A fair and reasonable question for Jehovah's Witnesses

by Gregor 78 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

yourmomma

Response to Frank75: wow, emotional black mail? ok. i kind of covered this in my post last night, however i will do it again as i dont want to be accused of dishonestly avoiding questions. You said "I see nothing other than a direct request for more information from you". In his first 2 posts he did that, however in his third post, after i made an honest attempt to answer his points he made the comments "Many of your statements lead me to think that you have not been involved very deeply in the org.", and "You seem focused on your own personal spiritual views and that whether JW's are a false religion or not is really not that important to you. Maybe if you were more aware of the harm they've caused and continue to cause you would not be so cavalier about the subject." These comments are not making a direct request for more information. Instead of offering a counter argument he is basically saying that I am too blinded by my owne personal spirituality or possibly selfish, and that its not important to me if my religion is false, in addition he makes a general blanket statement that since I disagree with him i must not have been involved deeply in the org. Then after I took issue with those comments, he then insinuates that I am trying to avoid an honest discussion and insinuates that i am a troll. So basically he does those things instead of spelling out exactly WHAT it is about my comments that he found unsatisfactory. Sorry Frank, but I disagree that he was only "directly requesting more information." A great example of a person that is making a direct request for more information and that is keeping the conversation above the belt is "open mind". When my last answer did got give him an answer that he felt was satisfactory he simply made follow up points and asked follow up questions. You honestly are telling me that you dont see a difference there?

In addition, I said that I would not post on this board IF the majority agreed I was being dishonest because if thats the case, how would our conversations be productive? I am not interested in a conversation that doesnt involve people who can show respect for each other, exchange ideas and opinions without stooping to using tactics such as that. In addition, i am not irritated, i am simply pointing out how unfair and low his tactics are. but even if i was irritated, thats going to happen. we are human, and we are discussing some issues that at times can be very emotional for everyone involved. i didnt know being irritated somehow was unacceptable. As far as being giddy, i have no idea what to say about that. Giddy? When was the last time you were giddy? I keep it real and feel what i feel. If you are telling me what I am suppose to feel, im not sure what to say. I feel what I feel. I mean, the term giddy? I guess im giddy in between my 4th and 5th beer. Or when my sports teams win close games at the end. I really dont know. If I am Christs true disciple? is there anyone that can confidently say they are? I mean I try, certainly, but im not going to make a statement that I am. I will know in the end if I was. You seem to believe that I should allow myself to be disrespected. I disagree, if we cant have respect then i dont find the conversation enjoyable. You seem to be holding me to standards that I dont think are dealing with what we are doing. Im just having conversations and sharing opinions here. I am not trying to convert anyone or tell anyone that what I believe is what you should believe. To each his own. You said "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?" What? Im just a person having a conversation over the internet and responding if people are asking me a question. Im not on a mission to preach or convert anyone on here. Frankly it turns people off. Why cant I just have a conversation without conforming to all these principles that YOU think I should abide by? You an elder? LOL j/k

Response to eclipse: It would make me cringe because its more than likely she is going to be belittled, treated badly, and possibly worse and I know how painful that can be so anytime I see a person about to go through something painful like that, i cringe. Especially if she is under the illusion that they are going to help her and kindly answer her questions in a satisfactory manner.

i agree this is the logical next step, but in my experience its not going to do any good. however, i more than acknowledge that it could be different, my experiences are just that, my experiences, people have all kinds of different experiences so im not saying that its written in stone. I am glad she is aware of the hornets nest she is about to poke, so that means she is not naive. And I agree that we should know the truth about all things, even the bad things so hopefully she will have her eyes opened so she can get her head straight and ease the trouble she may feel. weather that means leaving or staying, that is up to each person. some people simply cannot remain because of this stuff, i understand that. I think what makes me sad is not if someone leaves the org over this stuff, but if they then stop believing in God all together. I think that in the end as Ezekiel 34 brings out, God will care for his lost sheep, I would hate to see the evil of some men, make her no longer believe in God, if she is truly the type of person that wants to believe and could benefit from having a faith.

Response to cognizent decent: I agree with your entire post, its very fair and reasonable. When it comes to people who are disrespectful or not fighting fair, i will make an honest attempt to resolve it, but if I cant, im not going to waste my time. I feel I have thick skin, so I guess we will see. I try to keep it real, and if I think someone is not doing so, im going to call them on it.

Response to Confession: I believe it basically because in my research of the other religions that I did, the witnesses for me had the most reasonable explanation of things. But thats me, everyone is different. When I gave the example of God-Jesus-Anointed, I was doing while making the point that I dont agree with the WT Bible and tract society when they put themselves up there, the anointed and the WTBS are 2 differnt things, one is a corporation. (I know you know this, etc) You are correct to bring out that this scripture does not mention the anointed, however im not sure which Scripture you saw that I quoted. I dont quote alot of scriptures, in fact I bet the majority of people on this board could destroy me in a contest to find what scripture where. I also never claimed to be an expert on the Bible, I know many witnesses do. However I feel that each of us is at a different level spiritually and intellectually. Now, as far as the food at the proper time, you bring up a good point. I dont believe that every single article or book or whatever means food at the proper time. In fact, the Bible does not define what exactly it is. This is a overused term and I have had conversations with many witnesses who will council me that my choice for instance to watch The Matrix is not following the food at the proper time given to us by the F&DS. Now, here is another issue and I am currently researching, for whatever reason the information that is produced for the most part is much more basic then it used to be.

In addition to it being basic, it really seems that there is an unbalanced emphasis on things like entertainment, schooling, pioneering, etc. I remember years ago while sometimes those things were covered there was much more focus on the Bible and different accounts, etc. It made me wonder then why is this the case? I am currently looking into the change that was made, I think it was 2001 or close to that time when the anointed were moved to a different position to "focus on the field ministry" etc. In addition to that, they also changed some things legally as far as how they operate. Is it a coincidence that since this change, the information is different? I dont know, maybe its just me. So you are asking me who is providing food at the proper time, I think that based on the scriptures the anointed are, and frankly from what i just read recently it could even be anointed who are not on the GB. I just read an article about this, i forget the date, im pretty sure it was discussed on here, i will look for it. If anyone has any thoughts on this, please post them. I am currently in the middle of considering alot of different info here on the subject.

Response to Frank75's 2nd post: You have alot of rules, lol. If there is anything else that I have not covered, simply ask me. You have alot of assumptions about how witnesses are, and granted many witnesses fit those assumptions but not all of them. Also, while it may be your opinion that if a person doesnt agree with everything they are not a JW, I dont agree with that.I mean to who, God, or other witnesses? They are not lords over my faith, and frankly I dont have to reveal to them what my personal beliefs are. Thats between me and God. But as I said, to each his own. I think in the end God is going to judge who was what.

Response to Renegade: If thats what you think im doing, im sorry to hear that. im just writing and responding to people asking questions.

Response to Open Mind: Jehovah reads our hearts and judges us perfectly. There are people that have gone through such horrendous things that its simply impossible for them to stay in. Jehovah sees this. I dont think he is an unloving task master that many portray him to be, usually to try to get you to do more service, etc. Ezekiel 34 is a great chapter, i personally think it pertains to this. But thats just me. As far as keeping people in, im talking about the lack of help many people who are suffering get. Alot of people get so disgruntled because things are so bad that they lose their faith in God all together. So by keeping in, it can mean keeping them in their relationship with God. I think alot of people also get pissed off at God for this stuff. Loyalty to the org, or salvation through the org seems to be something said more recently. Anyone who knows even has a basic understanding of the Bible knows this is simply incorrect. I think that we are going to see some interesting times in the next few years.

On your second point, you are correct. Again, with anything i am writing, im just expressing my opinion, if you can show me a point like that, i have no problem accepting that. I would still say however that they dont seem to be as bad as they once were. I mean they really used to give it to people. But overall I agree with your point. The bottom line is that Jehovah will judge, if someone wants to be an idiot during Armageddon and protest someone that Jehovah's allows in, then they deserve to get rolled. LOL, i bet that will happen too. Some strict nut in your hall who has judged you all these years will see you make it and be like "What the hell?!?! YOU MADE IT?!?! Forget this, im out of here!" LOL!! "Jehovah, you let her in? But she listens to rap music and has a 3rd piercing!"
Gregor

Gosh, it's so easy to push your buttons it is a real test of my willpower to ignore you.
VoidEater

YM: You are quite refreshing. I wish there were more like you. I would point out too items:
Jehovah reads our hearts and judges us perfectly.
You may know that, and I may know that, but the WTS apparently doesn't know that.
Loyalty to the org, or salvation through the org seems to be something said more recently.
Actually, the current ~~witchhunt~~ strive toward unity has been going on since the late 70's, perhaps culminating with a highpoint in 1980. But this is merely the latest flash in the pan, considering the historical demand for conformity most noticeable with Rutherford.
Frank75

YM
I can concede to most of your rebuttal of my post. I did not comb thru everything Gregor wrote nor did I analyze everything you wrote. (there is a lot to go thru)
Therefore I can repent where I have erred.
What I would like to comment is on the point you made about what would stop you from posting. After my first post you wrote:
I wasent going to leave over Gregor, however if everyone agreed that I was not being honest, then it would be pointless to stay.
Above in your comments to me, you wrote:
In addition, I said that I would not post on this board IF the majority agreed I was being dishonest because if thats the case, how would our conversations be productive?
However the comment I was referring to as "blackmail" was this:
if there is anyone else here that agrees with Gregor, please post, so I will know to stop posting. i dont want to waste my time nor yours.
I can not speak for Gregor and like I said I have not examined under a microscope what the contention on either side was. That is between you and him. However that comment is what got me going and what I referred. Your response to me is not fair (honest) in that you have changed the criteria which now makes my comment look foolish.
Now people who come along and see your post about a "majority" or the previous one that uses the word "everyone" does seem to make me look like I am crying the sky is falling.
Is that fair given that what I was responding to was the comment "if anyone else" agrees with him you would stop posting? Is there not a difference between saying "if anyone" as opposed to your revised if everyone?
This type of table turning and revisionist history is what JWs are known for everywhere outside of the infamous "Organization" and I was a part of that too. When I was confronted with that TRUTH through examining the type of revision done by the Society I came to the conclusion that most here have also, and hopefully you will too.
Namely, that the WT speaks not the truth, but falsehood and more often than you might be able to accept right now. However take your time and do your homework. An honest person cannot be party with people who are "deliberately" dishonest.
I see you as an honest person and am only showing you that what happened above is a type of dishonesty, and I am not afraid to point it out, because we have all been guilty of it at one time or another.
Frank75
Open mind

Hello again yourmomma,
You've expressed concern about people losing their faith in God.
I'd be curious to get your take on the "Kissing Hank's Ass" narrative below. Have you seen it before? It's from this link:
http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.mv
But, I'll paste it here.
***********************
This morning there was a knock at my door. When I answered the door I found a well groomed, nicely dressed couple. The man spoke first:
John: "Hi! I'm John, and this is Mary."
Mary: "Hi! We're here to invite you to come kiss Hank's ass with us."
Me: "Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who's Hank, and why would I want to kiss His ass?"
John: "If you kiss Hank's ass, He'll give you a million dollars; and if you don't, He'll kick the shit out of you."
Me: "What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shake-down?"
John: "Hank is a billionaire philanthropist. Hank built this town. Hank owns this town. He can do whatever He wants, and what He wants is to give you a million dollars, but He can't until you kiss His ass."
Me: "That doesn't make any sense. Why..."
Mary: "Who are you to question Hank's gift? Don't you want a million dollars? Isn't it worth a little kiss on the ass?"
Me: "Well maybe, if it's legit, but..."
John: "Then come kiss Hank's ass with us."
Me: "Do you kiss Hank's ass often?"
Mary: "Oh yes, all the time..."
Me: "And has He given you a million dollars?"
John: "Well no. You don't actually get the money until you leave town."
Me: "So why don't you just leave town now?"
Mary: "You can't leave until Hank tells you to, or you don't get the money, and He kicks the shit out of you."
Me: "Do you know anyone who kissed Hank's ass, left town, and got the million dollars?"
John: "My mother kissed Hank's ass for years. She left town last year, and I'm sure she got the money."
Me: "Haven't you talked to her since then?"
John: "Of course not, Hank doesn't allow it."
Me: "So what makes you think He'll actually give you the money if you've never talked to anyone who got the money?"
Mary: "Well, He gives you a little bit before you leave. Maybe you'll get a raise, maybe you'll win a small lotto, maybe you'll just find a twenty-dollar bill on the street."
Me: "What's that got to do with Hank?"
John: "Hank has certain 'connections.'"
Me: "I'm sorry, but this sounds like some sort of bizarre con game."
John: "But it's a million dollars, can you really take the chance? And remember, if you don't kiss Hank's ass He'll kick the shit out of you."
Me: "Maybe if I could see Hank, talk to Him, get the details straight from Him..."
Mary: "No one sees Hank, no one talks to Hank."
Me: "Then how do you kiss His ass?"
John: "Sometimes we just blow Him a kiss, and think of His ass. Other times we kiss Karl's ass, and he passes it on."
Me: "Who's Karl?"
Mary: "A friend of ours. He's the one who taught us all about kissing Hank's ass. All we had to do was take him out to dinner a few times."
Me: "And you just took his word for it when he said there was a Hank, that Hank wanted you to kiss His ass, and that Hank would reward you?"
John: "Oh no! Karl has a letter he got from Hank years ago explaining the whole thing. Here's a copy; see for yourself."
From the Desk of Karl:
Kiss Hank's ass and He'll give you a million dollars when you leave town.
Use alcohol in moderation.
Kick the shit out of people who aren't like you.
Eat right.
Hank dictated this list Himself.
The moon is made of green cheese.
Everything Hank says is right.
Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.
Don't use alcohol.
Eat your wieners on buns, no condiments.
Kiss Hank's ass or He'll kick the shit out of you.
Me: "This appears to be written on Karl's letterhead."
Mary: "Hank didn't have any paper."
Me: "I have a hunch that if we checked we'd find this is Karl's handwriting."
John: "Of course, Hank dictated it."
Me: "I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?"
Mary: "Not now, but years ago He would talk to some people."
Me: "I thought you said He was a philanthropist. What sort of philanthropist kicks the shit out of people just because they're different?"
Mary: "It's what Hank wants, and Hank's always right."
Me: "How do you figure that?"
Mary: "Item 7 says 'Everything Hank says is right.' That's good enough for me!"
Me: "Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up."
John: "No way! Item 5 says 'Hank dictated this list himself.' Besides, item 2 says 'Use alcohol in moderation,' Item 4 says 'Eat right,' and item 8 says 'Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.' Everyone knows those things are right, so the rest must be true, too."
Me: "But 9 says 'Don't use alcohol.' which doesn't quite go with item 2, and 6 says 'The moon is made of green cheese,' which is just plain wrong."
John: "There's no contradiction between 9 and 2, 9 just clarifies 2. As far as 6 goes, you've never been to the moon, so you can't say for sure."
Me: "Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made of rock..."
Mary: "But they don't know if the rock came from the Earth, or from out of space, so it could just as easily be green cheese."
Me: "I'm not really an expert, but I think the theory that the Moon was somehow 'captured' by the Earth has been discounted*. Besides, not knowing where the rock came from doesn't make it cheese."
John: "Ha! You just admitted that scientists make mistakes, but we know Hank is always right!"
Me: "We do?"
Mary: "Of course we do, Item 7 says so."
Me: "You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than saying 'Hank's right because He says He's right.'"
John: "Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come around to Hank's way of thinking."
Me: "But...oh, never mind. What's the deal with wieners?"
Mary: She blushes.
John: "Wieners, in buns, no condiments. It's Hank's way. Anything else is wrong."
Me: "What if I don't have a bun?"
John: "No bun, no wiener. A wiener without a bun is wrong."
Me: "No relish? No Mustard?"
Mary: She looks positively stricken.
John: He's shouting. "There's no need for such language! Condiments of any kind are wrong!"
Me: "So a big pile of sauerkraut with some wieners chopped up in it would be out of the question?"
Mary: Sticks her fingers in her ears."I am not listening to this. La la la, la la, la la la."
John: "That's disgusting. Only some sort of evil deviant would eat that..."
Me: "It's good! I eat it all the time."
Mary: She faints.
John: He catches Mary. "Well, if I'd known you were one of those I wouldn't have wasted my time. When Hank kicks the shit out of you I'll be there, counting my money and laughing. I'll kiss Hank's ass for you, you bunless cut-wienered kraut-eater."
With this, John dragged Mary to their waiting car, and sped off.
******************************
My bottom line, a benevolent God isn't gonna kick my posterior for having doubts. Especially when the "evidence" he's left is sketchy at best.
What's yours?
Open Mind
VoidEater

Open: With that bit of spiritual food, I can safely see the rest of the day through! ;-) Perfect...hasn't seen it before...
inkling

YM, you have a personal msg.
[inkling]
theistichedonist

Thank-you for the kind tenor of your post. I appreciate the fact the you (as a Witness) are seeking to engage other non-Witnesses in conversation. I have written a review of a portion of chapter five of What Does the Bible Really Teach. The article can be found at: http://theistichedonist.blogspot.com The article is titled: Witnessing to the Witnesses Could you read it and offer an honest critique? -Thanks!
mkr32208

I think if you went to a witnesses door (like they go to everyone else's) you could probably get in a pretty long discussion about religion if you pretended to be bob the baptist or something. if you started right in on JW's they wouldn't talk but what if you pretended to be just canvasing? Most witnesses are extremely arrogant about their so called "bible knowledge" and can't help but try to show it off. Usually to their detriment.

A fair and reasonable question for Jehovah's Witnesses

Share this