I'm running the risk that he has an account here. If he does he probably posts as "RealOne" LOL
This was so frustrating, but I didn't want to back down on principle.
Here is the conversation:
FROM ME:
> >
> > Hi XXXXXX
> >
> > Hope you are OK, you'll probably get this on Monday morning EEK
> >
> > Quick Question: I hear that yesterdays Watchtower had new light
> > regarding
> > the "generation". I hear that the thought has changed....that the
> > generation now means the anointed ones not passing away.
> >
> > Is this true? I thought I'd ask you because you will definately know
> if
> > that is the new light.
> >
> > Since 1995 the generation has not meant the anointed, but rather the
> > generations of people who will see the signs of the end. Prior to
> 1995
> > it
> > was the generation of people who were alive in 1914 who would not die
> > before armageddon.
> >
> > Just wondered if this was true that it now means the anointed.
> >
> > Ta
> > Dawn
> > x
REPLY from him:
Hi Dawn
> > Yeh this is correct there have been new ones claming to be anointed,
> > also Jesus was talking to his disciples privately and there is no
> > negative article when he talked about the generation, also his
> disciples
> > would be the ones to see the sign and know what it meant, the normal
> > jews would not see it. Also he likened this period to the days of noah
> > and revelation talks about the horse riders riding after Jesus start
> his
> > conquest, all this happens over a extended period of time.
> >
> > Take care
> > XXXXXX x
FROM ME:
> Hi XXXXXXX
>
> Thanks for the answer!
>
> What do you mean, no negative article?
>
> This seems to tie in with the change I pointed out to you and mum that
> time, where the number for the anointed is no longer sealed. So people
> who feel they are anointed are now OK to say they are anointed and
> partake
> of the emblems at the memorial. Makes me wonder how it was for them
> before this new light when they knew they had a heavenly hope but were
> strongly discouraged because of the number having been sealed (according
> to the teaching at that time). Those who were "replacements" (for
> anointed who fell away) were very few indeed and noone who claimed to be
> anointed could be young. Thats different now, it seems.
>
> I'm sure mum thinks she's going to heaven, she always has! lol. I
> don't
> blame her, I've always had that feeling too.
>
> So it seems that the number of anointed is going to rise. We used to
> point to their dwindling numbers as proof that armageddon is close.
> Also
> when I was going to the hall, everyone preached a totally different idea
> of the generation. Respectfully, it doesn't surprise me that the new
> light came out, because by 1995 those alive at 1914 were already 81
> years
> old. Something had to be changed, didn't it? It seems there is a clear
> pattern.
>
> Thanks
> Dawn
> x
REPLY:
Negative article= he wasn't talking about the generation in a negative
> sence. In 1930's some felt that they where not going to heaven ( I met a
> man in 1992 who was a friend of fred franz and milten henshal, they were
> anointed he wasn't, it was only later they realised there was a great
> crowd, sometime things only become clearer when these things happen. Why
> do people in the organisation follow Jehovah because of Armageddon? That
> should not be, it should be because they support his way of doing
> things, or the way they perceive this. At the end of the day Jah gives
> us free will and its upto each one what they do with it. After
> Armageddon people will still have to serve Jehovah, not just upto
> Armageddon to save there neck.
>
> That's the way I look at it. I don't mind if people want to live a
> different way they are entitled to do so its fine with me, I choose my
> way others choose there's.
> If I'm wrong then when the lights go out I will be no where different
> than anyone else.
XXXXXX
SO I REPLIED TO HIM:
Hi XXXXX
Sorry I still don't understand the negative article thing. From what I remember Jesus said "this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur". It doesn't seem to say whether it would be a wicked or a good generation. Is it context which shows this? I'm just trying to understand what the society is saying is the justification for the change of thought (new light). Their previous explanations also seemed reasonable, biblically, so what new idea has helped them see this change?
As you know, I don't believe that Armageddon is coming anyway. Also if God is a loving God then even if it did come, he wouldn't kill me and all the others who are not wicked people. A recent WT article said that Jah would only kill those who were "incorrigibly wicked". So I don't see the point of having my life controlled by the Watchtower society and filling in their paperwork to somehow show I'm spiritual. (as a side issue, if he did kill me, then I wouldnt' want to be in a world of such a nasty god).
Seems wierd to me nowadays to see how the society can change "truth". I mean, the old idea was taught as truth and now we discover the old idea was actually untrue. I wonder how people just accept the new light every time without even wondering if this new light is actually true? Its a shame really because it all comes down to the interpretations of men.
Thanks for clarifying,
Dawn
x
HE DIDNT REPLY SO I SENT THIS
HI XXXXXX
Did you get my last reply?
I haven't heard from you.
I did find a copy of the Watchtower concerned, so I understand now what you were referring to when you said about Jesus speaking to his disciples regarding the generation.
The suggestion that Jesus was ONLY referring to his FAITHFUL disciples in this ONE instance is a stretch of the imagination. Why? Because it flatly ignores the usage of the phrase in Matthew 11:16, 12:39, 41-42, 45, 16:4, 17:17, 23:36, where the generation is indicated to be at least partially wicked. It is entirely possible that he was referring to a generation of people who included faithful ones, but also unfaithful (wicked) ones. (which incidentally is now the old light). How could Jesus throughout Matthew refer to "this generation" over and over again in a certain way, then suddenly in chapter 24 refer to the generation with a totally different meaning? There is no justification for this.
So if the disciples of Jesus were part of the generation which would not pass away, (which the article seems to accept) it is a strange thing to suggest that the generation would last right down from the disciples for 2000 years ! That is a long generation. With a gap of hundreds of years too, until Charles Taze Russell was "picked" by Jesus.
Its interesting that early Christianity, despite having spread all over Europe was so unsuccessful (according to the current Watchtower teachings). Throughout Christian history, for 1900 years (until Russell) there were fewer than 144,000 faithful Christians! I wonder why those millions who put faith in Jesus over the centuries were rejected?
This article also says that the fact that the disciples would be the only ones who UNDERSTOOD the significance proves that Jesus only meant them when he said "generation". This also isn't correct because the significance of Matthew 24: 37 to 39 highlights that MOST will NOT NOTICE until its too late.
It might not sit very well with you that I'm pointing these things out. However even the Society has encouraged individuals to examine their faith and not listen to just opinions of men. Obey God as ruler rather than men was their own phrase.
Dawn
HIS REPLY:
Hi dawn yes ive read your comments. Your entitled to your opinion that’s fine with me, I will carry on doing what I’m doing thanks. XXXX x
SO I REPLIED:
HI XXXXX
I didn't expect you to stop what you were doing....
I'm a bit confused as to why you would say "I will carry on doing what I'm doing thanks".
I was having a discussion with you on a biblical matter and I thought that as a Jehovahs Witness you would explain to me the finer points. Of course you know I'm not a believer, but surely if you walk away from this type of discussion then how would I ever know what you really think? Or if what I put was accurate or not?
I gave scriptural reasons why this new light didn't seem to make sense. Rather than answering them I just get no response.
I was giving the alternative view. It seems to me that its bad news to have an alternative view. We're not allowed to question, is that it?
I know many Jehovahs Witnesses who don't agree with some things the Watchtower teaches but for various reasons they continue attending. That is up to them, its their life.
One of the reasons I left in the first place was because I had lots of questions - which I put in a letter to the Governing Body. Rather than answering my questions they sent two elders round and then a circuit overseer. I had to shut my mouth because I was threatened with disfellowshipping. ALL for having questions! They eventually sent a response from Bethel which still didn't answer the questions at all. This seem to be the whole pattern....if they don't like the question, they just walk away and don't answer it. If the person won't shut up, disfellowship them.
Its really, really sad. I think that any organisation who won't have open questions and who is afraid of bible scholars has something to hide (and they do).
In another 10 years time when there is more "new light" on the generation (or something else for that matter), with no scriptural backing, I wonder if you'll still just accept it without a question? Probably.
Dawn
HIS REPLY
Dear Dawn
I did not bother explaining the finer points because I know you don’t believe it, and so what’s the point. In fact your last sentence says it all.
If in ten years time new light comes out then I will look at that just as objectively as I have now. Like I said before if Armageddon doesn’t come in my lifetime its no big deal to me, because serving Jehovah is my way of life, Abraham served Jah and didn’t see the fulfilment of the promise, that might be the case with me. Are you offering a better way of life to me?
I feel that this life that I lead is right, and if I’m wrong, so what! Ive been alive for 40years and enjoyed it, if like my Dad I get another 20years well so be it, and ive lived how I think is right and not how like you think someone in NewYork thinks is right.
XXXXXX
My REPLY
Hi XXXX
Thats fine. You seem to think that I am trying to make you do something different. If I'm doing anything, its asking that it is your decision and not the decision of others. You have said that you feel it is your decision and therefore that is good, I'm glad to hear it.
Regarding your informed decision - I simply realise that a decision cannot be an informed one if the person is told not to consider dissenting views. It also cannot be an informed one if the person is told not to read about other viewpoints which may disagree. This is one of the biggest problems with a controlling religion - how its a big no-no to even consider (let alone discuss!) other views. The reason you don't want this discussion is influenced by the fact that talking with EXbelievers on spiritual matters is strongly discouraged by the religion you are part of.
You ask if I'm offering a better life? Well that is a moot point considering that I was having a discussion with you and didn't expect you to "do" anything (apart from discuss it with me). It is a common misconception amongst Jehovahs Witnesses that if someone is disagreeing then they have a hidden agenda. I don't hide, I'm up front about everything, you should know that about me.
If you, or other Jehovahs Witnesses, always walk away from discussions like this, then I have to conclude that you don't have a scriptural reason to provide to me given my objections. There is no chance at all then of me ever changing my view about the Jehovahs Witness religion, because noone can answer simple questions or have a scriptural discussion with me. So I can see that the new light is dubious and very likely unscriptural, and noone is bothering to tell me any different.
So you ask me "whats the point"? of a discussion with me....the answer is that you will first of all be showing me that Jehovahs Witnesses *can* discuss things and are not afraid of talking to ExBelievers on matters of belief and scripture, and second of all if your faith is based on scripture then you might be able to persuade ME that it is true (or at least influence me to have a better view of JWs as a whole).
I will leave it there now. Its OK that you'd rather leave the discussion alone.
Take care.
Dawn