Yourmomma...
Please, do not stop posting.
A fair and reasonable question for Jehovah's Witnesses
by Gregor 78 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
*summer*
-
Open mind
Hey yourmomma,
Please hang in there. Gregor took a little dig, but compared to the flames I've seen on here, it wasn't that bad. Besides, just because he thinks you have a "cavalier" attitude concerning JWs being a false religion, doesn't mean he's not entitled to that opinion. Your take on it might be that you're more humble or willing to yield or have a higher tolerance for human imperfection. Anyway, I hope you stick around.
So, do you want to take a stab at the urgency of the preaching work question? If people's lives are truly on the line, then it's big-time urgent. But if Jehovah isn't going to wipe out those that don't sign up for JWism, then why the urgency? Where do you weigh in on this?
Peace and respect,
Open Mind -
Frank75
however i want to know if others feel they way gregor does. if that's the case, let me know, and i can move on. that would be a shame because so far i am finding this enjoyable.
Wait a minute here! This is a type of emotional blackmail IMHO.
How can you write off this board based on what Gregor wrote above (I see nothing other than a direct request for more information from you) and the existence of others who might "feel the same or agree with him" after all you have written about everyone being entitled to their opinion? Let alone saying that it is not fair to blanket all JW's because of a few bad apples?
Kindly consider the NWT " (1 Peter 3:14) 14 But even if YOU should suffer for the sake of righteousness, YOU are happy. However, the object of their fear do not YOU fear, neither become agitated."
See, no need to be agitated. In fact you should be happy when someone takes a jab, even giddy!
As a JW for 40 years I EXPECTED to be treated insolently by outsiders, but still obeyed Peter who continued and said vs 15, " . . .always ready to make a defense before everyone that demands of YOU a reason for the hope in YOU, but doing so together with a mild temper and deep respect."
If you are Christ's true disciple (and a better than most JW by your own comments) it would show in your actions when questioned, even when cornered (yes even disrespectfully). The onus from above to be respectful is on you, not the one asking you. You have Jesus example to guide you. He never ran from or ignored questions, he only evaded those who wanted to kill him prematurely. There is no chance of that happening here.
So do your duty as a Jehovah's Witness, bear witness to us "with a mild temper and deep respect" and all should go smoothly. Right?
Frank75 (my belated welcome to this board, and remember you are the visitor)
-
eclipse
It made me cringe when I read on this board that someone was showing a sister the child abuse issues and her reaction was to bring a list of questions to the CO. This sister is naive, not that I fault her, because im sure she is not fully aware of many of the problems that will cause. I fear if she does this, unless its a reasonable CO, she will have a faith shattering experience. - yourmomma
Welcome Yourmomma,
I too, hope you continue posting.
Just a reply /question to your above comment.
Why would it make you cringe that this sister is bringing legitimate questions to her CO?
She has already received unsastifactory answers from her local elders, is not the logical thing to do is go to the next ''higher-up'' elder in position?
She is fully aware of the hornet's nest she is about to poke a stick into.
I for one, am hoping that this will be an eye-opening experience for her to show her just how man-run, untheocratic this organization really is.
You yourself have seen the evidence of the treachery many men in the organization have caused all in the name of protecting the JW name.
Why would her faith hinge on something man says?
(perhaps that has something to do with MEN claiming to be annointed telling JW's what to believe?)
If she is a believer in god, she will continue to believe, and not let any disillusionment (reality) of the ''elder arrangement'' take away her faith.
If her faith is tied up in believing that the men are spirit appointed, then perhaps a faith-shattering event will take place,
but I prefer to call it a much needed reality check.
-
cognizant dissident
I think you have been very open and honest and would also like to see you continue to post. You will need to develop a thicker skin though. There are always going to be posters whose personalities clash and who feel each other's mode of speaking is disrespectful in some way or another. I don't agree with the poster who said you are the visitor here. We are all visitors to this forum, (except Simon) and just because some got here earlier doesn't give them more right to post here. Post what you like and just ignore people you think are rude or disrespectful. There are plenty here who are both and what is considered "disrespectful" by some doesn't bother other people at all. So, you just can't take it that seriously. Have your say, you are as entitled as anyone here, and just refuse to respond to any who you don't wish to answer. You are not obligated to answer any questions.
I think that was one of the hardest mental switches I had to make when I left the organization. I had to let go of the mindset that anyone else (elders included) had the right to demand answers from me, Or, that other people (non-witnesses) should have to listen to my views if they didn't want to because I had a right to express them. That's the fundamentals of respectful conversation IMO. To say, "May I ask a question?" is to acknowledge that the other person doesn't owe you an answer as opposed to demanding someone answer a question to our satisfaction. Or to ask someone, "would you like to hear my view on that?", is also very respectful, as it acknowledges that the other person is not obligated to listen if they don't want to. However, that is in conversing in person. This is a discussion board, so the assumption is there that people are here to exchange their views. You are going to get every kind of response here, fair/unfair, honest/dishonest, reasonable/unreasonable, respectful/disrespectful. If you think you can control the responses so that you only get the better half of people, you won't last long. All you can control is who you resond to and how you respond. If you refuse to acknowledge posters who want to argue, then soon they will get bored and stop trying to engage you.
Hope you stick around.
Cog
-
yourmomma
The people have spoken. As I said in my post, I wasent going to leave over Gregor, however if everyone agreed that I was not being honest, then it would be pointless to stay. I think that if a group of people all agree on a matter its something one must consider. So if you would all agree that i am being dishonest and avoiding questions when I think that I am doing my best to be honest, then I am wasting everyones time. Based on your posts, that is not the case. So im not leaving. I dont want you to think I was pissed off at him, if I came off like that, then that was not my intention. I was more intellectually outraged by his statements. It is 2am so i am going to bed, however I will be happy to address each persons post tomorrow, as I have been. And if I miss anyone, just point it out and I will go back. I am bound to miss some of them, however I would rather be given a chance to address it rather then people think I am avoiding it because I am dishonest.
Also, to Open Mind, my response to your post about the preaching work can be found on page #3 of this thread, its post #12 middle of the page after "Response to Open Mind". If you do not see it, let me know and I will copy and paste it. If that response is lacking what you consider a valid response then let me know what parts of it you object to or think is not addressing your post. Its possible you missed it, I think I may add some color from now on to separate and make it easier to read. I think its certainly a valid point that I lack skills at good formatting, and im open to any suggestions. If my posts are long, im sorry, but I just write what I feel from the heart and mind. -
Confession
"My current stance is that I believe that Jehovah uses the organization to accomplish the preaching work and give us food at the proper time."
Okay. Can you identify the primary reasons why you believe this?
"When you look at the Scriptures it goes God-Jesus-Anointed, not God-Jesus-WT Bible & Tract Society INC."
The Scriptures? "3 But I want YOU to know that the head of every man is the Christ; in turn the head of a woman is the man; in turn the head of the Christ is God." Can you tell me why this "Scripture" makes no mention of the "Anointed" in this line of headship?
I noticed you wrote above that Jehovah uses the Watchtower Society to "give us food at the proper time." I know you must be aware that the scripture you reference is connected directly to the "faithful and discreet slave." Yet you (also above) distinguish sharply between the F&DS (anointed) and the WT Bible & Tract Society INC. So which is it? Who really is providing food at the proper time?
-
Frank75
CD- I don't agree with the poster who said you are the visitor here.
Perhaps you simply don't get what I meant. This is Gregors thread, not that he owns it, or anyone else including Simon. People who enter the thread, including me and you should try to show the same courtesy as someone visiting a host on their doorstep IMHO. They set the parameters for the discussion by the thread and their opening post. If we are to be civilised we should recognize that that theme (thread) along with his comments are the touchstone of the discussion.
Likewise, we are not talking on this thread about someone having a birthday, lost a boyfriend or Global Warming. We are talking about JW's and their propensity to be dishonest and evasive when presented with "fair and reasonable questions". That is the norm and I would hope that yourmomma is not typical, but the onus is still on him to back up his sincere assertions.
CD - You are not obligated to answer any questions.
Of course he isn't obligated to answer anything. But when someone makes a claim that he or she is this or that, there is nothing wrong with asking them to prove or back it up. I know lots of people who say they are honest and are quick to assess themselves in such a positive way (as we all do). Or even get upset when they are told, "you don't mind if I don't take your WORD for that". However, when given a small test if you will, on said honesty in a small way, a failure to be honest, even intellectually belies the initial claim.
Lastly, in general JW's are quick to pull out the "you are judging me" card when statements of common knowledge are made. For the sake of brevity, some assumptions have to be made on beliefs and certain assumptions about the members in general. The Witness religion teaches certain things about blood transfusions, or that every member must go door to door for example. Very few other religions have such a regimented belief system, yet the Watchtower, and subsequently its members make such assumptions all the time about Cathoilics or Jews or even Atheists. Look at the Reasoning book for God's sake!
It is not fair for a JW to say, "you have no right to make that assumption, I don't believe that" because WE DO have the right to assume that! It is a prerequisite of membership! If someone doesn't agree with the current blood policy, or doctrine of preaching, then THEY AREN'T JW's! It is that simple! And whether he knows it or not, it is a published doctrine of the church that "to be approved" each member must accept "the entire range of Witness beliefs". - *** w864/1pp.30-31QuestionsFromReaders***
Frank75
-
Renegade
Not all witnesses do that. But to the ones that do; they like to stand out and show off about how much more "realistic" and "truthful" their religion is, and because their religion is so "truthful" they cover their ears and start screaming if you mention anything that threatens its existence.
Oh and welcome to JWD!
-
Open mind
First off, MY BAD, for missing your reply. Oops. I think you made a good-faith effort to address my "urgency of the preaching work" question. Thank you.
Your response does prompt a couple more questions I'd like to run past you.
I think the biggest one is this:
1. Why does it matter whether or not someone remains an active JW or not?
If Jehovah understands why some sincerely leave over their own Crisis of Conscience, then what difference does it make if they're an "official" JW or not? If you say, (and I'm guessing how you're gonna answer, forgive me) "It doesn't really matter", then why did you say this in your response to me (post #12, pg 3):
I think that helping the widows and orphans is just as important, as well as, and here is a major point, KEEPING THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ALREADY IN.
Why is keeping people "in" the JWs so important, if our salvation isn't necessarily tied to being an active member in good standing?
Here's a second question, not quite as important, but I'm nit-picking:
2. You said (also in post#12, pg3):
Your illustration shows the lack of logic in the thinking that only JW's are saved. This is something that the society has backed away from.
I disagree. I'm assuming you're still regularly attending meetings, including the CBS using the Revelation Book. I don't have my copy handy, nor the WT Library Cd-Rom, but I'll do the best I can. As you know, the WT made a ton of changes to the Rev Book, (most of them inconsequential, IMO), but they left unchanged information re: who is going to survive the Great Tribulation. If you ask yourself the question: "Will non-JWs survive?" and then read the 2 or 3 paragraphs I'm referring to, the honest answer is no, IMO. Nor will any baptized JW slackers who have become inactive survive. Now if the WT truly wanted to 'back away' from this idea, the re-printing and re-studying of the Rev Book would have been the ideal time to tone down the language in these paragraphs.
If you want to take a look at them, it was a couple months ago and towards the end of a chapter. I only remember it by the pictures, LOL. One picture is of a bunch of people coming out of the Great Trib being led by an Argentinian Gaucho looking-dude. The other picture is of a bunch of JWs wearing K Hall clothes in a grassy orchard with the "river of life" running through it and the sister's high heels are miraculously not sinking into the muddy grass. Anyway, that's where the paragraphs I'm talking about can be found.
Also, the back page of this month's Kindom Ministry, Q&A, says that we're not supposed to avoid telling people about what Armageddon will involve. We're just not supposed to focus on it. Whatever. Can you imagine how that's actually supposed to play out in the field ministry?
*a quick muttering of*: "uh, yeah, 6 billion people will be wiped out, " *now in a loud car-salesman voice*: "HEY LOOKY AT THE CUTE LIONS! ISN'T THAT GREAT!".
Looking forward to your replies.
Open Mind