance statement.

You said: “They are not meaningful to you because they expose your religion as NOT the truth that they say they are.” I could say that my arguments are not meaningful to you, because you are not interested in truth and logical deduction.

I think that it is you who is on a pedestal, thinking that you know everything better than individual JWs can, which is of course nonsense.

I am looking at all those non-JW apologists. So what? I am constantly writing answers to them. No problem with that. So what is your point man? You said: “who were JW's for decades!”. Huh amazing, I am shaken to my bones! Man I know so many JWs who were for decades and still ARE JWs (like me). So again what is you point?

You said: “I see their arugments crystal clear, but your arguments and others have used slight of hand to twist what honest facts are brought out about this secretive religious cult.” Well there are several people here who see my arguments crystal clear and who present some themselves. Look at GBL, he is one the foremost twisters of the truth.

JoePublish said...

You're doing it again Nathan... btw: Show me where I said you were an "egghead".

btw: Keep reading the apostate internet sites, you'll learn the truth.

JoePublish said...

A few more things Nathan...

You said that you want to discuss one topic at a time. I raised topics and you labeled them 'not meaningful'. Does that make you a liar or does it make you judgemental?

Here's a question of topic [again] below (if you dare to answer, because not one JW apologist has touched this although raised several times in various threads). btw: At times, you have used diversion by replying that I placed this question under the wrong topic. Well, it's not unusual for topics to vary under any said topic started by GBL. Have you not participated yourself in that trend? (See how easy everything you say about others returns to you.)

Okay, here's the question of topic:

"How is it that the GB members who oversee the writing dept. could approve of negative articles about OTHER religions and THEIR pedophile problem while they knew for decades that their own religion had the same problem?!?"

It's interesting to me that although you admitted that you're aware of this problem yourself (and I'm quite sure the Interent supplied you with additional information that was never supplied internally to you), how come you remained silent when that JW troll (Ronde) pointed the fault squarely at the "abused child" and "their parents" and noone else? Did you speak up about that? Did you correct him?

I say interesting because you're following the lead of your leaders - who remained silent about child abuse. All they had to do was to have a letter read to the congregations that said that we have had incidences of child abuse in various congregations and want everyone to know about this so they would be aware that child abuse happens even in congregations of JW's. The warning could have been that simple! The obvious question is WHY didn't they do this, but that's another topic, right?

So, back to my original question above. Why would JW's religion (or any religion for that fact) write negative articles about the pedophile problem of OTHER religions when they themselves had the same problem [and most importantly, never came forward to their own members about the problem]???

(Please don't call this sincere question meaningless. As for that JW apologist anon response above, now that's a classic and real example Nathan of a meaningless response, Anon replied above: "BA HA HAHAHAHAHAHH". How meaningfull is that??? LOL)

Nathan said...

Joe what should I discuss with you? You are not even able to remember how you are insulting others! Why should I or others think that you would remember other things you said, or why should I or others think that you think first before you throwing assertions? But for the sake of truth I am going to remind you man! Just go to the “Do Not Forsake The Gathering of Yourselves Together“ thread and read your own postings. I will even quote the whole sentence for you! You said: “It’s documented you egghead!“. You don’t believe me? Go and look it up for yourself! So what remains for me to say since you are not even able to remember that? You are insulting people directly but call them at the same time “very condescending”. And you forget what you said? And you don’t manage to understand the thread system of Google, which is shown by your calling J as “J Said”. You are not mature enough joe to discuss with you and you show it with every posting you publish. Maybe that is why you call yourself joepublish?
Where did I label the “topics” (plural) you raised meaningless? I asked you if you could next time present something more meaningful than your last posting. That is a big difference! But I guess you don’t understand such differences, do you?
Further, a topic is not throwing in an assertion. Provide arguments for your standpoint and I will answer them. So by saying what I said I was not a liar and not judgemental to an extend the would not be appropriate. Better luck next time!
You are exaggerating joe. We already had that topic, I already told you some lines regarding that. I did not use diversion, I just stated the truth. You kept starting that topic over and over again in threads that discussed different topics. Yes sometimes more than one topic is started in a thread. They evolve out of each other. But that is not the same as raising a topic that has nothing to do with the thread as you did several times. But I guess you also forgot that, right? Yes I participated then in such threads but that is not the same as starting them, do you agree? So nothing returns to me, no matter how hard you try.
To get an answer from me to your question, post a specific article you have in mind and I will answer to your complaints about it.

I did not remain silent, but I guess you forgot that too joe. I told Ronde directly that, yes there is the problem of child absue among JWs and he even responded to my comment. So please don’t tell me what I did and what I not did because you seem to have a weak memory!

I already presented you my Microsoft comparison which is valid until this day. You didn’t manage to understand it by now, so why should I give you further reasoning on it?
Man start to behave like a grown up and people will treat you like one…
@ J: sorry for the delay, but it needs more time than the 2 minutes answer that is needed for joe.

kimmy jo said...

Keeping people from pusuing higher education is called LOSS PREVENTION.

Why would the Watchtower encourage critical thinking???? It would not be of any benifit to their advancement.

J said...

Nathan,
No rush. If it was an easy question to answer someone would have answered it by now.

Frankly when I was a JW no one ever pressed the question to me.

Take your time.
-J

Ronde said...

J said:
"So, Jesus chose the WT org in 1919 did he? How did this happen then? "

You mean that he chose the individual associated with the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society in 1918. Yes.

"Did Jesus appear to Rutherford and tell him? Did the FDS here a voice from heaven saying 'I choose you! I don't think so. The reality is the WT org/FDS have appointed themselves to this position and then say that Jesus did it. "


No, they were falsely charged and went to prison as part of the devil's attacks, then there was the refining when the work in Brooklyn stopped, then they knew that Jesus was with them when in 1919 then had the Advertise convention in Cedar Point.

Ronde said...

What is it with people posting 30K byte messages here? This is not a forum or email, it is a blog with comments.

choco said:
"Nathan....you like to play with words, don't you? Well, it's hard to have a serious discussion with someone who does so much tap dancing around the issues. If you had scriptural support for your assertions, I'm sure you would have posted them. "

What exactly is wrong with that?



"Ronde the joker.....you call me an apostate, but I don't believe I am an apostate. Still, you should have provided the scriptures for kicking apostate butt. The fact that you didn't says a lot about you."

Why do I need scriptures? Can't I do something because i like it?

"You obviously cannot be a real JW because you don't understand the relationship between the WTS and the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses."

I understand it quite well, I just don't worship them as you do. Also they are related to the worldwide congregation, I focus more locally.

" What you have done is devised your own version of the religion to suit your own purposes. You don't have much in common with the JW's I know."

Well, what do you know about JWs? What JW email groups are you on? Since you spend your time on negativity you don't know JWs.


1. At that time a group of Bible students discerned—contrary to popular opinion—that Christ’s return was to be invisible. After being enthroned in heaven, Jesus would return in the sense of focusing his royal attention on the earth. A visible, composite sign would alert his disciples that his invisible presence had begun.—Matthew 24:3-14.

Are you sure you want to argue about point #1? I have over a hundred other references that prove that JW's teach and believe the Jesus returned invisibly in 1914. "

As I said, we do not believe that Jesus returned in 1914 and that article affirms that.
Notice what was said "contrary to popular opinion—that Christ’s return was to be invisible" and "would return in the sense of focusing his royal attention on the earth." Thus the word "return" is used "in a sense".

He does not return to the earth.

2. When Jesus does return and appoints the faithful slave over all of his belongings, we're going to know it because the weeds will be harvested. Since the weeds are still around, obviously the faithful slave has not yet been appointed."

No, at the harvest the wheat matures that means that the anointed true Christians because distinguishable from the false. The gathering is future.


"You are going to get the surprise of your life when the man of lawlessness is revealed."

The man of lawlessness was revealed in GBletters.

3. Ezekiel 34:25-27 proves you wrong. There are still "injurious wild beasts" such as pedophiles and drunk shepherds, in the congregations."

That does not mean that it is not a spiritual paradise. The spiritual paradise does not depend on the people within.

4. The GB signed up as an associate with the UN's DPI and agreed to support the UN's charter, principles, and goals AND agreed to disseminate information about UN programs and goals."

No, The GB did not do that. The record you showed listed that the rep on there was Ciro Aulicino and he was not on the GB. and there is nothing wrong with "upport the UN's charter, principles, and goals AND agreed to disseminate information about UN programs and goals."


"The GB not only knew what they were doing, but had to send in proof every year that they were complying with the requirements. It doesn't matter if you don't consider this as spiritual adultery. What matters is Jehovah's point of view."

The GB did not do that, if they did then it would be in the literature and the assemblies, which it is not. And Jehovah agrees with my point of view.

"If the GB were not guilty of wrongdoing, why did they withdraw their membership immediately after the UK Guardian told them they were doing an exposé?"

The GB did not have a membership. The president of the WTBTS informed the rep to remove it.

"If you're next argument is to say this has nothing to do with the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses, well that's just more proof that you created your own religion because I don't know of anyone else on this planet that claims to be a JW that sees the religion as distinctly separate from the WTS or the GB."

Well, it does have nothing to do with the religion of JWs because it was never in print and taught at the assemblies. This is something that only one or two individuals who worked at the WTS did. Do you have evidence that it was a majority vote of the GB?

5. If you want to pick at words okay, but the disfellowshipping and shunning policies promoted in the congregations go beyond what is written in the scriptures."

So what? Why don't you focus on not doing the crime rather than complaining about the punishment.


"Where is the scriptural support for the reinstatement policy? The scriptures indicate that a person is to be welcomed back once they leave their sinful course."

And how does the congregation know that one has done that?

" The story about the prodigal son indicates that there is no scriptural support for making a person seeking reinstatement wait for many months or years before being allowed back into the congregation."

The prodigal son is not the only support. It is about works of repentance.

" If they are no longer following their sinful course, there is no reason to make them wait month after month,, or sometimes many years before reinstating them."

How does one know they are no longer following their sinful course? Time would tell.

"Disfellowshipping is tool to keep the congregation clean of unrepentant sinners. Once a person has repented there is no longer any justification for keeping them in a disfellowshipped state."

It is not a case of "once a person has repented", but a course in line with the repentance.

" I don't know of ANY congregations that reinstate repentant sinners without making them go through months or years of proving themselves."

It is not your place to know that and to make such judgments. You are not the overseers.

" That is an unscriptural practice (2 Cor. 2:5-9). That scripture shows that Paul was asking the congregation members to ascertain proof that THEY were being obedient!"

Ok, but why is it your business?

"6. Puh-leese! Baptism is a serious commitment, even more so than marriage, yet we don't allow minors to get married in their early or mid-teens. Allowing that would be considered ludicrous."

So you set an arbitrary age limit?

I believe that this is up to the person and the parents, not you. There are laws as to marriage age.


"8. Sorry, the trumpets haven't blown yet. When they do, you'll notice it."

Well, you are a non-believer.


10. Ewatchman is a fool.
proof: http://ewatchman-exposed.co.uk/research/

"11. You must not read the WT magazine. This came out in the July 15, 2008 issue. It's on page 19."

So what of it. It is just terminology. And we have not studied that one yet.

" You must be unaware that all baptized JW's must agree to and support all the teachings coming from headquarters as dispensed through the pages of the WT magazine and other publications. "

Not true. We don't have to agree to all teachings, we just don't publically disagree.

"If you do not agree that this is true, then you cannot be a real JW. Real JW's know that they must consult the LATEST magazine or publication in order to have the correct light on any subject."

Wrong. JWs do that because it is safe to point to the magazines.

"What I find disturbing about this particular change is that the explanation in the Insight book is correct and valid, but the new understanding coming from the weeds (evil slave) is designed to further mislead the sheep. If you were a real JW, you would find the change disturbing too."

I don't think that it is anything to get your panties in a bunch over.

"13. Wrong again. The change has to do with God's spirit directed organization being inserted into the baptismal vows, a place where it does not belong (Matt. 28:19)."

There is no baptism vow. It is simply a question of acknowledgement.


14. The GB not only allows it, but encourages it by telling the members they MUST trust, respect, be obedient to the FDS in order to have everlasting life. "

So what of it?

"The GB puts themselves on a pedestal by claiming that the things they publish are spirit-directed. They imply that Jehovah God's spirit is directing them. "

Well, He is directing them.




"15. That would be nice if Acts 20:28 was happening. The actual process for getting appointed as an elder is that a brother has to be recommended. He will not be recommended if he's not turning in at least the congregation average in publisher hours. If he's recommended, then during the visit of the CO, the CO will review who is being recommended and send off a letter to headquarters."

And that is what it means to be appointed by holy spirit because those things are in agreement with the holy spirit. But just because there have been bad people appointed or that appointed people did bad things does not disprove Acts 20:28 is happening. Remember that it was prophesied that the overseers in the first century would teach bad things, become wolves and allow the apostacy to start.



16. "Entertain the idea, please, that Satan has created situations to mimic what people are expecting in order to mislead us. Why do you think Jesus gave us so many warnings about false Christs and false prophets? We have go back and re-read the Bible with the WT filters/blinders removed."

What does that have to do with Jehovah's Witnesses today and the fact that the kingdom is prophesied in the Bible to come?


18. You ask for evidence that JW teachings are not in harmony with the Bible and this is how you fluff off my response. Instead, you should be figuring out why the doctrine has to keep changing. If Jehovah's spirit is directing this teaching, why can't his spirit get it right the first time around?"

The doctrine changes because Jesus was unclear.


20. When headquarters knew of the problem of molesters in the congregations (repeat offenders no less) and did nothing about it, they caused an untold amount of heartache to the victims and their families. "

It is not their job to do anything about it. The victims can do something about it.

"Some of these situations could have been avoided if the men in positions of authority had cared about the children more than keeping things hush-hush."

No the situations happened because people did not do anything to prevent it. What you say is after the fact. Doing things after the fact does not prevent things.

" The whole reason the WTS settled out of court was because evidence surfaced that they knew about these molesters and did nothing about it. They did not protect the sheep entrusted in their care. "

There was nothing that they could do about it.

But it was still wrong for the people to sue the Watchtower and the congregation as they had done nothing wrong.

"They never would have settled out of court if incriminating evidence hadn't surfaced. They victimized the victims also by insisting on a gag order."

Wrong. People settle all of the time wrong or right. Because court is playing the odds and settling has better odds and results and throwing the dice at a verdict.

"Thanks for your help Ronde, you've been invaluable in assisting me with the outline for a book. "


I would suggest that you first learn about Jehovah's Witnesses rather than following the negativity that you only know.

Ronde said...

J said:
Ronde states: "The WTS has no dfing and shunning practice"
Dude I have no idea what you smoke. But you don't live anywhere close to reality."

Well, the WTS does not have a Dfing and shunning practice. Since it is an office space and printing company, they just tell people "You're Fired" the same as any company does.

"Your one crackpot comment killed me:
"defending the faith from attacks from Satanists""

Well, hey I can't help that you are a satanist.

Ronde said...

Joepub said:
"Now, give me one example where JW's are encouraged to witness on the apostate Internet sites"

Give me an example where JWs are encouraged to have sex and make babies. But couples can do it if they choose, but they don't brag about it, it is assumed.

" Also, provide me with an example from the C.A. or D.C., where elders encouraged JW's to witness on apostate Internet sites - because your friend Ronda needs to hear it from a convention (as apposed to the "official" and "main" means of communicating doctrine to JW's, like the Watchtower). "

If conventions are the official and main means of communicating doctrine, then why do we go to them? Why does the GB tell us to take all three days?

james said...

Ronde. So Jesus didn't appear to Rutherford and tell him he was chosen. The F&DS didn't here a voice from heaven saying 'I choose you'. How does being released from prison and having a convention lead one to the conclusion that it is 'fact' that Jesus chose the WT org in 1919? It follows that they must have just come to this conclusion by themselves if they weren't told by Jesus and that is not proof, that is just wishful thinking. If Jesus didn't tell them, that means they are presuming it is true and in reality are self appointed.

Ronde said...

Admin staff said:
"One thing Ive noticed about us humans, we defend whatever it is from the standpoint of our own understanding and beliefs."

True. The complainers have a complaint and they are not objective.

"Might I suggest that each current JW look hard at statements and doctrinal stances made by the GB through the WT on THEIR OWN MERITS and stop giving the benefit of the doubt or submitting to their viewpoint."

Why? the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses is not defined by the GB or the WT.

"is an article using the sources of the WT only and you will see that the 607 date is not sustainable even in their math."

So what of it?

"We did this on every doctrinal issue and soon realized that the WTBTS appears not be Gods chosen vessel."

No. The truth will stand on its own as it does anyway and JWs will have the truth that we do.

Ronde said...

J said:
"Nathan,
Unlike ronde you seem to be not a moron. Or in more polite terms you seem like a reasonable intelligent person who I could converse with."

Why thank you.

"Why does the so called 'Faithful Slave' have nothing to do with printing the Watchtower?"

Why does it matter? Because the GB and the other anointed do not run the presses.

"I want to know about all those anointed ones in the KH. They are part of the ‘Slave Class’ yet they don’t write the articles, or ever see them till they come off the presses. Having been at Bethel I know many of these articles are not written by anointed ones."

Because that was the old definition. The FDS is the program of teaching.

Ronde said...

Joepub said:
"Take a look at all these non-JW apologists (who were JW's for decades!).
I see their arugments crystal clear, "

Birds of a feather.

J said...

Ronde said:
"Well, the WTS does not have a Dfing and shunning practice. Since it is an office space and printing company, they just tell people "You're Fired" the same as any company does."

Ronde first you play wordplay. You just state that crap to avoid the fact that you were dead wrong. But since you are not humble you can't admit your mistakes.

Second quit making crap up. This 'your fired' stuff is made up crap and we all know it.

You can't say DFing = Leaving Bethel. But that's exactly what you stated. I can't believe that you don't know that's a load of crap.

"Well, hey I can't help that you are a Satanist."

Hey ronde. Last I checked your are the one attaching yourself to an apostate church who has deviated from Christ. I would be careful calling people Satanists.

For your sake you better hope there is no God. Because you know what the scriptures say about people like you.(Hebrews 10:31) “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of [the] living God. . .”

Ronde said...

Kimmy Jo said:
"Why would the Watchtower encourage critical thinking???? It would not be of any benifit to their advancement. "

What makes you think that higher education in university makes one think critically?

Did you ever think that highest education says that people should be critical of university?

Ronde said...

J said:
"Ronde first you play wordplay. You just state that crap to avoid the fact that you were dead wrong. But since you are not humble you can't admit your mistakes."

I did not make a mistake. The Watchtower does not disfellowship, it is the congregation that does that. If someone does something wrong at the WTS facilities, they may inform their congregation about it, but the WTS does not DF.

"Second quit making crap up. This 'your fired' stuff is made up crap and we all know it."

You need to get a clue as you are spewing the apostate partyline.

"You can't say DFing = Leaving Bethel. But that's exactly what you stated. I can't believe that you don't know that's a load of crap."

No I didn't say that. I said that the WTS's only responsibity would be to kick the person out of Bethel, it is the person's congregation that does the disfellowshipping. The WTS may inform the congregation of that. But those are separate processes.

Nathan said...

Hey J, so now here is my answer.

You are right, most of the anointed who serve in different congregations have nothing to do with the “printing the Watchtower”. It is also true that not all those articles are written by anointed ones.

Here is why I believe that this is no problem: For the idea of something like a GB we have to look into the Bible and try to find out if there is a paradigm for it. In my opinion there is. We could start earlier in fact, but I would say it is logical to start in those times when Israel was chosen by Jehovah (since this is was JWs today think the anointed are). In those times Moses was the head of the whole “congregation” of Israel. By the time this load was to heavy for him. So the following happened: “And I proceeded to say this to YOU at that particular time, ‘I am not able by myself to carry YOU. 10 Jehovah YOUR God has multiplied YOU, and here YOU are today like the stars of the heavens for multitude. 11 May Jehovah the God of YOUR forefathers increase YOU a thousand times as many as YOU are, and may he bless YOU just as he has promised YOU. 12 How can I carry by myself the burden of YOU and the load of YOU and YOUR quarreling? 13 Get wise and discreet and experienced men of YOUR tribes, that I may set them as heads over YOU.’ 14 At that YOU answered me and said, ‘The thing you have spoken for us to do is good.’ 15 So I took the heads of YOUR tribes, men wise and experienced, and put them as heads over YOU, chiefs of thousands and chiefs of hundreds and chiefs of fifties and chiefs of tens and officers of YOUR tribes.” (Deuteronomy 1:9-15). So Moses introduced a structure of qualified men. He was the spokesman for whole Israel. So he said that HE would set them as heads over Israel (according to verse 13). And although this was according to God’s will and although Moses was chosen by Jehovah directly, the Israelites often murmured against that arrangement. So the situation is similar to today. We have a few men who present the teachings to the whole congregation. And today too a lot of people (non-JWs murmur against this arrangement).

In the centuries that followed there always were similar arrangements. Think for example of the age of the judges. A few men who ruled over Israel. Later there were the prophets and off course there was the priest class. So until the days of Jesus new knowledge was always distributed through a few men to the whole nation of Israel. And all the time there were people who didn’t like that idea.

Then in the first century, Jesus chose his twelve apostles. After his death his anointed followers were also organized. As the number of disciples became bigger, local congregations were founded and elders were appointed as we can read in Titus 1:5. But is was the 12 apostles who served as something like a GB. “Also, with great power the apostles continued giving forth the witness concerning the resurrection of the Lord Jesus; and undeserved kindness in large measure was upon them all. 34 In fact, there was not one in need among them; for all those who were possessors of fields or houses would sell them and bring the values of the things sold 35 and they would deposit them at the feet of the apostles. In turn distribution would be made to each one, just as he would have the need. 36 So Joseph, who was surnamed Bar´na•bas by the apostles, which means, when translated, Son of Comfort, a Levite, a native of Cy´prus, 37 possessing a piece of land, sold it and brought the money and deposited it at the feet of the apostles.“ (Acts 4:33-37) That shows that the apostles had a special position as is also said in Acts 1:20 (and maybe until 26): “For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his lodging place become desolate, and let there be no dweller in it,’ and, ‘His office of oversight let someone else take.’”. So it was an office of oversight.

The apostles also made decisions in organization questions: “Now in these days, when the disciples were increasing, a murmuring arose on the part of the Greek-speaking Jews against the Hebrew-speaking Jews, because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution. 2 So the twelve called the multitude of the disciples to them and said: “It is not pleasing for us to leave the word of God to distribute [food] to tables. 3 So, brothers, search out for yourselves seven certified men from among YOU, full of spirit and wisdom, that we may appoint them over this necessary business; 4 but we shall devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” 5 And the thing spoken was pleasing to the whole multitude, and they selected Stephen, a man full of faith and holy spirit, and Philip and Prochorus and Nicanor and Timon and Parmenas and Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch; 6 and they placed them before the apostles, and, after having prayed, these laid their hands upon them.” (Acts 6:1-6). So they did organize the distribution of food. But there is more in that account. Verse 2 is especially interesting. They did not want to leave the word of God because of minor problems. So they were engaged in bringing forth new light from the scriptures as can be seen from verse 4.

Another account that shows that the work was organized and superwised by the apostles is Acts 8:14-17: “When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they dispatched Peter and John to them; 15 and these went down and prayed for them to get holy spirit. 16 For it had not yet fallen upon any one of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they went laying their hands upon them, and they began to receive holy spirit.“

What was very interesting was what happened when Paul was called by Jesus. Obviously no one except Paul had heard Jesus voice. So who was to decide whether Paul had truly changed and had been called by Jesus? “On arriving in Jerusalem he made efforts to join himself to the disciples; but they were all afraid of him, because they did not believe he was a disciple. 27 So Bar´na•bas came to his aid and led him to the apostles, and he told them in detail how on the road he had seen the Lord and that he had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had spoken boldly in the name of Jesus.” (Acts 9:26, 27). Again the apostles were the ones deciding.

Acts 15 tells us that the apostle and older men were confronted with the question if non Jewish followers of Christ had to subject to the Mosaic law. “And the apostles and the older men gathered together to see about this affair.” (Acts 15:6). Or verse 23: ““The apostles and the older men, brothers, to those brothers in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia who are from the nations: Greetings!“” (But it would be better to read the whole account in fact.)

So we see from all those accounts, that although all baptized members of all congregations in the first century belonged to the anointed, only a few of them, namely the apostles and later also some “older men” were responsible for decisions on teachings based upon the Bible. This can also be seen in the following text: “Now as they traveled on through the cities they would deliver to those there for observance the decrees that had been decided upon by the apostles and older men who were in Jerusalem.”(Acts 16:4)

Paul again and again came went to the “GB” of the first century to give his rapport about his ministry: “But on the following [day] Paul went in with us to James; and all the older men were present. 19 And he greeted them and began giving in detail an account of the things God did among the nations through his ministry.“ (Acts 21:18). If there was no GB then, why should Paul go to the apostles and older men and rapport about his ministry?

Yet another point is that the NT was written by only a few people who were chosen by God. These books contained all of the new light for the first century. Although all other brothers were anointed too, they simply accepted what was presented to them through the writers of the NT books and through the apostles who interpreted the written word and gave direction how the preaching work was to be done.

To sum it up: In ancient times the old slave was the nation of Israel. Not every person that made up that nation was asked about how things were done. It wasn't a democracy. In the first century there was a “GB” too, although all Christians were anointed in that time. Not everybody was asked, but they all humbly accepted the guidelines from the apostles and the writers of the NT. I believe that the same pattern can be applied today. Not all anointed belong to the GB and not all make decisions on teachings, just as that was not the case in the first century. Nevertheless they humbly accept the food distributed.

But as it was in the first century, all anointed can write their letters of different understanding to the GB (Off course every JW can do that). If the GB believes that a proposed change is necessary they will incorporate in the literature that is published.

Btw. I know several brothers who belong to the anointed. They never had a problem with the arrangement as it is. I would suggest that you ask an anointed you know yourself if that is possible. The point is, if the anointed do not complain about the GB arrangement, why should we?

One last point: You said that not every article is written by the FDS. That is true. But still the GB is reviewing every single article before it is published. So nothing is printed that was not approved by the GB.

I hope this helps and is close to the answer you wanted to get. Please let me know what you think. Regards.

JoePublish said...

Nathan, you are really not much better than Ronde in many ways - you two JW's should be ashamed of yourselves. I know JW's who read these replies of yours will recognize the slight of hand in your responses and will see the real truth.

kimmy jo said...

Discouraging higher education is called LOSS PREVENTION.

J said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Kimmy Jo states that higher education is against Christianity.

Nathan said...

@ Joepublish:

You said: “Nathan, you are really not much better than Ronde in many ways - you two JW's should be ashamed of yourselves. I know JW's who read these replies of yours will recognize the slight of hand in your responses and will see the real truth.”

Assertion over assertion, insult over insult. Man is that all you have to contribute?

Tell me in what ways I am not better than Ronde. And tell me why Ronde is your benchmark. I really don’t have a reason to be ashamed. But you have. I proved you wrong just another time. I even proved that you can’t remember your own postings, your own insults, your own illogical assertions. Again you had nothing to say against it, except that little comedy I quoted above. That is so poor!

What I know is something different Joe. I know that JWs here who read my postings and your postings are able to see that you don’t have any arguments that you can’t present any valid reasons for your assertions that your postings are without substance! What kind of substance do you think for example that your last posting has? People here see that I will always use arguments and logical reasoning. I never just present assertions with backing them with arguments. Even non- end ex- JWs see and admit that. So it is far more likely that people who read this here will come to the conclusion that JWs are not the bad people you want them to appear as!

Better luck next time, joe.

JoePublish said...

Nathan said: "I already presented you my Microsoft comparison which is valid until this day. You didn’t manage to understand it by now, so why should I give you further reasoning on it?" (btw: I understood what you were saying and told you I disagreed that you shouldn't be relating Microsoft and Bill Gate to a religion that claims to be the truth... it's a totally non-related illustration. Didn't you learn that in the Theocratic Ministry School guidebook?)

And, that illustration that you used was an attempt by you to explain why the GB should not be responsible for telling it's flock that their clean organization has pedophiles. (Especially since JW's at large know nothing about this.)

So, see if you (or any JW) can answer this question. I've narrowed it down since Nathan focused on one specific aspect, but I'm more interested in this specific point:

Why would JW's religion (or any religion for that fact) write negative articles about the pedophile problem of OTHER religions when they themselves had the same problem??? (In other words, why point a finger at others if your own religion had/has the same problem?)

btw: Nathan... where did you correct Ronde about his comments that "the abused child" and "his parents" are 'responsible for child abuse' in JW's organization??? I must have missed that. Yes, I know you corrected him about the existence of child abuse in JW's congregation, but do you see how you used slight of hand to change the question. (You're still very condescending Nathan... time to come off your pedestal... you're over your head here as people on this forum KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON and you can't fool them like you can some of the public at large.)

Nathan, you don't have to respond to my question because I'd like to hear from someone else. Thank you.

JoePublish said...

Nathan said: "I already presented you my Microsoft comparison which is valid until this day. You didn’t manage to understand it by now, so why should I give you further reasoning on it?" (btw: I understood what you were saying and told you I disagreed that you shouldn't be relating Microsoft and Bill Gate to a religion that claims to be the truth... it's a totally non-related illustration. Didn't you learn that in the Theocratic Ministry School guidebook?)

And, that illustration that you used was an attempt by you to explain why the GB should not be responsible for telling it's flock that their clean organization has pedophiles. (Especially since JW's at large know nothing about this.)

So, see if you (or any JW) can answer this question. I've narrowed it down since Nathan focused on one specific aspect, but I'm more interested in this specific point:

Why would JW's religion (or any religion for that fact) write negative articles about the pedophile problem of OTHER religions when they themselves had the same problem??? (In other words, why point a finger at others if your own religion had/has the same problem?)

btw: Nathan... where did you correct Ronde about his comments that "the abused child" and "his parents" are 'responsible for child abuse' in JW's organization??? I must have missed that. Yes, I know you corrected him about the existence of child abuse in JW's congregation, but do you see how you used slight of hand to change the question. (You're still very condescending Nathan... time to come off your pedestal... you're over your head here as people on this forum KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON and you can't fool them like you can some of the public at large.)

Nathan, you don't have to respond to my question because I'd like to hear from someone else. Thank you.

JoePublish said...

Nathan said: "I already presented you my Microsoft comparison which is valid until this day. You didn’t manage to understand it by now, so why should I give you further reasoning on it?" (btw: I understood what you were saying and told you I disagreed that you shouldn't be relating Microsoft and Bill Gate to a religion that claims to be the truth... it's a totally non-related illustration. Didn't you learn that in the Theocratic Ministry School guidebook?)

And, that illustration that you used was an attempt by you to explain why the GB should not be responsible for telling it's flock that their clean organization has pedophiles. (Especially since JW's at large know nothing about this.)

So, see if you (or any JW) can answer this question. I've narrowed it down since Nathan focused on one specific aspect, but I'm more interested in this specific point:

Why would JW's religion (or any religion for that fact) write negative articles about the pedophile problem of OTHER religions when they themselves had the same problem??? (In other words, why point a finger at others if your own religion had/has the same problem?)

btw: Nathan... where did you correct Ronde about his comments that "the abused child" and "his parents" are 'responsible for child abuse' in JW's organization??? I must have missed that. Yes, I know you corrected him about the existence of child abuse in JW's congregation, but do you see how you used slight of hand to change the question. (You're still very condescending Nathan... time to come off your pedestal... you're over your head here as people on this forum KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON and you can't fool them like you can some of the public at large.)

Nathan, you don't have to respond to my question because I'd like to hear from someone else. Thank you.

J said...

Nathan,
Thanks very much for your thoughtful response. It is by far the best answer I have ever received on this subject. Naturally I do have some criticism for it but all in all you make good points.

You state:” So we see from all those accounts, that although all baptized members of all congregations in the first century belonged to the anointed, only a few of them, namely the apostles and later also some “older men” were responsible for decisions on teachings based upon the Bible.”

I see nothing wrong with this logic. If fact I think it’s pretty sound. Clearly you show there is a scriptural precedent of brothers taking the lead, writing letters etc.

My criticism on some minor points:

Acts 6:4 new light? Hmm… a bit of a stretch, but ok.

“NT was written by only a few people who were chosen by God. These books contained all of the new light for the first century.”

Well technically the NT was not complete until about the end of the first century. But ok second century Christians could read it. And those in the first century did read the letters from Paul etc.

So far so good. I have little, if any complaint with your interpretation of scripture. The problem comes in with the current JW teaching on scripture.


Paul wrote to the congregations as Paul or representing the older men. So if John Barr (Although not an Apostle – Which is a pretty big point) writes to the local congregation and says ‘here are some thoughts I and the rest of the GB have on scripture’ great, no problem.

But that’s not how it works. They constantly claim in the Watchtower to print what the ‘Faithful and Discreet’ slave says. The Watchtower and GB clearly claim that all the anointed remaining on earth as a group make up the Faithful and Discreet Slave. Then they claim this ‘Faithful Slave’ is providing new light.

You admit that this is basically a lie when you state:
“You are right, most of the anointed who serve in different congregations have nothing to do with the “printing the Watchtower”. It is also true that not all those articles are written by anointed ones.”

So I don’t take issue with imperfect men taking the lead. I take issue with them lying about the source of the information. How can they claim it’s from the ‘Slave’?

What is are you thoughts on that?

BTW I really appreciate your logical and reasonable replies. We may not see eye to eye on everything but we can have a scriptural discussion without attacking each other, which is great.

PS

You state: “But as it was in the first century, all anointed can write their letters of different understanding to the GB (Off course every JW can do that). If the GB believes that a proposed change is necessary they will incorporate in the literature that is published.”

I really don’t think the GB pay any attention to what the other anointed have to say. But since I have not written them personally as an anointed person I will remain mute on this point.


Ronde,
I did not ask you the question about the FTS. I asked you it before, and just like now you can’t answer it. “Because that was the old definition” wow, new light huh ronde, no faithful slave anymore? Give me a break. Again your response about Bethel not DFing is DEAD wrong. You better get your facts straight. Bethel DOES DF. I know of dozens of cases personally. Second when the congregation DFs they do so based on polices published by CCJW or Watchtower.

Nathan said...

Yo Joe.

I never HAVE to respond to your postings, but I can if I choose to.

Obviously you did NOT understand the Microsoft comparison! I did not relate Bill gates to anything! I only compared the situation of a really large company to the situation of a religious group with also a lot of members. I showed that more or less the same rules apply. Since the issue was not about a religious question, the illustration is not unrelated! It is just fitting. Yeah you disagreed, but what it means if one disagrees to starigh forward logic, everybody can judge for himself.

You said: “So, see if you (or any JW) can answer this question.” And you said: “Nathan, you don't have to respond to my question because I'd like to hear from someone else.” I am not so sure if this is logical. Shall I respond or shall I not? Make up your mind!

I already told you joe. Post the article you didn’t like. Or if it were more articles, post one that is representative and I will answer on your complains about it.

Where did I use slight of hand, joe? I said that in my last posting: “I told Ronde directly that, yes there is the problem of child absue among JWs and he even responded to my comment”. So I stated in my posting what I said to Ronde. Everybody could read it!

Now I will also quote some other things I said: “As far as the substance is concerned: well I already admitted that some JWs do not present very good arguments.”
“Well Ronde I am pretty sure that there have been cases of child abuse among JWs. Not because JWs would be a bad religion or would consist only of wicked people, but just because JWs have too many members.”
“Ronde I think you can’t tell if there are no real pedophiles among JWs. At least abusing a child is a strong indicator for it, is it not? I don’t believe that such people would prefer adults. And if so the crime would be even worse in my opinion (abusing a child just because no adult can be found)”
“I also did never say that abused persons must wait on Jehovah. I always said that they are free to turn to the police, relatives friends, therapists etc. I always said, that there is nothing wrong with it. In this regard let me tell you that you did not understand the Bible. Yes it is true, that Christians should not hand over their brothers to worldly courts. But you missed one important thing. We can apply Matthew 18:15-17. If I was abused by someone and then I told him that he should go and tell it to the elders and the police and he doesn’t listen to me and if he will remain in his sins without admitting them, I can treat him as one of the nations. So I can definitely hand him over to a worldly court!”
“I am neither Ronde’s personal assistant, nor am I responsible for him. So no need to treat me like him.”

These quotations are all taken from different postings! Is that enough for you? If not reread all my postings on the topic and see what else I said on the question who is guilty. But as we already know, your memory is really weak!

Man the only one who is condescending is you. People who throw in assertions without presenting arguments and who want others to believe them are condescending. People who insult others as “egghead” are condescending. But people who even forget that and ask the one who they insulted when they did it, are even more condescending!

The only thing that you said that is right is: “people on this forum KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON”. Yes they see it. An yes YOU “can't fool them”.

I would suggest to play a little memory (the game) in order to improve your commemoration.

Nathan said...

J,

Thank you very much for your reply. You seem to be a man who can be reached with logical arguments and scriptural reasoning. I have the utmost respect for that!

I will only answer on your criticism, since you see to share my opinion on the rest.

@ Acts 6:4: Yes you are right. But the verse says: “but we shall devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” Well the ministry of the word for me means to interpret it to find out the truth. So this can mean “new light” sometimes. But I should have given more examples on that. Acts is in fact full of that. It shows “new light” on several questions.

@ writing of NT: Yes the NT was written during the first century. That was my point in fact. Only a few anointed were involved in writing the NT. Nevertheless all anointed benefited from it and humbly accepted what was written to them. Paul’s letters were not just simple letters but inspired by Jehovah! So submitting to it was submitting to God’s will. So although most of the anointed were not asked about it, they accepted what was told to them.

@ current JW teaching: Well as far as organizational things are concerned there have been a lot of letters that began with “the GB of JWs has decided”. In the year book you will always find a letter “from the GB” not from the FDS.

Regarding the interpretation of the Bible: Yes JWs say that all anointed make up the FDS. Yes they say that this Faithful Slave is providing new light. But I did not say that this is a lie. All members of the GB belong to the FDS. So they “represent” the anointed ones. This is also the official teaching. JWs teach that the GB represents the anointed. This can be found in the literature. In my opinion this is evidence for respect. Off course the GB could say, “We the GB present you this new light”. But this would be self-exalted. So they say “The FDS presents you this new light”. I doubt that any JWs would turn away from the religion if the GB would just say that the teaching comes from the GB. So if this is not their motivation to say that new light comes from the FDS it can’t be that a bad motive.

Btw. If I know how the publishing is done, other JWs do. So you see it is no secret and thus I don’t think that calling it “new light from the FDS” is a lie.

Thank you very much again for your thoughts J. People like you prove joepublish and others wrong! They show that logical arguments are recognized by readers of this forum and that it will always be logical arguments that bring forth truth and not mere assertions.

Regarding your PS: I know several people who already wrote to the GB and got an answer. Some things were even changed after some period of time. I know my personal experience is not valid as statistical proof, but at least it is a hint that they do read what is sent to them

Best regards!

J said...

Nathan,
You state "here have been a lot of letters that began with “the GB of JWs has decided”. In the year book you will always find a letter “from the GB” not from the FDS."

This is true. I accept your answer. Granted my acceptance means little or nothing on the grand scale of things as I am simply some dude. But I think you did an excellent job. Too bad we can't remove the morons like ronde off the forum and stay on point. This could prove to be a very meaningful forum.

Anyhow enough of me bashing stupid people.

Nathan, have you read Rays book Crisis of Conscience? If so what were your thoughts?

It seems like the next logical point would be 'does what the GB/FTS teach align with scripture?'

The quotes out of context are one thing that disturbs me greatly. As an active JW I had only researched one quote. It happened to be one that was spot on. For instance have you read the first quote in the RS book under cross? Now I know that everyone says oh it doesn't matter if Jesus died on a cross or stake. I agree it doesn't. Again more reason not to mislead people that he died on a stake if he didn't. I have the scans I could send you on this but perhaps you would prefer to use the local library etc so that you know the source of the info.

-J

Nathan said...

Thanks for your answer J. You seem to be a very reasonable man. I would like to find out more about why you left JW.

Can you tell me what you mean with RS book?

Well I would look information up in a library and I would also accept your scans. But please inform me a little more concrete on what topic you want to discuss especially as next question.

J said...

Blogger Nathan said...

"I would like to find out more about why you left JW."

First I try not to be dogmatic or unreasonable. I am not so arrogant as to not return to JWs if I stand corrected. To explain my leaving in short, I do not see any evidence the GB or FTS is guided by God, or is his spokesperson at this time. I base this not on one item, or fact but on many, many things I have researched, read, etc.

"Can you tell me what you mean with RS book?"

"Reasoning From the Scriptures" I think it first came out in the early 80's and had been revised once.

My point I would like to discuss is:

Does the GB/FTS follow the Bible?

This is a very broad topic. Since their views have changed on a number of occasions a person can get in a circular argument easily. So I would like to start with something basic:

Honesty.

If the FTS/GB are guided by God they are not going to lie, or misrepresent things. Truth wins. It does not need to distort things to prove its point. Now I am not accusing the GB/FTS of outright lying. I think they lie, while using cognitive dissonance to excuse it.

So under the heading of Does the GB follow the Bible>Honesty> I would like to focus on quotes from non-watchtower material used in Watchtower publications.

Bible>Honesty>Quotes

One specific quote I feel is out of context can be found in the heading Cross in the Reasoning Book. The first source quoted The Imperial Bible-Dictionary is the item under consideration.

A quick google found once source of the scans at :
http://middleman777.wordpress.com/2008/09/06/the-cross-of-calvary/

However personally I read the entire section under cross without the highlights. I don’t like people highlighting things putting ideas in my head. Simply read the entire section. I can send the scan if you can’t find it online. Then tell me in all honesty if you feel Watchtower/GB/FTS known hereafter simply as JWs did not misrepresent the material.

This is only once instance out of many. But you have to start somewhere. Blasting 100 points on a blog comment is a pointless waste of time if you ask me.

chocolatepuddingeyes said...

Nathan,

You use a lot of words, but in the end you don't really say anything. I'm wondering if you're related to Al (thirdwitness), because he does the same thing.

The biggest glaring issue with your response to me was the fact that in the very same post I responded to Ronde, providing just what you were asking for on most of the 20 points. Don't tell me you missed that?

I've provided scriptural references too, but you still complain that there's no rationale. You're like a noisy little baby bird waiting for it's mother to regurgitate food into its mouth.

To JoePublisher and J, thanks for the comments, and no, I don't have my own blog. Maybe some day.

For those who think Rutherford and his cohorts were imprisoned on false charges, the truth was uncovered for me when we were directed to edit out some false information in the Revelation Climax book. Go get your Sept. 2006 Kingdom Ministry. Look under Chapter 6, note the changes for page 32. Ask yourself why you were given instructions to change "they were completely exonerated of the false charges against them" to "the false charges against them were dropped." There is a very interesting story behind that change.

http://www.freeminds.org/history/exonerated.htm

Anonymous said...

"For those who think Rutherford and his cohorts were imprisoned on false charges, the truth was uncovered for me when we were directed to edit out some false information in the Revelation Climax book."

What difference does it make?

It is not a crime to speak out on the governments as per the first amendment. Thus the government was wrong to charge the publishers for anything.

chocolatepuddingeyes said...

Anonymous (Ronde's twin brother maybe?), it was not a first amendment issue, was it?

I don't know about you, but when I find out someone distorts the truth it bothers me.

JoePublish said...

Hi Nathan... I think you may be losing it like Ronde (but only in a different way).

Should I call the men in white coats?

You think you're so clever in avoiding my question, don't you?

The only way the JW's leaders could contain articles of pedophilia in "other" religions, all the time knowing that their "own" religion had the SAME PROBLEM (without ever mentioning it to anyone even their own members) is the very definition of the word:

HYPOCRITE!

I don't blame the adherents, I do blame the leaders. But, when anyone like Ronde comes along (or even yourself with your ridiculous Microsoft analogy), then I also blame you for trying to cover it over or to soften it.

It is an outrage what has happened in this organization regarding the pedophilia cover-up. Don't insult me by trying to cover up your religion's BIG MISTAKE! (But, then this organization is plastered with mistakes, all the way back to the beginning and into the future! You have to believe that last statement because you buy into that NEW LIGHT theory. Oh boy... this religion is right for you. Enjoy.)

Anonymous said...

"Anonymous (Ronde's twin brother maybe?), it was not a first amendment issue, was it?
I don't know about you, but when I find out someone distorts the truth it bothers me. "

Ronde died from a blood transfusion.

The government did not like the book because the clergy prompted them. But the government is supposed to stay out of religion.

J said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J said...

Joepublish,
States:
"It is an outrage what has happened in this organization regarding the pedophilia"

Mr.Joepublish... hang on a minute. I don't deny that there is a issue with molesters in the org. I know of two personally that were hushed in the past two years by my local elder body.

But this is the thing. If you think you have the only true religion and are guided by God; you hit things from a little different angle. To some degree (I am not trying to justify or say it's right) JWs were victims of their own concept.

This is not an easy issue to handle. Do you just get on the platform and say 'brother so and so is a child molester'?

Like many problems of this nature, emotional, spiritual, mental health, abusive homes. The elders are not qualified or equipped to handle these issues.

"HYPOCRITE!" although accurate, is a strong word. The GB do not wake up in the morning thinking about how to be evil. (Well my old neighbor Ted might :-) They are victims of their own cult.

If you really are trying to reach people like Nathan, be kind. Nathan is in looking out. Not out looking in. He does not view his religion as a cult. He thinks he has the truth. You were there. Rather than bash his church, help him to try imagining stepping out and looking in and evaluating what he sees.

Anonymous said...

"Like many problems of this nature. Emotional, spiritual, mental health, abusive homes. The elders are not qualified or equipped to handle these issues."

The ones in Texas are equipped as everyone there carries a gun.

But seriously, who is ever qualified to handle those issues? No one. No police, no doctor, no shrink, no one.

J said...

"Ronde died from a blood transfusion."

ROTFL...

sorry - not funny I know - but I can't help myself.

J said...

"The ones in Texas are equipped as everyone there carries a gun."

"But seriously, who is ever qualified to handle those issues? No one. No police, no doctor, no shrink, no one."

Anonymous, you sound like someone I could get along with. You make good points. I think the problem is not just the elders lack of qualifications but that they are sold and have been more so in the past as capable of handling these things.

It’s like the whole meetings, service and prayer fix everything. No actually they don’t.

I mention “spiritual,” problems, and you state ‘who is ever qualified to handle those issues?’ Well elders who claim to be Christian should be equipped spiritually. To your benefit perhaps you simply missed my comment thrown in there.

Physiologists are equipped to handle some of these issues. Yeah some have their head shoved so far up their *** I would like to kick them in the rear while it’s up there. But there are also very qualified ones that can help.

Using the elders as the fix all is not the solution.

JoePublish said...

Dear J SAID,

I know what you are saying and I understand... you make some good points.

It's when I understood this that I realized that there is no real accountability at the top, sort of speak. No doctrines are ever wrong, it's just new light. Captive of a concept.

It's up for the individual members to realize that this captivity alters their reasoning.

None of us will really know how culpable the GB is with this issue of Pedophilia. We hope for the best, but I'm afraid they have lost all credibility with me.

Thanks for your reply.

I don't think I was being to harsh though with anyone - know that many facts are out - who try to soften or dismiss the horrible handling of the MANY acts of pedophilia performed in this religion. Ronde even blamed the victims and their parents. If I was a witness, I would have corrected him so fast it wouldn't even be funny.

J said...

JoePublish says:
"None of us will really know how culpable the GB is"

You're absolutely right, and on many levels. According to the Scriptures Saul did some bad things and was acquitted by God. But claiming to represent God and misleading people while doing so is not something to be taken lightly 'captives' or not.

I too was mislead. But I also own up to the fact that what I did was wrong. I have even personally apologized to many I 'Witnessed' to as a JW.

Nathan said...

Yo joe,

Again running round in circles, not admitting that you are wrong? So business as usual. But there is one good thing. You obviously recognized that you need help! Yous aid: “Should I call the men in white coats?” Yes you should and tell them in advance what kind of problem you have that they will treat you right.

I don’t believe that I am so clever; I just believe that you are not. I don’t avoid any of your questions. I just ask you to give us one article that disturbed you in that regard. I don’t believe that this is asked too much. Since you complain about it so often you should have such articles, shouldn’t you? So please give one to us. This is what the word evidence means man.

Man it makes me tired. You call my comparison ridiculous but you don’t manage to present a single point why it was so ridiculous. That is so poor!

I should not insult you? You are the one insulting others! Did you again forget that? But again I can help you out. Does this not sound like an insult? “Oh boy... this religion is right for you. Enjoy.“ Well i guess it does. And I guess it sounds like you think you are so clever!

But as I told you above, I think you are not. Now quick take the phone a call the guys to catch you up!

Nathan said...

Yo J (who is still ignorantly called „J SAID“ by joe who just doesn’t get it…),

The only way joe can reach me is by presenting logical arguments. As long as he doesn’t it will always be easy to refute him.

I believe that I have a pretty good picture of JWs. And some unfortunately behave like it was a cult, but a lot don’t. I also don’t believe to have the ultimate truth, but I believe that JWs are closer to it than others. But nevertheless I think that I am able to judge things objectively according to the evidence and arguments presented.

I will try to answer your question tomorrow. But may I suggest to start an email conversation, since that would be easier I guess.

Nathan said...

Well chocolatepuddingeyes,

Maybe you should get rid of the chocolate pudding in your eyes and it will be fine. I know that I said a lot in this thread. And interestingly also people like J recognized that, although they are no JWs.

Yes your presented 20 points. 20 assertions. Then you started a discussion with Ronde and added a little more information. But when I told you that you only presented assertions you had only posted the points without reasoning! Further I told you that I will discuss every point, but that I won’t discuss 20 points on the surface at once. That does not make sense. Until now you did not give me the point you would like to discuss most. So what are you complaining about? As long can’t decide for one point and then present detailed rationale why you believe that JWs do wrong in that point, we nothing to discuss. But again I invite you to do so.

Huh always this endless chatter about your own faults.

Anonymous said...

Jo said:"who try to soften or dismiss the horrible handling of the MANY acts of pedophilia performed in this religion. Ronde even blamed the victims and their parents."

If a bank was robbed many times over a period of several years, would it be the government's fault? No, it would be that bank's (the victim's) fault for allowing it to happen over and over and not doing anything about it. Likewise, people who claim they were abused over a period of years, it is like a bank that leaves the vault open and has a sign that says take what you want. If something is not done the first time, right away, it happens again and again.

J said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J said...

NO,
Anon. You are wrong. "If a bank was robbed" indicates that adults are being victimized” .

If a CHILD is molested it is quite different. You and Teddy are on the same page.
Unfortunately you have a 1950's mentality. I hate to be to dogmatic. But this is a serious matter that you don't seem to get.

Blaming victims is wrong. Blaming children who are victims is much worse.

Sure somebody breaks into my house twice. By the third time they are going to have a 9mm hole in their head. But I am a mature adult. The only advocates children have are their parents and other adults. If someone molests my child and I find out sure I will blow your head off. But blaming children come on.

J said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nathan said...

That is really important! As J said: "Blaming children who are victims is much worse." Yes this should never be done under the topic of child abuse.

chocolatepuddingeyes said...

Nathan,

I think I've already said why it's impossible for me to have a discussion with you. You could have picked any one of the 20 points for discussion, you never did.

You asked me to point out where JW's are not in harmony with the Bible. I did that. And all you can do is pick apart my posts from that point on.

Most of the 20 points have been widely discussed on so-called apostate websites, so I doubt that you are unfamiliar with the assertions. I've posted links, I've posted scriptures, yet you're never satisfied. I told you we were at an impasse. Thank you for further demonstrating that.

Nathan said...

chocolatepuddingeyes,

It is not so difficult to satisfy me. I just asked you to pick out a topic you would like to discuss, since I am not going to discuss 20 topics at once each only on the surface like you and Ronde did.

I don't feel obliged to pick out a topic myself, because it is you who is not satisfied with JWs teaching regarding these topics. Why do you refuse to pick one and ask me the questions you like? It would be very simple.

chocolatepuddingeyes said...

Nathan,

I said, "All those years of being taught by the WTS how to identify false religion and what to do if you find out that the organization you are associated with is not in harmony with the Bible, have finally come to fruition."

You replied, "Being in harmony with the Bible surely is the most important. The question is where do you think JWs are not and who do you think is more in harmony than JWs?"

So I give you a list of various issues where I feel JW's are not in harmony with the Bible. These are not new thoughts, they are widely discussed issues on the internet.

I guess the problem here is that when you challenged me to come up with an answer you did not expect me to have one. Instead of one answer, I gave you 20. Now, if I were you, and I were able to refute those 20 points, I would have addressed each point and said, Choco, you're wrong. Here's the scriptural or factual basis for why JW's are in harmony with the Bible on this point.

You said, "Why do you refuse to pick one and ask me the questions you like?" I have no questions for you. You were the one who had a question for me, remember? I answered it. You basically challenged me to come up with an answer. I did.

I never asked you to discuss 20 different issues with me. You challenged me, I answered. It is now up to you to decide if you want to refute any or all of my assertions.

You claim I gave you no rationale for my assertions. Well, that's true, the first time around I didn't, but only because I was just answering a question you asked of me and you didn't state that you wanted a full explanation. (Probably because you never expected me to respond.)

But now you're aware that rationale, scriptures, and links have been provided and you want me to pick a topic to discuss with you because you think I have questions. Well, sorry to disappoint you, but I do not have questions about these topics. They have been well-researched and I am satisfied that I have come to reasonable conclusions about the issues. If you have any proof to offer, to refute any of my assertions, you are more than welcome to post the proof, as long it contains facts and is not just your opinion.

I'm sorry if my original response of 20 points made you feel obligated to address each and every point. You are not obligated to address any of them. My response was merely a reply to your challenge.

Nathan said...

Choco,

Yes I asked you that question. Yes you answered with your 20 topics. Off course I expected you to have an answer. All people here who are ex- or non-JWs have answers to that question. I never doubted that. The only reason why I asked you was to see if you have better reasons than others here. Just believing any assertions made on the internet may be a reason to think that JWs do not live in harmony with the Bible, but it is no proof and it might not be a good basis. Rationale is what a good basis is. So I never doubted to get to read some “reasons” why you think so. I just wanted to know if their basis is sound.

You said: “Now, if I were you, and I were able to refute those 20 points, I would have addressed each point and said, Choco, you're wrong.” Well and that is the problem. It would take very much time to address each point in detail. You can look at the “This Good News of The Kingdom“ thread to see how much time I devoted to answer on just a single topic. I just don’t have the time to so on 20 topics!

Further, nobody can concentrate on 20 topics at the same time. No one can give detailed answer on 20 topics at the same time. But this would be necessary if I would follow what you said. After I would have posted maybe my first 3 to 4 answers, you would already start to answer on them again, while I was writing on point 5 to 7. This would end up in such a mess.

Maybe question was the wrong word, although I believe such a discussion would involve questions. Never mind. What I mean is: Why don’t you choose a topic you want to discuss and tell me why you believe that JWs are not in harmony with the Bible regarding that topic (by providing rationale). I think your questions would be then: “Now what do you think Nathan, is this enough of a proof? Or can you present evidence that my points were not true?” Then I could answer on your points in detail, if I am able to do so.

The reason why I said it is up to you to choose a topic is the following. If I would just take out one topic, you (or others here) would say: “he just talking out the one that is easiest to answer for him”. I want to avoid that. So if you choose the topic it is completely fair.

Yes I didn’t say that I wanted a full explanation. I already apologized for that. But in my opinion such an answer only makes sense if rationale for the opinion is provided.

Again I did not challenge you. It was a question of interest, nothing more. But again, it is up to you to choose a topic, for the reasons presented above, and I will try to answer on every argument you present regarding that topic.

kimmy jo said...

"Anonymous said...
Kimmy Jo states that higher education is against Christianity"

"kimmy jo said...
Discouraging higher education is called LOSS PREVENTION.
The watchtower does not want them to learn to 'think'. THINKING may cause followers to take a closer LOOK at the religion, and judge it with REASON.
OH MY, THEY MAY 'LEARN' TO USE THEIR 'GOD GIVEN' THINKING ABILITY!!!!!!
That would spell trouble for the watchtower."


"Ronde said...
Kimmy Jo
The WTS is not a religion and does not tell lies."

ronde,
you are 1/2 correct on one point!....they sorta do not lie, what they do is hide truth, say it doesn't matter or call the BS they want to change "NEW LIGHT". Sorry, but the WTS IS a religion, they are called JW's.

chocolatepuddingeyes said...

Hi Nathan,

Well, thanks for showing interest, and sorry I took it as a challenge. ;)

Let's go with an easy one, #6, the practice of baptizing minors.

I've heard that many moons ago, older teens could get baptized only if they showed an exceptional leaning towards spiritual maturity. It was not rule, but rather the exception when that happened. Over the years things changed. By the time I came in the "truth" not only were teens of all ages being baptized, but even children as young as 6 years old.

I find the practice of baptizing minors to be unscriptural for several reasons. First of all, the accounts in the Greek Scriptures only relate the baptizing of men and women, not children. Jesus didn't get baptized until he was 30 years old. Baptism is a vow that is more serious than that of marriage. If we recognize that minors are not mature enough to get involved in a marital relationship, why isn't it recognized that the same reasons apply to the more serious vow of baptism? (rhetorical question)

So, we have the example set by Jesus, the record of only men and women getting baptized (no children), and the logic that baptism should not be entered into by someone who has not fully matured as illustrated by the age requirement to get a marriage license.

Personally, I think it is an abhorrent deviation from the scriptures to not only allow children to get baptized, but to have GB members giving talks pressuring the congregations to get their teens baptized, implying that if they aren't well on the road to baptism that there's something wrong going on in the family. This is despicable because of the end results that are happening to families worldwide. The young teen ends up disfellowshipped a few years later and the family suffers a catastrophic rupture.

This issue would not have even made my list if it was a rare occurrence. The problem is that this is happening in congregations worldwide and is a tool that Satan the Devil is using to divide and conquer families.

The GB has all the statistics. They know how many teens are being expelled every year. They don't care. They are willing to sacrifice these young lives in order to inflate their baptism figures. If they really cared about the young people they would have done something about the problem a long time ago, when the results were first surfacing.

These teenage statistics don't mean much to many on the inside because they are taught to believe that it's Jehovah's method of keeping the congregation clean, safe, and protected. I used to believe that line of reasoning, but I can't accept it anymore now that I know the truth about the religion. There is no way that Jehovah is behind this. He desires all to be saved and doesn't want ANYONE destroyed.

JoePublish said...

You really need to come down from way up there on your Pedestal Nathan. Better to do that in humility because if you recall Pride is before a fall. LOL You know Nathan, you're not to resort to name-calling, but you reveal the TRUE person that you are... and it isn't pretty. I know you are struggling with internal disputes and objections to your own religion. It's only a matter of time before you act in harmony with your gut.

What I find interesting is how defensive the members of this religion are. When you research JW's on the Internet, you'll see why. It's filled with truths about this religion that can not be disputed (unless you go into denial mode). WWW.FREEMINDS.ORG

Nathan said...

Hey Choco,

That is an interesting one, because I don’t feel very comfortable with baptizing children either.

I think the most important thing is to make a difference between children, teens and adults.

Maybe, as you said, sometimes even children are baptized. But this is, at least from my experience that very rare exception. I personally don’t know anyone who was baptized as young as 6. Off course this is not representative, but at least I honestly believe that this is an exception and not common practice. The WT also says that. For example in WT 2006, April 1, page 27-28, paragraph 8 (I am sorry I don’t have an English copy here now). But it says: The Bible does not speak of a minimum age for baptism, but little children can neither be believers, nor can dedicate to Jehovah. So this is acknowledges by JWs.

It goes on to say that even though some young people cultivate spirituality they need to have a relationship with God, a profound biblical base knowledge and they need to be fully aware of what they do, before they can be baptized.

To me this sounds quite logical. And this is the “official” view. This also is one of the major reasons for the questions that are asked before one can be baptized. Off course this leaves some responsibility for the elders discussing those questions, but reasonable elders should be able to draw sound conclusions. Granted, not all elders in all congregation will always do do, but I believe in most cases this works.

Parents are another leg of control. They should have a quite good picture about their children. They should know if it is too early or not.

As far as teens are concerned there are some more things to say. Teen is not teen. A twelve year old is a teen and a sixteen year old as well. What you said about marriage cannot be applied to teens from, well let’s say 16 upwards. In many (western!) countries it is lawful to marry from the age of 16 on (maybe one needs the signature of one’s parents). In a lot of countries these teens are allowed to drive cars, vote on politics and so on. To cut it short, society thinks they are enough of an adult to do so. Btw. In a lot of countries you are legally adult at the age of 18 or 21. These ages are quite arbitrary I think. So deciding when someone is grown up is not so easy.

Regarding examples in the Bible: well there are some which were younger than 30. True, we don’t know exactly when Timothy was baptized, but he was very young when Paul he met Paul on his second missionary journey. Maybe he was around 20. Paul took him along then on his journeys.

Another example would be Samuel.1 Samuel 2:18 says: “And Samuel was ministering before Jehovah, as a boy, having a linen ephod girded on.” So the high priest considered Samuel to be old enough for service. But what about God? Did Jehovah consider Samuel as mature enough? Yes. 1 Samuel 3:2-22, shows that Samuel was called by Jehovah to be a prophet for him. So if Jehovah called Samuel this surely was not less than a baptism.

A third example is the young girl that served for the Syrian Naaman. The account about her shows us that she was mature enough. She could have been baptized (if baptism had existed then).
So the right age for baptism is quite individual. It is different for each person. We can definitely exclude children from baptism. But this is done by JWs officially and if it still happens it is a rare exception. For teens we have to consider their true age. I would say that all teens under the age of 16 nee d to show what you said: “an exceptional leaning towards spiritual maturity”. This is very important and has to be judged individually for every teen.

I don’t believe that a too early baptism is good, but I also believe that we should not hold back teens who are mature enough just because they don’t have a certain arbitrary age. So the rule is: don’t baptise children and make sure that the ones getting baptized know what they are doing. This is the official position as can be seen from what I wrote above. But off course since the GB or the branch offices don’t know the individual candidate they must rely on what the local elders say. And if they say that a certain teen is mature enough they will give their ok. True, elders make mistakes, but that is not the fault of the religion.

Yes young people are told to head towards spiritual maturity. But there is nothing wrong with it. No one says that you have to get baptized before you are 16. In the congregations I served there really were a lot of teens who got baptized at 18 or later. Nobody pressured them. But I admit this is a question of viewpoint.

But personally I don’t believe that young people leave because they have been baptized too early. A lot of them leave without having ever been baptized. I think the reasons why some young leave JWs are different from baptism.

If your reasoning about statistics were true, I don’t believe the GB would do so. If too early baptism was the main reason why young people leave they would tell them to wait a little, because in the end the total figures would go up dramatically. So they would exchange better baptism figures against bigger increase ratios. So I don’t believe that statistics plays a role.

I hope this serves as a first answer. Let me know what you think.

Nathan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nathan said...

Well joe, what you do here, psychologists call projection bias (or psychological projection).

First I though that you just do it because you don't have arguments but now I believe it is a serious psychological problem.

Reread your last posting and you will see what I mean...

J said...

Ronde:
"I did not make a mistake. The Watchtower does not disfellowship, it is the congregation that does that. If someone does something wrong at the WTS facilities, they may inform their congregation about it, but the WTS does not DF."

I do not want to get into an argument with Ronde. But for those reading this blog Ronde is wrong. This is not how it works. Bethelites committees are handled at Bethel not the local congregation. Not that it's a big deal. I just don't like to see misinformation like this populated.

J said...

On the Watchtower DFing thing. Ronde if you choose to respond. Please provide the source of your data.

I was at Bethel for several years. I know first hand of several dozen DF'd Bethelite. I know their halls, their elders and the years they were DFd.

If you feel it's not handled how I say. Please provide the the year, the site BRK, WKL, PAT, and the area of the KH, or some details backing your accusation.

As an example. I know of a case in BRK, in 2003, with a Bethelite from the Bronx. I know the hall and his name, his job, etc, but out of respect for him I will not post it on the internet.

chocolatepuddingeyes said...

Nathan,

I have seen dozens and dozens of young teens (less than 16 years old) baptized and expelled a few years later. I personally know a ten year old that was baptized. I know the brothers who approved her for baptism. If those elders were honest about why the 10 year old wanted to get baptized so badly, they would recognize it was because she wanted to break into the "inner circle," in other words, the social circle at the hall. Only her baptism didn't do the trick for her. She still wasn't good enough for the elders' daughters to socialize with. I've seen that scenario play out over and over and over again.

What do you think about the GB members who give talks telling the audience members that their 14, 15, and 16 year olds should be well on their way to baptism?

What do you think about the brothers in Bulgaria who submitted an application to the European Court of Human Rights stating that minors are not allowed to become members?

I find both situations disturbing. And glaring examples of how JW's are not in harmony with the Bible. You couldn't find any scriptural backing for the baptism of young teens so you took some Bible accounts and stretched them to fit your purpose. None of the accounts you cited give a basis for baptizing young teens or pre-teens. The truth of the matter is that minors are being baptized on a regular basis and the vast majority of them are not fully mature and ready to make such a lifelong decision.

If these young people were getting married, instead of getting baptized, there would be a public outcry. The way you excuse the situation really disturbs me. Maybe your eyes will be opened when you are affected personally.

Anonymous said...

"As J said: "Blaming children who are victims is much worse." "

Yes, the victims are to blame. Look at Galveston. They are calling themselves victims, but they are to blame. Anyone who would build on a sandbars is to blame.

J said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J said...

"Yes, the victims are to blame."

Sounds like something a child molester would say.

Sadly you are one of the few people that do deserve to be a victim sometime.

If get you hit by a car someday or beat half to death it might make you a bit better person.

People like ronde are just stupid fools. You on the other hand are a grade A jerk.

Anonymous said...

Nathan said:
"True, elders make mistakes, but that is not the fault of the religion."

No more truer words have been said here.

kimmy jo said...

The subject was higher education...the Watchtowers views.

Voice of Reason said...

J said:
"I do not want to get into an argument with Ronde. But for those reading this blog Ronde is wrong. This is not how it works. Bethelites committees are handled at Bethel not the local congregation. Not that it's a big deal. I just don't like to see misinformation like this populated.
"

So you were disfellowshipped by one of those committees? Do those committees disfellowship? Or just handle matters at Bethel?

JoePublish said...

Oh my goodness, now Nathan is playing psychiatrist…

Right now Nathan you have your hands full playing one of Jehovah’s Witnesses – don’t you think you’re taking more on than you can handle??? LOL

You are a classic Nathan of some of your peer JW's. You put on an outward show, but then when given an opportunity (like this web-blog) you show your REAL colors.

I noticed you removed one of your post before this? Perhaps you swore or said something really nasty???

This is not nice Nathan... I think you need to visit your elders and see what help they can provide for you. LOL

Voice of Reason said...

chocopudding said:
"I have seen dozens and dozens of young teens (less than 16 years old) baptized and expelled a few years later. I personally know a ten year old that was baptized."

And what makes that your business?
Your business should be to be a good example to the youth and all. If the parents and overseers and the youth feel they are ready, that is their business.

JoePublish said...

Just a note to all.

I've found that Nathan would try to get you all to chase your tail. Be aware.

He's not as blunt as Ronde, but much more devious. He'll stretch many things to try and prove the opposite, even stretching what you said.

For instance. I said why don't the GB participate in this web-blog, since they are in the best position to answer the GBL.

He responded how ridiculous it would be for the GB to respond to all the thousands of web-sites critical of JW's. You see, I wasn't suggesting that - but, it got twisted by Nathan. Everyone knows that there are a handful of VERY popular sites that are critical of JW's. (www.freeminds.org, jwfacts.com, sixscreensofthewatchtower.com, etc.) Why can't they at least address the very popular ones - I KNOW they know which ones they are, believe me!

So, Nathan... see if you can do better than Ronde. (He failed this twice and used the opportunity to say something not very nice in one of his replies).

I say "Up", now you Nathan say the opposite, it begins with "D" (not Y like Ronde suggested.)

LOL

p.s. Let me give you an example Nathan as to why you are a hypocrite (you really are). I'll prove it. Would you say the same things to me if I said these things to you at the door??? That has to hurt, because you know you've crossed the line buddy on this web-blog.

J said...

Voice of Reason said:

"So you were disfellowshipped by one of those committees? Do those committees disfellowship? Or just handle matters at Bethel?"

No I was not. I did serve at Bethel and knew several individuals personally who where however. Yes they disfellowship.

chocolatepuddingeyes said...

chocopudding said:
"I have seen dozens and dozens of young teens (less than 16 years old) baptized and expelled a few years later. I personally know a ten year old that was baptized."

And what makes that your business?
Your business should be to be a good example to the youth and all. If the parents and overseers and the youth feel they are ready, that is their business.

To Voice:

My goodness, don't you have any compassion for people? When I see the damage done to families by being in this religion it really hurts my heart.

You are just as blind as Nathan is when it comes to seeing the truth about the situation. Young people are being pressured into an early baptism. The parents are being pressured. The pressure is coming from those who have distorted ideas about what it means to be spiritually mature AND from the GB.

Until you people understand the problem you are going to continue to refute what I'm saying with senseless and insensitive replies. I can't make you understand....you have to come to that point on your own. Given time, maybe you will.

Why would you want someone who is just a teenager to make a lifelong commitment at such a young age? Driving a car, voting, even getting married, don't come close to the seriousness of the decision to get baptized. I guess that's where I'm failing to connect with you and Nathan. You just don't get it, do you?

Nathan said...

Yo Joe,

I believe it is time for you to save the rest of your self-esteem, if any is left. You’ve almost lost your face (and obviously your faith too).

First you say I am classical JWs, then you say I am just playing a JWs, and then right in the next paragraph of your last posting you again say I am a classic JWs. Man, make up your mind.

Where is my outward show (please enlighten us what you mean with that phrase) and tell me where the difference is to my “real colors. That statement of yours is just sick.

Are you paranoid, Joe? Yes I removed one post. You know why? Because I misspelled the same word twice, and so I posted it once again. Look at the time between the posts. Not even 2 minutes. So I only copied and pasted my own posting and corrected the spelling errors. As people here already know from all my posts I am not a nasty person. Maybe they don’t share my opinion, but I don’t get personal (at least as long as people don’t get personal to me).

But I don’t understand why you still project this on me. It is you who keeps insulting me. I have proved that many times. You even forget about it and ask me where you did. I showed it to you, but you did not react on it. If you were such a good guy you would simply admit it and apologize. Instead you accuse me of insulting or swearing. I did never call you something like “egghead”. So please remain silent on that topic if you are not able to confess the truth.

Rofl, you really are so afraid of me that you think you need to inform the readers here to be aware of me? They can all read my postings here publicly. I have never said anything to you privately, so they all can judge for themselves who behaves and who doesn’t.

There really is no need to stretch any of your comments. They are just absurd on a regular basis so the only thing I have to do is to refute them with a single logical argument.

You accuse me of stretching things, while you are not even able to depict what I said correct? Man that is hard stuff. To bring light into this, I will show you how correct quoting (or depicting) is done.

You said: “If the GB doesn't have a problem with these sites, why don't they join in??? They are in the best position to defend "their" faith and the GBLs that appear on this blog.”

I answered: “Lol, the GB consists of 11 men. There are maybe several hundred sites like this. And they have a lot of other things to do as well. Why wouldn't they write on every weird site like this? Let me think.

Maybe for the same reason why they do not visit every one of the 7 billion people on earth personally. Maybe because there are 7 million JWs who do that more effectivley because they together spend nearly 1.5 billion hours a year in the ministry (compared to the less than 100.000 hours the members of the GB could spend in it).”

So first of all I was speaking about “several hundred sites like this”, not about “all the thousands of web-sites” you referred to. So you did not depict correct! Further it is complete nonsense that there are only a handful of popular websites! There are many more! On the other hand you asked why they do not respond on this website! And this website is NOT very popular. Count the postings from the last two month and compare them to let’s say www.jehovahs-witnesses.com (a very popular site you forgot to mention for example!). So your argument regarding the popular websites is a flaw.

I personally believe that the GB don’t feel a need to answer on every website, but even if they would they just couldn’t make it because there are too many. Moreover on each of those sites there is not just one topic discussed but dozens. So you would need very much time to answer only one a single website. And that if you still have a fulltime job to do. This all shows that your argument is senseless.

What did I say that was not very nice man? Be careful when quoting, because I will always be able to show that you started!

May I suggest playing your proposed game on a higher level? I say “the truth”, you say the opposite. A hint: the same word is used but you need to add two letters in front and it starts with “u”. Or I present a “logical argument” then you would present? Let me think. Look for a synonym for “illogical comedy”.

It would make me a hypocrite if I would knock on your door and tell you the truth? Why? This is just what I do here. Nothing more. If you would call me “egghead” or “unreasonable” when I knocked at your door, what would I do then? It depends on the situation. I would either leave your home or I would tell you not to insult me if you don’t have arguments. Maybe you are not used to JWs like me, but I don’t see a problem with telling people the truth. Moreover your comparison doesn’t fit. It is like I would already sit in your flat and we had discussion for a longer time and then you start to be impolite. My reaction then would be different to a first visit. Well you know that, but I am looking forward to your try to just overlook what I said or to call it stupid although I am right.

Joe it is you who crossed the line and know you reap a little of what you sowed (not only from me but from the readers here too).

Now go on and give yourself another try to get the cookie.

JoePublish said...

Like I said Nathan.... that some JW's use the Internet to "say" things that they would never say at the door is hypocritical - simple as that. That you would even try to explain this away is amazing to me and other readers.

I believe that you are in damage control right now because you want to get the last say (but like I explained to Ronde in a previous post, the last post doesn’t undo what you've said in the past… in this case, I think you are scrambling because you have acted very un-Christian like, with the name calling.)

I believe these sites allow JW's to release inner frustration. Why are they so frustrated?

So, like I asked, would you call people names at the door, even if were you second or third visit? I think not.

You are acting hypocritical on this blog - simple as that. You try to soften that by saying, 'I'm not your ordinary JW.'

It is YOU that is now exposed as a hypocritical JW.

Like someone else commented, the JW's on this site and many others adopt their own version of the JW religion. I feel the internet reveals who you REALLY are - without the pretenses displayed within the company of fellow JW's.

Some JW's pick and chose within their religion because these JW's recognize the deficiencies in this religion - why else would you divert from the direction from the faithful and discreet slave class?

I mean, show me one WTS article that says it's okay to call people mean/nasty names as well as being condescending to them??? (I’m waiting… and please don’t respond with more words, SHOW ME THE ARTICLE.) LOL

Nathan said...

Lol you are such a nice guy joe. But unfortunately you are completely lost in the world of your mind. Your frustrated and fantastic world.

I never said a single sentence to you that I wouldn’t say to you when we were talking face to face. If you behaved like you do here when we would talk face to face I would tell you the same things. I have absolutely no problems with that! Why shouldn’t I? I never said anything that was not true.

I want to have the last say? May I remind you that it was you who started the discussion in this thread? But you are right, what you said still can be written in this blog. I did not write anything I would have to be ashamed of. But you did! You insulted me personally!

Again I ask you, would you please show me where I was name calling? Just show it to us joe! You know that I only returned some of your insults back to you. But I never called you “egghead” and other swearwords. But you called me just that and I proved it, although you just can’t remember! As I said you are projecting man!

I feel quite well in fact, thank you. But maybe it is you who is frustrated. Maybe that is the reason why who have to throw mud on a religion and on people like me, calling them “egghead” and other things. If you just don’t like JWs, that’s just fine since you don’t have to be one. Why do you waste your time here then throwing mud? Going away from JWs and living your life should be enough if you were not frustrated.

You said: “So, like I asked, would you call people names at the door, even if were you second or third visit? I think not.” Again, where did I call you names? Show it to us! I only responded to your insults nothing more. And of course if we were discussing from face to face and suddenly you start insulting me I would tell you to stop. Just like I did. After some time I would start to talk to other people who behave. Like I did here. But unfortunately it is different here from field service. In field service I only talk to one man at a time. But here when I was discussing with somebody else you interfered our discussion. So I answered you. If you would do the same if we were face to face and would again start to insult me, yes then I would definitely return your insults to you! No problem with that. It is much less as what Jesus did in the temple with those vendors.

this is in full consent with the religion of JWs. I never said that I am different from other JWs, I said maybe YOU are not used to JWs like me.

It is YOU that is now exposed as a hypocritical JW.

There is no such article as the one you asked for, but I don’t need such an article. I did never call you names (although you did!) and the one who is condescending is you. So maybe you should just use more time cultivating your manners.

But maybe, if you really are the nice guy you want us to believe you are, you want to show us that you don’t want to have the last say, and just don’t respond on this posting. As a side effect that would save us all from more boredom…

Nathan said...

yo joe,

don't be paranoid again: I just forgot to delete the line "It is YOU that is now exposed as a hypocritical JW."

Nathan said...

Hey Choco,

I have seen young people being baptized and disfellowshipped (well a lot of them actually leave by themselves) later too. I have also seen man adults who left. As I said I don’t really believe that early baptism is the main reason why young people might turn away from JWs.

Regarding the ten year old girl: Well this is a single example and thus is of zero statistical relevance. Granted, a bad story and if that was the case her reason for being baptized was a real worst case scenario. But as I said, such things happen. It is not good at all that they happen, but where humans do their business, well “shit happens” (huh I hope joe won’t say I am swearing around).

True there are talks where the speaker asks how young people do on their way to baptism. But first of all it depends on the speaker how he chooses his words. Secondly, I don’t believe that it is bad to remember also young people that they should keep Jehovah on their mind. They shouldn’t be pressured to get baptized, that is true, But the “way” to baptism is a long one. In nearly all those talks you find other proposals too. “Have you ever thought of becoming unbaptized publisher?” “Have you ever though of spending just on hour per month more in the ministry?” “Have you ever though of improving personal study?” All those suggestions are correct I believe and all of them are on the “road” to baptism. So these talks really are not a bad thing (as long as the speaker uses the right words).

Can you please tell me what you want to hear about the brothers in Bulgaria?

You said: “You couldn't find any scriptural backing for the baptism of young teens so you took some Bible accounts and stretched them to fit your purpose. None of the accounts you cited give a basis for baptizing young teens or pre-teens.” Well in fact the Bible doesn’t say much on the age of baptism of individuals. You presented the example of Jesus and yes he was one of the view examples where an age is provided in the Bible. But I could say the same to you: You couldn’t find any scriptural back why youths shouldn’t be baptized at all! You just provided the example of Jesus. If you want to generalize that we would have to prohibit baptism before the age of 30, but I don’t believe that this makes sense.

Regarding the accounts I mentioned: No stretch was needed! Timothy evidently was very young when he was already travelling with Paul! Samuel evidently was a young boy when already serving in the temple and when he was called by Jehovah! Do you really think that serving in the temple is of less value than baptism? So where is the stretching?

Yes youths are baptized on a regular basis. I never said they are not. I also said that the age has to be evaluated for each individual! I also said that errors happen. And I also said that an arbitrary age for youths doesn’t make much sense to me. But there is one thing in which I definitely share your opinion: pre-teens shouldn’t be baptized. True sometimes this happens, but as I said, this is the rare exception I believe.

If this still disturbs you, well then that is up to you. You don’t have to share my opinion. I just tried to tell you honestly what I think about that topic.

JoePublish said...

Oh my goodness. So, your reasoning is that I called you a name first, so that means a Christian should return the favor? Or, that it makes it okay??? I can tell you right now that you are a false Jehovah's Witness and that some would be stumpled with your attitude.

Do you see how lost in yourself you are Nathan? (And you are still very condescending Nathan. You really really are... just because you say "I'm not", just review your own posts to me - if you dare).

You try to justify this action of yours with childish reasoning, too. The only way I can understand this is that you are so high on your own pedestal that you can't even seen the error of your ways.

Oh boy, now watch the response from Nathan because he can't leave this alone - which is another indicator that he is a rouge JW! LOL

Nathan said...

No, again you misunderstood the point! I said: “Again I ask you, would you please show me where I was name calling? Just show it to us joe! You know that I only returned some of your insults back to you. But I never called you “egghead” and other swearwords.”

So what I said was that I never called you names! I only returned some of your insults to you. The following serves as an example for what I mean. You said: “Should I call the men in white coats?” This clearly is a personal insult. I answered: “But there is one good thing. You obviously recognized that you need help! You said: “Should I call the men in white coats?” Yes you should and tell them in advance what kind of problem you have that they will treat you right.” This is NO insult. I just returned what you said to me, and thus showed you how senseless it was what you said.

So your whole reasoning regarding this is wrong. It’s quite simple: I never said that it is ok to call you a name because you did first! But what is interesting that although admitting that you called me names and that you started with it, you never have and still don’t apologize(d) for it. So what are you accusing me of? Remember the story about the straw and the rafter in the eye?

What I really enjoy joe is your playing shocked and those dramatic sentences like “oh my goodness”. Do you also put your hand on your chest when writing it?

Well just because you say that I am condescending, doesn’t make me condescending. And just because you say that I am condescending, doesn’t change that you are.

I guess we don’t have to talk about seeing one’s own errors. Since you are such a know-it-all and since you are always judging people and that in a self-exalted way if I may add that, it doesn’t make much sense to discuss this with you.

You said: “Oh boy, now watch the response from Nathan because he can't leave this alone”. That is so absurd. I wrote in my last posting: “But maybe, if you really are the nice guy you want us to believe you are, you want to show us that you don’t want to have the last say, and just don’t respond on this posting.“ So the fact that you responded alone shows that is you who can’t leave it alone, yet you still accuse me of it. Really funny.

But I will tell you something joe. I am fed up with discussing with you about the insults you make and about the fact that you are projecting them on me and others. I am fed up that you don’t have arguments. That you never present rationale for your assertions, no matter if the topic is about JWs or your fantasy stories about me insulting you. I am fed up that you insult other people and then you forget about it. I am fed up that you do things you accuse others of. It has just been enough. I won’t answer you again in this thread as long as it is not on a specific argument you present on the topic of this thread. I believe people here will be happy about it, because they surely are not interested in such a senseless discussion. Kimmy already reminded us about the subject of this thread.

Just one more thing to say: will you be bold enough and will you have the guts not to have the last say? Or will you do what I believe? Will you answer with another sermon of your fantasies?

Well, I bet you will…