by Faithful Witness 59 Replies latest watchtower bible
" She said, "I believe you were treated unfairly, and that you should be allowed to ask questions. "
Does she realize that she has apostate ideas? Since when can Jws disregard the council in the 1980s BOE letter about private questionings and beliefs?
DD
"When they make adjustments, or we are given a new or clearer understanding, I usually just think... 'Why didn't we believe that all along?' I hear it, I check the scriptures, and realize they are right. For me, and I can only speak for myself of course, I am glad that we keep adjusting our path, so we can follow what the Bible really says."
Complete CogDis/BS. Ask her what would have happened to her if she read the Bible and understood these things BEFORE they were "the truth."
1) ALL Christians are domestics.
2) NO FDS "class" since 33C.ce as taught. Jesus' chosen were NOT the FDS. [ Can you even imagine a JW saying that!??!]
3) GB/anointed are NOT over Christ's belongings. [ Again, imagine the actual treatment a JW would have received for speaking "the truth."
You are in a perfect position to ask tough questions. Are you aware that there is a WT article that mentions the DF'ing of Jws who said that no one is over Christ's belongings yet? Those who were DF'd were deceiving themselves according to the article. Did they chose to be DF'd ??
DD
When JWs study with someone it's all about the JW, they really don't give a crap about the person other than what's in it for them.-sparrowdown
I would disagree with this, some JWs are really genuine and are sincerely trying to do what's in the best interests of their students. I cared a lot about my students and now that I have left WT, those strong genuine bonds stil remain. Not all JWs are fake and selfish, some are doormats just trying to do the right thing.
Kate xx
Miss K came without her partner, Miss W, this time. I'm not sure if Miss W will come again, or ??
It's not really expected for a study conductor to bring the same companion every time. They probably are service buddies and just have gotten into the habit of always planning to go together to your house on that day. Many JWs will instead bring a different person each time, whoever is available from their service group or car group. Sometimes they might even "try out" different assistants to see who is able to contribute to the study.
Regarding the exact words of Jesus, and whether he did or did not use the personal name of the Father... I can't claim to know the exact words of Christ. You're right I wasn't there when Christ was crucified. (I'm not familiar with that song.). But for some reason, Miss K DOES know... since she reads and studies words written through God's channel?
I'm pretty sure that if Jesus had pronounced The Name in the scroll he was reading then the reaction of the crowd would have been outrage or hysteria. Their shocked reaction certainly would have been mentioned. But as you pointed out, if your assertion is wrong, Miss K should be able to prove it to you. The burden of proof is on her since the text we have received of the NT does not have the divine name in it.
Would you be interested in maybe explaining to Miss K the problems inherent in sticking the divine name into the NT? See this thread for a couple examples.
Does she realize that she has apostate ideas? Since when can Jws disregard the council in the 1980s BOE letter about private questionings and beliefs?
I think she's pulling the standard JW misrepresentation trick where they say, "Oh, it's not like that." Like the FAQ on jw.org says we don't shun ones who leave the religion, but neglects to explain that if they leave by DAing or being DFed, we do shun them. Only inactive ones are not doctrinally supposed to be shunned (but often will be anyway).
Miss K wants FW to feel like this is not a religion that forbids questions. It is true that one can take questions to the elders and they will hopefully be helpful and do some research for the questioner. The issue is if the questioner does not accept the answer. If the elder senses that the answer is not being accepted, it could lead to a JC, which could escalate to a DFing (especially if the publisher is telling other JWs of their doubts).
So the real question for Miss K is not what happens when someone questions beliefs, but when someone expresses doubts. There's a shade of difference here which Miss K is exploiting with her answer, just like the jw.org FAQ exploits the difference between "leaving" and "being made to leave". Here's an example of how JWs feel about someone expressing doubts: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/scandals/154997/1/Walsh-Trial-questions. Admittedly that trial was quite a long time ago, but the basic principle of "unity at all costs" is still in place.
Kate: I agree with you. I don't think that all JW's are so self-centered as that. I have great fondness for some of the people we once had as friends. My previous teacher at one point I recall, was sort of pleading with me, mentioning how she was VOLUNTEERING her time and HER gas to come and see me. More than once, she mentioned something about "blood-guilt." "Your blood will be on my hands!" I didn't really know what she meant, but it did make me feel compassion for her and want to listen to her. I didn't want her to be punished!
They never could convince us that it was the Truth. Her husband came about a month after we stopped going to meetings, and read with us the parable of the seed sower. He seemed to have come to the conclusion that we were "too busy chasing riches," to care about Jehovah anymore. It was sort of like, "I've done my job. It's your fault now, if you fail to grow. You can wither up and die, but I want you to know I TRIED!" He was sort of a pompous jerk at times, but his wife always came across as a sort of victim (in many respects).
Of course, they were both born-in, and now have 2 children and 3 or 4 grandchildren who are forced into the same life.
Did you get to paragraph 7? THAT'S becoming my favorite paragraph.
NeverKnew: We have not discussed that paragraph. Why is that your favorite? I was looking forward to skimming right ahead to paragraph 12, where we start discussing the name of God, and why we must use it, if we want to have a relationship with Him.
I am unable to find anything on jw.org, about how they decided to use "Jehovah," and stick to it for eternity.
Apparently, The Divine Name That Will Endure Forever" is no longer true.
I found an article from April 2010 Awake!, which says it contains 4 articles defining Jehovah's Witnesses. That magazine is not available online. The earliest is September 2010.
A little tangential here, but of interest.
Just found this yesterday. The prophecies in Isaiah 65 are all about the paradise, or so say the JWs. In the New System, there will be no more death (remember, death is done away with, thrown into the lake of fire). So, have them explain Isa 65:20, right in the middle of all those prophecies.
The explanations in the publications are real eye-rollers.
I was going to message you on this to stay under the radar but I suspect that those reading your threads may find this of interest. I truly would like for this to remain buried in this thread. You will want to read James 1 and James 4.
I recently realized that paragraph 7 is one of the first opportunities to show
1. that the literature may be twisting scriptures to fit WTS conclusions, and
2. that the WTS can do an abracadabra on the interpretation if you're not paying attention.
The paragraph is about how the evil religious leaders of Christendom are telling people that bad things happening is God's will. Let her know that you read the book of James as a result of this paragraph. Ask if, contextually, she understands James 1:13 as being about God's will or man's will. If she reads it and acknowledges that the passage is with respect to man's will, ask her why they use that scripture to support God's will. If she says otherwise, let her argue in as many ways that she can, that the passage refers to God's will.
As an aside, I've had three different JWs tell me variations of stories of conversions to JWism AFTER an evil ill-informed religious leader told them (or someone that they knew) that the loss of a loved one was God's will. If you are so blessed with this, ask if the writer of James would support that conclusion. If she answers in the affirmative, ask her how she interprets James 4:15 - Is God's will with respect to a life just true if they are doing commerce?... What all might be included with "this or that?
If nobody died with their surviving loved ones being angry at their religious leader, focus on the last sentence of paragraph 7. Tell her that in order for an interpretation to be true, you believe that it has to be true thoughout the scriptures. Tell her that if what the paragraph says is true, you need for her to help you with some other scriptures. Go to Proverbs 16:4. Follow with Isaiah 45:7 and the NWT's cross-referenced scriptures at Eccl and Amos. If you haven't ticked her off, go to one of the Potter passages. I like Romans 9:10-25... there are some real gems in that small passage. Each of the following verses denies the WTS of some aspect of it's proclaimed truth: 11, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23.
Let it rest for a few weeks. I promise you're going to want to leap to the next piece, but don't.
When you get to the top of page 29? ... "HEY!!!!!! When I told you that James 1:13 had to do with man's will on page 10, you told me that the passage was about God's will! Why does this book now tell me that the passage is about man's will? Wait a minute.... seriously, which is truth??? Whose will is the verse really about?!?"
Either way, she's stuck either denying WTS truth found on page 10 or denying the truth found on page 29.
Good luck. :)
"If you follow any man without asking questions, you are begging to be exploited."
