by JH 299 Replies latest jw friends
And Sarah said she was Abraham's sister
Just because it was Abraham and Sarah does not make lying okay. I've often wondered if maybe their lying was part if not all of the reason they were unable to have children...punished as it were. Think about it.
My comment was not nice and I am sorry. There now I feel brave.
Do not come here and try and justify why it is OK to lie.
BFD
journey on:
They did have a child.
Remember Isaac?
Rosalee,
Of course I know about Isaac. Don't you remember, Dear, that they were past child-bearing age when Sarah conceived him? I'm talking about the years and years prior during the time when she should have been able to conceive. Sorry if you misunderstood the intent.
YoursChelbie is the only one who 'gets it'.
Sarah was Abraham's half sister. She was also his wife.
It was for their safety that she told the officials that she was his sister.
She just didn't reveal everything. Because it wasn't called for.
Sarah did not lie!
TopHat asked if they would still be rejected for not believing in the WTS teachings.I simply cleared this up by saying one must adhere to Bible teachings.
You know very well that the two are not the same. Otherwise, there would be no such thing as "new light". The Society has dispensed with many "WTS teachings" that were once considered "Bible teachings". Twenty years ago, the Society taught as "Bible truth" the idea that Armageddon must come before the 1914 generation passes away. Eventually, I realized that this was not taught in the Bible. It was a "WTS teaching" that I did not believe in. I never DA'd or DF'd myself, but I had to keep such beliefs to myself, because I would be punished if I let slip that I did not believe what the organization taught on this matter. If a brother had the same problem, he would have no skip giving talks that address this subject. It would bother my conscience to go out in service with literature that I did not believe in; it would make me feel like a hypocrite. So I stopped going out in service, etc. There would be no problem if the WTS permitted personal beliefs and did not make lock-step endorsement of everything taught in their publications compulsory. With regard to the matter of the 1914 generation, it turned out that the Society admitted that they were wrong about this. What they had taught was not "Bible truth".
OTWO said:
I'm going back on topic again.
This thread got hijacked to Cuba about 20-30 posts ago and I unthinkingly assisted. Then I stopped & PMed JH, the original poster.
JH just replied to me that it's OK for this thread to go wherever we feel like.
Soooooo.....(now with JH's permission)
Hey Rosalee:
You still haven't answered my question about the difference between "Bible Truth" and "WTS Truth".
Do you honestly believe the trumpet blasts of Rev Chapter 8 were fulfilled by a few conventions in the 1930's?
Yes, No, Maybe, or Spin Doctor?
Or, sniff, sniff, is it smelling a little bit "trollish" in here?
Open Mind
Also, how do you feel about the whole DFing thing when a person's GREAT SIN consists of questioning one wacky little interpretation?
Rosalee,
Do you mind me asking: How much time will you turn in on your time card for this little "discussion" we've all been having with you?
Oops, just read Leolaia's post.
She did a much better job than me.
Open Mind
It was for their safety that she told the officials that she was his sister.
She just didn't reveal everything. Because it wasn't called for.
Sarah did not lie!
So, according to the WBTS and to the bible, it's okay to present half-truths as whole-truths? According to both, it's okay to mislead and be deceptive then?
It's no wonder the Witnesses are so screwed up.
