by objectivetruth 15 Replies latest jw friends
Wow-that's one long-winded defense of his organization! It sounds in places like he's even trying to persuade himself by slyly criticizing you.
His desperate defense is head-ache inducing. I'm glad you've moved on from him - sad though it can be losing someone you had seen as a kindred spirit.
ADCMS: JWs prefer wishful thinking over evidence.
I would phrase it a bit differently: JW's prefer wishful thinking over critical thinking.
Or if you have some issue with the understanding of that scripture any reasonable person would agree that leadership is needed in an organization. I am happy to have the guidance from the governing body.
Leadership and guidance are far different from demanding unquestioning obedience.
This person is very confused.
We don't allow people to start sects within our organization or change things as they see fit. makes sense to me
Who is "we"? He just said that he is "happy to have the 'guidance' from the governing body."
I guess he doesn't know the history of this organization. Rutherford caused a schism back in the early 1900's and started his own sect.
This person is very confused.
Asking questions is fine .... What changes that is when you take ideas ... from someones mind thats not your own and spread those to others.
How does he not see that he is taking ideas from "someones [sic] mind that is not his own and spreading them to others.
This person is very, very confused.
If someone wants to leave our organization we don't disfellowship them. ... We love you as our friend and won't shun you just because your as we put it "spiritually week".
Well that's just not true. Some people can fade without repercussions, but not many. The number of ex- and technically current-JWs that are shunned simply for walking away without being DF'd is extremely large as probably most posters on this forum can attest.
You are not the one we follow and have no organization with any rich spiritual history.
Um, aren't we supposed to follow Christ and not men?
Have I pointed out that this person is confused.
If you do what Russell did and start something that makes Jah use you as his channel than I will listen and follow what you say.
Ok, so now he completely contradicts almost everything he has previously said. Also, how would he know if some contemporary person were to start something like Russell that makes Jah use him? How would he know since he refuses to listen to anything that disagrees even slightly with the GB, except of course when the GB disagree with the previous GB or themselves, as in last week's, last month's or last year's "old light"?
This person is extremely confused and clearly does not know how to think.
If you do what Russell did and start something that makes Jah use you as his channel than I will listen and follow what you say.
Ironically, WT has marginalized CT Russell to the "Who's CT Russell" category and rejected virtually everything he taught, despite the claim that 'Jah was using him as his channel'.
"makes Jah use you as his channel"
I thought Jehovah chose Russell first (according to WT), not Russell started something that forced god to use him. I think your JW friend needs to educate himself a little better.
Yet more silly statements to add to the long list if silly statements.
We're not even suppose to disfellowship if someone is practicing gross wrongdoing as long as they don't associate or claim to be part of the organization .
Totally untrue. Seen this several times - people who have left for years & whom nobody regarded as a JW being DFd after (for example ) they put xmas lights on their house. Not to mention those who faded and aren't DFd but still are essentially shunned by family & former JW friends ( like myself. )
“objectivetruth”: “If someone wants to leave our organization we don't disfellowship them.”
True. They don’t disfellowship them. If someone wants to leave the organization quietly, thus disassociating himself/herself, they just announce from the platform that “[so-and-so] is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses” . . . . . . . . which means that they are DISFELLOWSHIPPED! . . . . So, yes, they DO, in fact, disfellowship them. The only difference is how many minutes the judicial (disfellowshipping!) committee is required to meet to reach their verdict (judgment) – with or without the presence of the accused (judged).
The Watchtower Society on its Web site, under “Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Shun Former Members of Their Religion?,” states the following: “Those who were baptized as Jehovah’s Witnesses but no longer preach to others, perhaps even drifting away from association with fellow believers, are not shunned. In fact, we reach out to them and try to rekindle their spiritual interest.” (“http://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/shunning/”) This is misleading because it may naturally lead people to think that the Watchtower doesn’t shun those who simply decide to leave the organization (disassociating from it), but, in fact, it only mentions that those who “no longer preach to others, . . . drifting away” are not shunned.
Now, when the Watchtower tricks people by leading them to believe that they do not shun people who leave the organization, when, in fact, they certainly do, then that is plainly deceitful. Note what Psalm 26:4, 5 says: “I do not associate with deceitful men, and I avoid those who hide what they are. I hate the company of evil men, and I refuse to associate with the wicked.” (RNWT) So, according to that scripture, people shouldn’t be associating with the Watchtower anyway because of their infamously dishonest tactics. So, when people leave (or disassociate) themselves from the Watchtower, they can rightly say that they are just following Psalm 26:4!
