Provided in electronic form? Like a communal tablet?
Truly astonishing. They are winding down.
a pimo friend (physically in mentally out) has just informed me that the cult has decided that they want to suppress all old jw org information by removing bound volumes etc from kh libraries.. in reality, all through their history they have claimed divine "new light" as a means of changing uncomfortable doctrines.
this however would mean that new jws, or more likely these days young jws, will be prevented from seeing the old light which had been held up as divinely inspired truth in the past.. truth which would get you through big a and which if you didn't agree with would get you disfellowshipped.. anyone else heard of this?
what might be the reasons (if true) for removing the old wts?.
Provided in electronic form? Like a communal tablet?
Truly astonishing. They are winding down.
jehovah's witnesses have had to revise their chronology and various doctrinal interpretations due to events and scholarly corrections.
but the one teaching where they have been consistently ahead of the curve is the importance of jehovah's name.. .
i'm going to run through a (necessarily selective) timeline of jw events and scholarly publications that demonstrate the phenomenal success of this teaching in the last days.
You must have good reasons for leaving after 60 years. The worst thing about it is not being able to talk to other JWs. I hope you've found people you can tall to.
Remember you are not obligated to tell any JW your feelings about things if they are only going to use the information to harm you.
jehovah's witnesses have had to revise their chronology and various doctrinal interpretations due to events and scholarly corrections.
but the one teaching where they have been consistently ahead of the curve is the importance of jehovah's name.. .
i'm going to run through a (necessarily selective) timeline of jw events and scholarly publications that demonstrate the phenomenal success of this teaching in the last days.
I'm not saying it wasn't an issue just because people didn't talk about it. Quite the opposite. The point I'm making is that people's reasons for leaving or staying are not static, either on a personal level or as a community.
That's why many people who leave for religious reasons ("Jesus is my mediator") later find themselves to be atheist, and so on. It's a complex situation and I don't buy into the idea that all departures or arrivals are unqualified good or bad. The destination and nature of the journey are important too, and to recognise others have their own paths.
jehovah's witnesses have had to revise their chronology and various doctrinal interpretations due to events and scholarly corrections.
but the one teaching where they have been consistently ahead of the curve is the importance of jehovah's name.. .
i'm going to run through a (necessarily selective) timeline of jw events and scholarly publications that demonstrate the phenomenal success of this teaching in the last days.
Phoebe I am sorry you have had distress and a sleepless night. It shows you take these things seriously and are a thoughtful person. I would only suggest that there are lots of complex things to consider, not least of which are your personal relationships and how you envisage your life unfolding. JWs have good points and bad points. I would count shunning and lack of freedom of thought as among the bad. Their teaching on the name and refusal to kill brothers in other countries are the best points in my opinion. Those are not exhaustive lists on either side. It's not all black and white. That's what I think I've learned on my own journey so far.
jwfacts I was agnostic leaning toward atheism. Now I'm agnostic leaning toward belief in God. I'm really not sure what to believe but I think there must be something bigger than ourselves and that JWs have good points as well as bad points.
Cofty, those sound like fine reasons to leave JWs. Which one of those reasons was it for you? Or didn't you say it was because you disagreed with JWs on the ransom doctrine? But you didn't mention that one on your list.
I am making a serious point here. People's reasons for joining, staying and leaving are complex. Before 2001 I hardly heard abuse even mentioned as a reason for leaving JWs. Yet now, justifiably, it's a major, if not the major thing former JWs are corcerned about. Crisis of Conscience doesn't mention if once. Everyone's own story and understanding evolves, as yours has done. The reasons you initially left are not the same as the list you give now. And no doubt there is room for more development. If people stop on the way out, to consider the good and the bad, and make a considered choice, how can that be a bad thing?
jehovah's witnesses have had to revise their chronology and various doctrinal interpretations due to events and scholarly corrections.
but the one teaching where they have been consistently ahead of the curve is the importance of jehovah's name.. .
i'm going to run through a (necessarily selective) timeline of jw events and scholarly publications that demonstrate the phenomenal success of this teaching in the last days.
Ha! Is that a serious question?
I would describe the discussion this way,
A few people pointed out that there is a contradiction between the JW claim that the Bible has been reliably preserved and the claim that the divine name has been removed. I agreed that this is a real contradiction, and that I've not come across an official JW response to the problem. I suggested that there are a few responses one could make to this contradiction. On the one hand the removal of the name could demonstrate that the Bible is not inspired. On the other hand there may be ways of reconciling the contradiction within the parameters of faith. I said that one way this could be done would be to view the recovery of God's name at the time of the end as providential. I also stated I was not making a strong argument for this view but presenting it as a possible way of solving the contradiction as a believer in Jehovah God.
jehovah's witnesses have had to revise their chronology and various doctrinal interpretations due to events and scholarly corrections.
but the one teaching where they have been consistently ahead of the curve is the importance of jehovah's name.. .
i'm going to run through a (necessarily selective) timeline of jw events and scholarly publications that demonstrate the phenomenal success of this teaching in the last days.
The inconsistency that was pointed out was a theological one not a historical one.
The inconsistency was the tension between the competing claims that God has preserved the text of the Bible and also that the Bible was corrupted by the removal of God's name. Since this objection relates to the character of God and the probability of him acting in contradictory ways, it is entirely appropriate to answer this objection in theological terms. Within that frame of reference it is entirely appropriate to invoke theoloical possibilities such as God's unfolding revelation or the possible action of Satan. In fact it's impossible to offer a sensible response to such a theological question without involving such categories.
You are as obtuse as someone who claims they have no objection to other people playing a game of Monopoly just so long as they refrain from throwing dice while doing so.
jehovah's witnesses have had to revise their chronology and various doctrinal interpretations due to events and scholarly corrections.
but the one teaching where they have been consistently ahead of the curve is the importance of jehovah's name.. .
i'm going to run through a (necessarily selective) timeline of jw events and scholarly publications that demonstrate the phenomenal success of this teaching in the last days.
Ah, I spoke too soon...
Cofty, ask yourself, why should I have to confine the issue in a way that suits your particlar materialistic conception of reality? For many people it's an issue that has historical and religious dimensions that are not easily or appropriately disentangled. Really, what is with you, that not only do you feel the need to dictate which topics are trivial, but also the manner and terms in which other people should carry on their so-called trivial conversations?
jehovah's witnesses have had to revise their chronology and various doctrinal interpretations due to events and scholarly corrections.
but the one teaching where they have been consistently ahead of the curve is the importance of jehovah's name.. .
i'm going to run through a (necessarily selective) timeline of jw events and scholarly publications that demonstrate the phenomenal success of this teaching in the last days.
In my opening post I respectfully allowed for the possibility that atheists would find the discussion trivial or uninteresting.
For atheists and others who do not regard the Bible as inspired, the question whether Jehovah's Witnesses are right about the original New Testament employing the divine name may be regarded as little more than historical curiosity.
Nevertheless, in a dozen or more posts, Cofty felt compelled to emphasise that the issue was really really trivial, to the point that now he is bored with explaining just how trivial it is. Well, with that (needlessly) clarified, maybe any of us left, who find the issue interesting and important, may be allowed to confine...
jehovah's witnesses have had to revise their chronology and various doctrinal interpretations due to events and scholarly corrections.
but the one teaching where they have been consistently ahead of the curve is the importance of jehovah's name.. .
i'm going to run through a (necessarily selective) timeline of jw events and scholarly publications that demonstrate the phenomenal success of this teaching in the last days.
The fact that you apparently believe an academic approach to historical religious questions is incompatible with a religious sensibility to the import of the issues involved only tells me about the poverty of your own intellectual horizon, it doesn't prove any inherent incompatibity between faith and scholarship itself, as you imagine.
jehovah's witnesses have had to revise their chronology and various doctrinal interpretations due to events and scholarly corrections.
but the one teaching where they have been consistently ahead of the curve is the importance of jehovah's name.. .
i'm going to run through a (necessarily selective) timeline of jw events and scholarly publications that demonstrate the phenomenal success of this teaching in the last days.
Do you really not know the difference between allowing something and being "unable to prevent" it? Or are you just pretending not to know the difference?
Is there any way of talking about the possibility of a concerned God which would not sound like Benny Hinn to you?