Laughing laughing laughing

by darcy 160 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  darcy

  yes ma'am!
• 

  catbert

  I think Darcy is a good example of the "dont ask, don't tell" policy that may work in the JW's. Her positive attitude is quite admirable. I also wonder if most of the ex-JW's here are ex-JW's because they got their hand caught in the cookie jar (Sex), and got DF'd, and later did research and decided the Org was broken. No one can dispute the history of the Org is filled with mistakes, as is the case with all religions.
• 

  seattleniceguy

  Hello Darcy,

  Thanks for your reply. Here are some of my reactions to what you wrote.

  Yes, seattle, those articles were fairly awkward in light of today's mentality. Humorous even.

  Actually, my point was that they were awkward even at the time they were written. Let me assure you, no science book in the 1920s talked about wood atoms. No scientific publications were suggesting that planets are held in place by electromagnitism. It's not that they were quoting some silly beliefs of the time. It's that they just plain made the stuff up! How much confidence does that inspire in what they are writing today?

  Seems to me, WTS has done exactly what anyone in authority has done. But they're new to it, so they screw up more. The Catholic church for instance has had almost 2,000 years practice, and they're real smooth.

  LOL. It sounds like you're saying, "Hey, they haven't been authoritarian control freaks for as long as other groups. Give 'em a break already!"

  They claim a high position, i.e. mouthpiece of God, and make a mistake. Well, since everyone's expecting perfection, indeed why shouldn't they, it is their future, is it not? So, now it's like, ooh, how are we gonna fix this one? They try, they struggle. I don't know a single religion that hasn't, that doesn't. It's like the magic man who screws up his trick, and is trying to patch it in front of everyone watching.

  I think you could safely call "mouthpiece of God" an extraordinary claim. Your own illustration has you painting the Society more like the man behind the curtain in The Wizard of Oz. I think it's an apt comparison. When you claim to be speaking for God (and assume the commensurate right to tell people how to live their lives in the most intimate details) you rightly get a bit more scrutiny than, say, an advice columnist. When people find out it was just a lame magic trick, they feel serious injustice. Would you let a magician tell you how to live your life (and further, to tell you you will die if you don't listen to him)?

  It's like when you (do I dare...) Fuck up, and when asked what happened, you present a less harsh version of yourself in the muddle.

  Well, at least that much would be nice, but alas, when the WT Society f***s up, they blame their members. Study what happened after the 1925 and 1975 fiascos for some serious enlightenment on this topic. Here's 1925 in a nutshell: Them: Millions now living will never die! 1925 will see the fleshly return of Abraham and other ancient worthies! 1925 comes and passes. Them: You fools! What made you believe anything was going to happen in 1925? We never said that! You guys are totally pathetic!

  Difference is, these guys, WTS are in the big spotlight. They're rough still being there, but getting better. Sounds pretty normal to me.

  Well, pretty normal for religious organizations that claim to speak for God, yeah. But how many of those do you think are the truth? And yet you think the Witnesses are different somehow? For me, the words "I speak for God" somehow inspire negative confidence.

  Doesn't excuse it, no. But it's another reason why I focus on, what are the Bible based beliefs, let's look beyond all the scandal. No religion can stand when it's scandal's are investigated. But now take a look at the belief system. I.E. I'm not a Catholic b/c I do not agree with the Trinity or with Mary being God's mom among other things.

  If an organization doesn't stand up to scrutiny, it's no organization I want to be a part of. Listen to yourself - you're saying, "Oh, come on. There are lots of scandals. Everyone has scandals. Let it go already!" Hypothetically, would you take your children to a religion with a history of child abuse scandals, dismissing the scandals because you liked something about their doctrine?

  Hmm... I think I've answered well. Feedback?

  Thanks for replying. I don't think you really replied to the substance of my post, and you avoided a couple direct questions, but that's okay. My opinion? You are already borderline apostate by Watchtower standards. If you openly discussed in the organization what you are discussing here, they'd kick you out or demand that you change your thinking. In fact, why don't you do a little experiment? Tell your Witness friends you've been having these really cool conversations online with former members and see how they react. I guarantee you'll see eyes a-poppin'. Then, to really work them up, give them some of the details of what you've been talking about. I'm telling you, you'll see grown adults putting their fingers in their ears, running around yelling "la-la-la, I can't hear you!" (And please do report if you try this!) At any rate, keep your open mind, and welcome again to the board. SNG
• 

  AuldSoul

  Welcome, darcy. Let's examine those Bible based beliefs:

  That the majority of mankind will be resurrected to life on a paradise earth? Well, no. The term "paradise earth" appears zero times in the NWT, with the exception of the Introduction (and one footnote in the Reference edition), so any assertion that the Bible actively teaches that anyone would live on a paradise earth would be misleading at best.

  That "paradise" refers to the earth? Well, no. In the NWT (Scriptures) the word "paradise" appears only four times. Once in Song of Solomon, the skin of the Shulamite maiden is described as a paradise of pomegranates, so no location is specified. The Greek word paradeisos appears only three times in the NT. Twice it is linked directly with heaven (2 Corinthians 12:1-7; Revelation 2:5-7) and on the remaining occasion no location is specified apart from wherever Jesus would be (Luke23:39-43).

  That Jesus is the mediator for only 144,000 humans? Well, no. Both times they try to make this argument they draw the parallel to the mediatorship of Moses and assert that Moses was only the mediator for the fleshly descendants of Abraham. This is simply not true. Moses was the mediator for any person of any nation who chose to become a Jewish proselyte. The fact that the Governing Body doesn't want every Christian to be part of the new covenant doesn't mean the Bible teaches their doctrine.

  That the elders in a congregation have authority to act as judge and jury in secret trials? Well, no. The NT does not authorize elders to perform as a substitute conscience for individual Christians, nor does it authorize anyone in the congregation to judge an individual for anyone else, nor does it authorize summary judgment of those who do not abide by elder decisions that result from secret trials. In Matthew 18:15-17 you will not find any mention of speaking to elders. The last step is to speak to the congregation (which would have been done publicly in the city gates). Paul told Timothy to "reprove before all onlookers persons who practice sin." Reprove means to correct, it doesn't mean to announce a secretly arrived at decision. Do some research on why the Israelites were instructed to conduct public trials of accused wrongdoers and ask yourself why the same would not be a concern today. Also, ask yourself why someone who is accused is not allowed to videotape, audiotape, or have witnesses present to observe the proceedings.

  That Jerusalem's destruction signalled the beginning of the 70 years of Jeremiah 25:12? Well, no. The prophecy of Jeremiah was explicit that the 70 years related to the domination of Babylon over many other nations (including Israel and Judah). During the reign of Zedekiah, Jeremiah specifically stated that the oppression had already begun and he was instructed to demonstrate the point with a physical drama involving yoke bars. (Jeremiah 27) Notably, Jeremiah 27:17 even records God asking, "Why should this city become a devastated place?"

  That Jesus would have chosen the early Bible Students as a Faithful and Discreet Slave in 1918? Well, no. The Bible Students were (1) teaching falsehoods as lifesaving truth, (2) actively engaging in the proclamation of a message Jesus specifically said to ignore, (3) falsely prophesying the time for Armageddon, and (4) placing themselves as determiners of truth for and teachers of others, effectively making themselves a mediator between God and man. (Matthew 7:15-23; 15:12-20; 24:23-28; Deuteronomy 18:20-22; Matthew 23)

  I think it might be easier if you told me what doctrine you believe they base on the Bible and then we can work from there. It seems like every one I question isn't actually based on the Bible. I am very curious whether you know for certain that their teachings are Bible-based. I await your considered reply.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  scotsman

  
  Hello Darcy,

  You sound like a thoroughly post modern JW. Good for you!

  Everyone else,

  I know some other JWs like Darcy and would suggest this as evidence of a post Generation change in attitude (kids getting on with fairly normal lives) and the mainstreaming of the Witness faith. We should welcome it as it's a far more realistic outcome than the collapse of the WTBTS. There's more than one elder I know that admits there are "anomalies" within WTBTS teaching, which strikes me as similar to Catholic friends who sit comfortably with Catholicisim while disagreeing with the Vatican's stance on abortion, contraception etc. Darcy appears to take a similar attitude to her religion.
• 

  sass_my_frass

  Welcome to the site Darcy, it's nice to learn of an articulate and confident JW kid. You probably already know that a lot of the stuff you do would get you into trouble if your elders were the type... I hope they don't catch up with you because you seem too nice to be broken that way. I hope you keep living your life your way. Just don't let them know that; let them keep thinking you're living it their way!

  All the best with your studies. Keep it together.
• 

  thecarpenter
• 

  thecarpenter

  In fact, why don't you do a little experiment? Tell your Witness friends you've been having these really cool conversations online with former members and see how they react. I guarantee you'll see eyes a-poppin'. Then, to really work them up, give them some of the details of what you've been talking about. I 'm telling you, you'll see grown adults putting their fingers in their ears, running around yelling "la-la-la, I can't hear you!" (And please do report if you try this!)

  Hey Seattleniceguy, this paragraph had me laughing so hard, I had to clean the computer screen from the coffee I coughed out.
• 

  jwfacts

  One day you'll be looking back laughing laughing laughing at how silly you once were. It is all great getting into something new, and I've seen many people come into the religion, all reved up and ready to go. Unless you have some chemical imbalance the novelty wears off and eventually you will have had your fill of following the mindless rules of old caucasian men.

  Tell me, will you still be laughing in 70 years time when the New System still isnt here and you are still plodding around knocking on doors of empty houses, instead of preaching to people? And don't say you are a JW for love of God and not for the new system, because that is the sort of arrogant comment that is regularly made, and in one foul swoop generalises that every other sincere person in every other religion has not concern for God at all.
• 

  TheListener

  Welcome Darcy.

  Please don't dismiss AuldSoul's post out of hand. He has asked some valid questions. I strongly feel that our faith should be based on accurate knowledge of the Bible. Any belief that we feel is Bible based should be easily supportable with scriptures.

  I've enjoyed your posts so far.