I guess they know better. They did try to get invite their dad. He didn't want any part of it. I know that it means a lot to them to have someone attend, but it's their religion not mine.
I'm considered a full-blown apostate now! Oh well!
My daughters didn't invite me to the Memorial
by MsMcDucket 5 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
AK - Jeff
Melinda, - We didn't get an invite this year either, but a couple of elders tried to ambush us into confession of our 'apostate sins'. At least I think that is what they were trying to do when I hung up on them.
Didn't go and slept like a baby. Apostates sleep better than guilt ridden psuedoChristians do anywho!!!
Jeff
-
jaffacake
Hi folks,
I didn't get an invite to the memorial this year, last year was my first and I would have gone this year if invited. I did think I would have been invited. I have asked my JW friend repeatedly for a Bible study with him and his wife, but he never responds. Why are they so afraid of me and my questions?
Last summer, my Bible study with the PO seemed to be going well for two months, until I asked one particular question. Caught off guard, he answered me honestly, but things were not the same after that. He was 30 minutes late for my next study, and the one after that he just gave me loads of literature to read - I was being politely dumped, for asking a question. -
unclebruce
Don't keep me in suspenders jaffacake - what was the dynamite question - the one that had you miss out on eternal life with all the fruit and playfull pussy cats a man could want?
-
jaffacake
He he Brucie, Don't you suit suspenders? It could'a been one of several, but Romans Chapter 13:1 came up in conversation. I just asked - why, if the JWs (or more specifically the FDS) get information from God as they claim, were they the only religion to have the wrong understanding of that text between 1929 and 1962.In 1962 they got new light (which now agreed with the catholic, protestant and every other Christian's understanding). It also agreed with the Watchtower's own pre-1929 understanding. I asked how this demonstrated the JWs information from God was better than, for example, the Catholic's information. He just closed his Bible and said in a quiet, gentle voice "We don't get any information from God". I then asked him why my best friend - a JW - has been told they do? He didn't respond but said a prayer and left a few minutes later.
See WT 1 December 1981 page 29 “Happily, in the year 1962, Jehovah led his people to an understanding of the principle of relative subjection. It was seen that dedicated Christians must obey secular rulers as the "superior authorities," gladly recognizing these as "god's ministers," or servant for their good. (Rom. 13:4) However, if these "authorities" ask them to violate God's laws, what then? Up to that point Christians have obeyed the command at Romans 13:1: "Let every soul be in subjection to the superior authorities." But this is qualified by Jesus' words, as recorded at Matthew 22:21: "Pay back, therefore, Caesar's things to Caesar, but God's things to God." So whenever "Caesar" asks Christians to do things contrary to God's will, they must place Jehovah's law ahead of "Caesar's."
This had also been referred to in a 1972 article:
WT 1972 “Then again, because Romans 13:1 had been construed to mean that the governments of the world must be given unqualified obedience, the witnesses interpreted the "higher powers" or "superior authorities" there mentioned as applying to Jehovah God and Christ Jesus. However, a closer examination of the context revealed that Romans 13:4: does indeed refer to political governments of this world But by comparing this scripture with others, such as Acts 5:29, which states, "We must obey God as ruler rather than men," it was seen that the "subjection" mentioned at Romans 13:1 must be a relative subjection, not an unqualified one. That is, Christians are to be in subjection to the governments of this world so long as these do not ask Christians to go contrary to God's laws”. But old Russell had always understood the principle of relative subjection! So where did Rutherford's 'new light' come from. This wrong understanding cost many faithful JWs years of freedom due to the alternative service doctrine based on the 'wrong light'. I believe the poor witnesses did not see the policy abandoned until the 1980s or 1990s.Volume I of Studies in the Scriptures (1886) CT Russell described what Jesus & apostles taught as the Christian position:
“ They taught the Church to obey the laws, and to respect those in authority because of their office, even if they were not personally worthy of esteem; to pay their appointed taxes, and, except where they conflicted with God's laws”(Acts 4:19; 5:29), to offer no resistance to any established law .” (
WT January 15, 1916. Russell, the editor of The Watch Tower and the author of the article in question, stated:
“The Bible directs the followers of Jesus to be subject to the powers that be. (Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-17) But while seeking to be thus law-abiding in every respect, Christians are to recognize that there is still a higher law and a still higher Ruler, and are to be subject to the worldly powers only in the absence of a contrary admonition from the Higher Power - from God”.
The Watch Tower , July 15, 1916 , CT Russell wrote in the article, "Militarism and Conscience":
” While Christians are enjoined to be subject to the "Powers that be"—the kings, governors, magistrates, etc. - nevertheless this is not to be understood as meaning the renouncement of our fidelity to the King of kings and Lord of lords. He is our Over-Lord. Our allegiance to earthly lords and powers and their commands is merely to the extent that they do not conflict with the commands of our Over-Lord. The Jews in renouncing Jesus cried, "We have no king but Caesar"! The Christian's position is, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's but unto God the things that are God's." Whenever Caesar and his laws conflict with the divine requirements, all true soldiers of the cross are left no alternative”. -
MsMcDucket
But old Russell had always understood the principle of relative subjection! So where did Rutherford's 'new light' come from. This wrong understanding cost many faithful JWs years of freedom due to the alternative service doctrine based on the 'wrong light'. I believe the poor witnesses did not see the policy abandoned until the 1980s or 1990s.
Man, that's deep! "Relative subjection"? What does that mean?