A Request

by Friend 20 Replies latest jw friends

  • Friend
    Friend

    To All

    Lately I have spent some time responding to various subjects on this forum. At this time it seems a bit necessary that I address something about myself in the hopes that it will clear up some misunderstandings.

    First of all, I am not a defender of the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society. It is true that I do defend some issues involving them, but not as a defense of them. Rather I am defending what the record actually is. Therefore when someone offers a misinformed, ignorant or stupid assertion regarding some aspect of the Society then I will set out making accurate information known on the subject if I am able and have the time. Along the way I will also offer considered conclusions about those issues. Some persons view this as defending the Society when in fact I am only defending the facts.

    As for the Society, I have some major views divergent from theirs. They know of them because I have told them so. Two of them have to do with blood transfusions and the chronology of the gentile times. A third has to do with subtle but critical nuances about its judiciary.

    What I do defend with a passion is the people making up Jehovah’s Witnesses. I will defend that brotherhood vigorously and with resoluteness.

    I will not provide personal information except to inform you that I am an active Jehovah’s Witness.

    Now, I do not mean to impose upon anyone, but I have gotten a little stretched out on this and other forums besides my daily life otherwise. I feel I owe response those responding to messages of mine but my time is very limited. Therefore I request the following: If this post about my disposition does not resolve whatever issue we have between us then let me know. Thereafter please just indicate in a sentence what issue (and thread) you want that I go back to for continued discussion. I will do so as able.

    Friend

  • Carmel
    Carmel

    Dear Friend,

    Thank you for your statement, however, it seems to me that your apologitic regarding Witness teachings regarding who will gain salvation, goes beyond resitation of facts. It is clear that the WT speaks out of both sides of its mouth on this issue and vacilates on other interpretation of the Bible. I have yet to see a rational explanation from you in these matters.

    Perhaps one more time you could explain your feeling about the blinking light. We already know or conject what the vast majority of Witnesses beleve on the issue.

    carmel

  • waiting
    waiting

    Dear Friend,

    I have very little doubt that you are an active Jehovah's Witness.

    Very enlightning evening.

  • Friend
    Friend

    Carmel

    …it seems to me that your apologetic regarding Witness teachings regarding who will gain salvation, goes beyond recitation of facts.

    I believe an analysis of my comments on the subject will reveal that I have done two things. 1) I have recited some published and explicit teachings of the Society on the subject of salvation. 2) I have applied logic by considering all possible relationships—which there are four of—between two expressed views that are different and reputed to be a dichotomy.

    As a point of logic, if two different ideas can be accommodated without conflict then they are not opposed to each other; there is not dichotomy. After considering all the Society has published and realizing that the two subject ideas can accommodate each other then the only possible conclusion is that they do not represent a true dichotomy because a true dichotomy represents two ideas that oppose each other.

    Perhaps one more time you could explain your feeling about the blinking light.

    Here you raise the subject of the Society’s "new light" concept. In particular you question the validity of that concept when the "light" keeps reverting back and forth in two opposite directions.

    In short, such actions on the part of the Society represent only one thing, that they are searching for correctness just like anyone else who cares for it.

    Regarding the "blinking light" about the ancient Sodomites and any resurrection, the following presentation has been offered:

    - The men of Sodom will be resurrected. WT 7/1879, p.8

    - The men of Sodom will not be resurrected. WT 6/1/1952, p.338

    - Will be. WT 8/1/1965, p. 479

    - Will not. WT 6/1/1988, p.31

    - Will be. LIVE FOREVER, EARLY EDITIONS (1982) P. 179

    - Will not. LIVE FOREVER, LATER EDITIONS, (1989) P. 179

    Actually it looks like this:

    - The men of Sodom will be resurrected. WT 7/1879, p.8

    - The men of Sodom will not be resurrected. WT 6/1/1952, p.338

    - Will be. WT 8/1/1965, p. 479

    - Will not. WT 6/1/1988, p.31

    As you can see, the Society has switched views on the subject 3 times over the last 110 years. I do not find it so incredible that genuine Christians would vacillate on an issue such as that when comparing the level of misunderstanding amidst followers of Jesus that were taught in his very physical presence, namely the twelve apostles. Do you know how often they continued harping about personal greatness even after Jesus counseled them otherwise? Have you considered how vacillating those early Christians were regarding the issue of circumcision? Even after the Apostolic Counsel—as recorded at Acts 15—genuine Christians still struggled for a time with that issue.

    You might also consider the question, "Just how forgiving is Jesus when it comes to teaching falsities?" A review of words attributed to Jesus for congregations in Asia Minor reveals that he was willing to work with his followers for some time through some pretty nasty stuff. For instance, the congregation of Thyatira had accommodated (maybe supported) false prophecy for some time before Jesus stepped in with an ultimatum and counsel. Even then Jesus admitted that he had allowed some time for overcoming the false prophecy. Additionally, for the congregation of Thyatira Jesus was allowing still more time for cleaning up their act. (See Revelation 2:18-29)

    As I said, comparatively I do not consider the "blinking light" about the ancient Sodomites to be a big deal. On the other hand, I also do not believe that association with the Society is necessary for gaining God’s approval. There are others besides Jehovah’s Witnesses that are also encouraging the spread of the good news of God’s Kingdom.

    Friend

    Edited by - Friend on 11 June 2000 0:3:25

  • RedhorseWoman
    RedhorseWoman

    Friend,

    Thank you for expressing some of your views in a definitive manner. It helps to know where you're coming from.

    Many of us here, in addition to having questions about doctrinal issues, have also been badly burned emotionally, and we react accordingly.

    In addition to doctrines such as blood or chronology, there is also the issue of the sheep being battered severely by those who should be caring for them.

    It would be wonderful to be able to go back to having a reasonable discussion of doctrinal matters without allowing emotions to play a part. In many cases that is no longer possible.

  • Friend
    Friend

    RedhorseWoman

    I understand the effects of what you describe. I can only say that it saddens and troubles me greatly knowing that such circumstances exist amongst the brotherhood that I love. Indeed, for at least a time, it prevents individuals from being able to deal objectively with many issues. Such ones should be dealt with kindly yet they should realize everyone does not realize their pain.

    Friend

  • Scorpion
    Scorpion

    Friend,

    I just wanted to say if I have offended you in anyway, I am sorry. I still respectfully disagree with your points at hand about salvation as well as a few other topics on this board.

    When I read your post, even in this thread, I see things that appear shaded. I do not want to start another full fledged argument on this thread. I do wish to ask a few questions.

    In your reply to Carmel you said on the bottom of your post that there are (others) besides Jehovah's Witnesses that are also encouraging the spread of the good news of the Kingdom.

    1. Who are they?

    2. Is the news Jehovah's Witnesses are bringing, the good news the (others) are refering to?

    3. Are the (others) encouraging the spread of the good news of the Kingdom spreading this good news themselves?

    Thank you

  • Roamingfeline
    Roamingfeline

    I agree with Red HorseWoman. It's not JUST the doctrinal issues regarding the WTBTS that are sore points. It's the way they have treated "Widows and children" and those having doubts and questions regarding their "blinking light". It is said in the Bible that the true religion would be known by the "Love among themselves". This love is sadly lacking in the congregations that I have attended over the past 32 years. It is almost as if being taught this religion STUNTS emotional growth and maturity instead of widening out our capacity to love. Such a shame. And I do believe that is the telling feature that lets us know that it couldn't possibly BE the only true religion, if indeed it is comprised of any truth at all.

  • Pathofthorns
    Pathofthorns

    Friend

    Thanks for your comments. I was wondering since you mentioned concern over the Gentile times, how you can logically reconcile everything.

    We know our message is that Christ was enthroned as King of God's kingdom in 1914. How does one teach such in good conscience, if one finds little evidence to back up such a claim? The bookstudy on Daniel is extremely difficult to sit through, as 1914, 607, and all prophecies calculated from those dates regarding God's people and the years 1918, 1919 are peppered throughout. As a Witness, one cannot teach a message contrary to this, or even avoid teaching it. If you do not believe in our Gentile Times calculations (assumption by me, possibly incorrect) on what basis does the FDS assume their divinely appointed status? At what does it simply become just another Bible Society?

    It is personally of little consequence to me when Christ actually (what exact year) began to rule. It is disturbing that we insist on 1914, when we have been so definitely wrong on every other date that we attached prophetic significance to.

    How do you conscientiously teach views you do not agree with? If you avoid teaching those views, how do you do so when called upon to defend your faith? Why can we not have unity on main issues and respect each other's conscience on minor issues where we many individually differ? Why am I hindered from following the Holy Spirit and conscience if it is not in agreement with present teachings? If our teachings are constantly changing, how can we insist the present ones be followed with 100% confidence?

    You are a logical thinker Friend. Following God sometimes defies logic and requires faith. I do believe though that such faith has its basis in reality. At some point one realizes that our beliefs as Witnesses defy both faith and logic and reality.

    Pathofthorns

  • Pathofthorns
    Pathofthorns

    sorry double posted

    Edited by - Pathofthorns on 11 June 2000 6:58:53

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit