Questions for BANE, SCHOLAR, and All Jehovah's Witnesses!

by UnDisfellowshipped 203 Replies latest jw friends

  • Twitch
    It looks like Bane has a new trolling tactic: demand the website the be renamed. Its good. its really good. Its arrogant, its insulting, its completely irrelevant and offtopic, its never going to happend and it contain sufficient hints at delusions of grandour and overall obnoxious retardedness that its allmost impossible to resist, especially in the light that some women has supposedly dumped him for being a PITA jehovahs witness.
    Bane, i salute you! You have taken trolling to a new level!

    Indeed, a new low! Quite amazing actually and funny to watch.

  • UnDisfellowshipped

    Message to any and all Jehovah's Witnesses who may be reading this thread:

    I am a firm believer in the Bible as God's Inspired Word. I trust in Jehovah and Jesus and in the Ransom Sacrifice.

    I have no hatred at all in my heart toward any Jehovah's Witness. I have nothing but love for you and a desire that you know the truth about the Bible, and to have a personal relationship with God and Jesus, and live your lives for Them instead of for the men who claim to be in control of your faith.

    I ask that you carefully examine the questions I asked at the top of this thread, and compare them to what the Holy Scriptures teach.

    Use your New World Translation to examine those questions.

    Follow the example of the Noble-Minded Beroeans in Acts 17:11. The Beroeans compared what the Inspired Apostle Paul was teaching to what was in their Scriptures, in order to make sure they were being told the truth.

    Why not do the same for the non-inspired leaders of the Watchtower Society?

    Is the Governing Body above and beyond the level of the Inspired Apostles of the 1st Century?

    In fact certain Watchtower Publications ENCOURAGE you to do that:

    The Watchtower, August 1st, 2001:

    The Bible encourages us to check our beliefs against what it teaches. (1 John 4:1) Millions of readers of this magazine can testify that doing so has added purpose and stability to their lives. So be like the noble-minded Beroeans. ‘Carefully examine the Scriptures daily’ before you decide what to believe. (Acts 17:11) Jehovah’s Witnesses will be happy to help you to do this. Of course, it is your decision as to what you want to believe. However, it is the course of wisdom to make sure that your beliefs are shaped, not by human wisdom and desires, but, rather, by God’s revealed Word of truth.—1 Thessalonians 2:13; 5:21.


    If you truly have all the onlookers, then all of you could petition for the site named to be changed to something more suitable. I await your answer.....Bane


    Your an idiot..LOL!!..

    "I am "Bane the Great" from planet Stupid" ..

    "Change the name of this site!!"..

    "And..I might..Just maybe..Answer a Question"..


    .......................... ...OUTLAW

  • UnDisfellowshipped

    I understand the anger and frustration against the Watchtower Society, which is absolutely justified and warranted, and I understand that we may not like or agree with the actions or words of BANE or other Jehovah's Witnesses, however, I humbly recommend that we refrain from using name-calling toward Bane or any JW, such as calling them "idiots" or "stupid" or "brainwashed" or "mindless."

    Name-calling does not help either side win an argument or a discussion. It only makes the person who does it look bad.

    Besides, if we truly want to speak out against the Watchtower Society, we should prove that they are wrong about us "apostates," and we should not lower ourselves to their level of name-calling that they do toward us.

    Just my humble opinion and two cents.

    There are many Jehovah's Witnesses who are intelligent and smart people. I used to know quite a few when I was going to meetings.

    There are also many, many Jehovah's Witnesses who have a DEEP love for God, Jesus, and the Bible, and who care deeply about knowing the truth.

    If we want to appeal to those who are open-minded and thoughtful, it is probably best not to insult any Jehovah's Witnesses or call them names.

    And we should attempt to find common ground with them as a starting point for discussions. Here is a good thread for common ground between myself and Jehovah's Witnesses:

  • UnDisfellowshipped

    So far, the only Jehovah's Witness who has been kind enough to provide answers for us has been Alice.

    Are there any other Jehovah's Witnesses who would be kind enough to give a reason for the hope that is in them?

    The Watchtower, July 15th, 2001, Page 23:

    Unlike Jesus, we lack the ability to read hearts. Hence, we should follow the apostle Peter’s counsel: “Sanctify the Christ as Lord in your hearts, 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.” (1 Peter 3:15) As Jehovah’s servants, we should defend what we believe because it is solidly based on God’s Word. But we need to do this in a way that shows respect for others and for their sincerely held beliefs. Paul wrote: “Let your utterance be always with graciousness, seasoned with salt, so as to know how you ought to give an answer to each one.”—Colossians 4:6.

  • UnDisfellowshipped

    Martin Luther and the Protestants had their 95 Theses, and we have our 35 Questions! Let's see what becomes of this thread.

  • potleg

    So many of the JW teachings can't be defended or explained using ONLY the Bible...

    ...that's why they use the word EVIDENTLY so much.

  • UnDisfellowshipped

    They do love the word "evidently" and "apparently".


    “The facts show that during this time and up to the present hour the “slave” class has served as God’s sole collective channel for the flow of Biblical truth to men on earth. Just as the early Christian congregation collectively served as the channel of communication from heaven to earth, so in our time. (Eph. 3:10) Abundant spiritual food and amazing details as to the doing of God’s will have been flowing through this unique channel actually as a miraculous evidence of the operation of holy spirit.”

    The “faithful and discreet slave” doesn't just consist of the Governing Body. There's quite a few individuals on the Watchtower writing committee. The only difference between them and others in Jehovah's Organization is they research the Bible and how it relates to history, the future, science and other aspects of society on a full time basis and have been doing so for quite some time. How do you think a “channel of communication” for Bible interpretation should work itself out?

    Other churches teach the same thing but through their actions identify themselves as false prophets.

    “Be on the watch for the false prophets that come to you in sheep’s covering, but inside they are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will recognize them. Never do people gather grapes from thorns or figs from thistles, do they? Likewise every good tree produces fine fruit, but every rotten tree produces worthless fruit; a good tree cannot bear worthless fruit, neither can a rotten tree produce fine fruit. Every tree not producing fine fruit gets cut down and thrown into the fire. Really, then, by their fruits you will recognize those [men]. Matthew 7:15-20

    Revelation may be defined as the communication of some truth by God to a rational creature through means which are beyond the ordinary course of nature.

    The truths revealed may be such as are otherwise inaccessible to the humanmind — mysteries, which even when revealed, the intellect of man is incapable of fully penetrating. But Revelation is not restricted to these. God may see fit to employ supernatural means to affirm truths, the discovery of which is not per se beyond the powers of reason. The essence of Revelation lies in the fact that it is the direct speech of God to man. The mode of communication, however, may be mediate. Revelation does not cease to be such if God's message is delivered to us by a prophet, who alone is the recipient of the immediate communication. Such in brief is the account of Revelation given in the Constitution "De Fide Catholica" of the Vatican Council. The Decree "Lamentabili" (3 July, 1907), by its condemnation of a contrary proposition, declares that the dogmas which the Church proposes as revealed are "truths which have come down to us from heaven" (veritates e coelo delapsoe) and not "an interpretation of religious facts which the humanmind has acquired by its own strenuous efforts" (prop., 22). It will be seen that Revelation as thus explained differs clearly from:

    • inspiration such as is bestowed by God on the author of a sacred book; for this, while involving a special illumination of the mind in virtue of which the recipient conceives such thoughts as God desires him to commit to writing, does not necessarily suppose a supernatural communication of these truths;
    • from the illustrations which God may bestow from time to time upon any of the faithful to bring home to the mind the import of some truth of religion hitherto obscurely grasped; and,
    • from the Divine assistance by which the pope when acting as the supreme teacher of the Church, is preserved from all error as to faith or morals. The function of this assistance is purely negative: it need not carry with it any positive gift of light to the mind. Much of the confusion in which the discussion of Revelation in non-Catholic works is involved arises from the neglect to distinguish it from one or other of these.

    Catholics believe that Peter’s confession of Christ in the Gospel passage in Mark 8 and apostolic succession confirms the teaching authority of the Pope and Bishops in matters of faith and morals over other religions and at the same time deny the apostolic succession they claim in their own words:

    According to the Catholic Encyclopedia and other sources, Benedict IX was around 18 to 20 years old when made pontiff, although some sources claim 11 or 12. He reportedly led an extremely dissolute life, and also allegedly had few qualifications for the papacy other than connections with a socially powerful family, although in terms of theology and the ordinary activities of the Church he was entirely orthodox. St. Peter Damian described him as "feasting on immorality" and "a demon from hell in the disguise of a priest" in the Liber Gomorrhianus. The Catholic Encyclopedia calls him "a disgrace to the Chair of Peter."

    Protestants have referred to the drunken prostitute in Revelation as the Roman Catholic Church even though Protestants share the same record of bloodshed.

    Historicist interpreters commonly used the phrase "Whore of Babylon" to refer to the Roman Catholic Church. Most Reformation writers and all Reformers themselves, from Martin Luther(1483-1546) (who wrote On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church), John Calvin(1509-1564), and John Knox(1510-1572) (who wrote The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women) accepted this association. The "drunkenness with the blood of saints and martyrs," by this interpretation, refers to the inquisition and the veneration of saints and relics and the Sunday sacredness, were viewed by Reformers as idolatry and apostasy. This interpretation continues to be taught in churches arising from the Adventist movement and it is kept alive by contemporary figures such as Ian Paisley and Jack Chick.

  • palmtree67


Share this