I think they're using this premise as a way to cover themselves. The experiences aren't real. The Society makes it all up and then puts in that little line about "some of the names have been changed" to fool the reader into thinking the person in question doesn't want to be named for fear of drawing attention to themselves and a kind or worship away from God.
Posts by Awen
-
5* Some names have been changed.
by cedars ini just thought i would flag this as something i have long despised about the magazines, since long before i made the decision to distance myself emotionally from the the organization.
this isn't a big deal or anything, and ranks way down on my list of concerns about the society, but i felt it was worth mentioning nonetheless.. as you will know, frequently in the magazines an experience will be quoted (portrayed as being real, although we are often left wondering whether it is), and in such an experience a name will be mentioned followed by an asterisk (*) which leads to a footnote which reads "some names have been changed.".
out of interest, i went on my 2010 watchtower library and typed in "some names have been changed", and found that this footnote had been repeated no less than 69 times between 1994 and 2010 (39 times in the watchtower, and 30 times in the awake).
-
-
-
31
Bizarre 'Spirit anointed' v. 'Spirit appointed' explanation in Dec 15th WT
by cedars inhi everyone, i am going through the dec 15th study edition of the wt thanks to a tip-off that this issue is now available online at jw.org.. in the article "guided by god's spirit in the first century and today" on page 25 there is a bizarre argument put forward by the society about the difference between spirit-anointed and spirit-appointed.. this touches on a subject that i have often wondered about, which is this.
why are spirit anointed brothers and sisters (memorial partakers) not given positions of oversight in the congregation by default?
i know it sounds like a stupid question, but please think about it for a moment.
-
-
Awen
Also in the May 1st and 15th 2007 editions of the WT there were study articles that retracted the 1935 teaching. After that the numbers of anointed ones partaking started to increase dramtically in fulfillment of Jesus' words at Matthew 20: 1-16 (not a WT teaching btw).
The GB is trying to have their cake and eat it too but deny that same cake to others. They're not understanding how the Spirit actually works in relation to the disposition of a person. A person's innate qualities is what causes them to be selected for appointment to a position. The Holy Spirit simply magnifies what is already there. For if it was a matter of just having the Holy Spirit then some could charge God with creating a lottery when it comes to deciding who goes to heaven and who doesn't. It would be based completely upon chance.
But when it comes to an anointing it's people who do not want or even seek a position of authority (If anyone wants to be first, they must be last) who are actually given those positions. Think of Solomon who simply asked for Wisdom, yet was given so much more. Typically those who seek power tend to abuse it and those who refuse power usually are the best wielders of it.
By saying some receive an appointment and some just receive an anointing they are trying to shut the door to the rest of Christ's Brothers from having an influence and (in their own minds) possibly over throwing the GB (which isn't the case at all). Most ones I know aren't interested in being on the GB. They're interested in seeing the organization change. They're interested in saving as many people as possible from the WTS before Babylon The Great is destroyed and along with her the WTS.
The anointed aren't interested in saving the Titanic (WTS), they interested in getting as many people as possible into the lifeboats before the Titanic (WTS) sinks.
I've seen similar articles like this where the GB has mentioned that the rank and file weren't to listen to the rest of Christ's Brothers concerning spiritual matters. I liken it to High Priest Caiphas and the rest of the Jewish Priestly class who could clearly see that Jesus was a prophet and had God's backing but chose to put him to death anyway because they feared the people and losing their positions. The Priests had God's Holy Spirit as well, but they also had free will, much like the GB of today.
-
69
Dec 15 2011 WT: We don't care if you have a f***ing BRAIN TUMOR get your a$$ out in service!!
by baltar447 inoh dear sweet jeebus:.
i enjoy making return visits and helping out on bible studies.
on my better days, i like to witness from house to house.barbara, who has a brain tumor.. i carry only a very light magazine bag.
-
-
Awen
In my old congregation we had a man by the name of Hugh who had just started studying at the ripe age of 84. He was already in very bad health (Cancer) but was determined to put forth his best. The Elders asked me to look after him, which meant field service, taking him to his weekly hospital visits in Charleston, SC (100 miles away) and just generally looking after the guy. I looked after him for a period of six months and he progression in his study was slow (according to the Elders), but he had trouble reading the small print in the books. One Elder made a remark that he didn't see Hugh making it into the New System because he would probably die before he was baptized (as if THAT means anything at all other than a public confession of one's faith). I stuck with Hugh despite what the Elder said but he did die 7 months after he started his study and was never recommended for baptism because he hadn't progressed through all 3 books at that time. Hugh had asked the Elders before his death if they would give the eulogy at his funeral. They of course refused because he wasn't baptized and most likely wouldn't be by the time he passed away. Hugh had this non-JW friend who accompanied him everywhere (as she didn't trust me nor the other JW's). She thought we might be trying to take advantage of him.
So as I said he passed away and no JW's went to his funeral. I asked his friend about attending but was told I wouldn't be welcome because of being a JW, despite the love I had shown towards this man. She just felt that we had harmed him enough and I had to agree.
-
7
National Anthem
by stuckinamovement ini was reading an article about some guy who refused to stand for the national anthem on 911 at the jets cowboy game.
here is the question..... why can witness kids stand respectfully for the flag salute, but not the national anthem?
direction is given that for the national anthem you must remain seated unless you are already standing.
-
-
Awen
Larry McKelvey, 59, said he was forced to use his stun gun on belligerent Jets fans who were annoyed that he refused to stand during the national anthem and was talking on his cell phone during a moment of silence.
I guess it might have to do with your surroundings. In Daniel Chapter 3: 1-7 there is the instance with the three Hebrews who refused to bow down to the golden image when they heard the sounds of the various musical instruments. Likewise the National Anthem carries far more weight than the Flag Salute because of the music involved and the emotions it instills in people. Also we're talking about kids in school and not adults at a baseball stadium (where there are differing codes of conduct) who might feel outraged and attempt to do something about it, much like the astrologers in Daniel when they informed the King of the Hebrews disobedience. The kids couldn't really do much for fear of the teacher and of possibly being expelled (of course they might bully their peers on the playground of after school). Adults however most times won't think twice about taking matters into their own hands. Also many adults really aren't tolerant of other people's religious viewpoints.
Mr McKelvey was also being somewhat of a jerk by talking on his cellphone during the moment of silence. He shouldn't expect people not to be annoyed with him because he refused to stand for the National Anthem. If you're going to take a stand for something you take the risk of being knocked down for it.
-
269
The Hubble, Yahweh, the Bible, and faith.
by Nickolas inthere have been several threads in which the views of the universe provided by the hubble space telescope have been discussed.
i guess this will be another one.
there's a new series being broadcast here in canada on the oasis hd nature channel entitled hubble's canvas.
-
-
Awen
@ bohm I see what you did there. You took one sentence, focused on that and tried to discredit the entire post without actually refuting anything.
@ EntirelyPossible I also see what you did as well. Calling me unintelligent, misinformed, not having a grasp of concepts while at the same time not offering one single refute of anything I actually posted. This is referred to as misdirection (the stage magic type). Look here at my right hand folks while my left hand does something else. Also you said that I didn't understand the definition of Cognitive Dissonance. Perhaps not as you understand it. So let me explain what I meant by it as it applies to you dear EntirelyPossible.
Cognitive Dissonance
This is the feeling of uncomfortable tension which comes from holding two conflicting thoughts in the mind at the same time.
Dissonance increases with:
The importance of the subject to us.
How strongly the dissonant thoughts conflict.
Our inability to rationalize and explain away the conflict.I had focused on the third point as I can see it in your posts quite clearly. I suppose the same could be said for bohm.
You read things here on these forums that challenge your current beliefs and when unable to refute the argument you create conflict within yourself. So rather than conclude that your viewpoint may in fact be in error, you resort to name calling and tearing apart the person (not their arguments).
I also see this at play in your posts.
Abusive ad hominem (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to attack his claim or invalidate his argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but apparent character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions.
Feel free to refute any of this. That is if you can without resorting to ad hominem or allowing your own Cognitive Dissonance to overtake you.
You see what I did there? I just did exactly what you have been doing. I feel no pride in resorting to things such as this but trying to have a meaningful, respectful conversation with either of you without resorting to this type of behavior has thus far proved ineffectual.
-
79
For the board atheists....
by Jack C. inthis is a personal observation and certainly not representative of all atheists.
i enjoy discussions with folks of this persuasion; in general they appear well read and somewhat more educated than many believers.
as a group most atheists cringe and become insensed when discussing the existence of a deity with believers especially fundamentalists.
-
-
Awen
@ Mad Sweeney
While I can see your point I also see an inherent problem with it.
Please bear with me and please also do not take my words as an unkindness or judgement of yourself. I have nothing but the greatest of respect for you.
But when believers refer to religion when discussing the possibility of a God, then religion becomes a fair-game part of the argument.
The problem with this is us believers are often asked to cite our sources. "Where did you get this information from? Where can I read it for myself?"
Without being able to reference the Bible, us believers are left in somewhat of a pickle. Especially when you consider that the non-believers are allowed to quote from scientific journals, respected authors in their fields and so on and so forth. If someone like Shelby or myself says "I received this from my Lord", then we are seen as nuts or just making it up as no one else can seemingly verify this information on their own (which isn't true at all of course). But because the information isn't readily available on a webpage or a published book, it's dismissed. I myself only use the Bible because that is what most everyone on this forum is used to and even then only the parts I am sure haven't been tampered with overly much.
I could relate at length what my Lord has told me, but it wouldn't be credible. Certainly not something a person could submit to a court. I say court because I often feel as though I am on trial, having my sanity and intelligence questioned by non-believers who resort to name calling yet can't seem to refute my stance on a particular subject.
So without being able to cite the Bible and personal gnosis what other sources are left to believers like myself?
-
21
Does anyone know the value of NET assets owned by the Watchtower?
by TimothyT ini would love to get my hands on a balance sheet for 2010, 2009, 2008, etc.
i wonder how much money they have.
i wonder if they will ever lose it all.. timmy xxx.
-
-
Awen
Originally posted by DogPatch aka Randy Watters of Freeminds.org
-
269
The Hubble, Yahweh, the Bible, and faith.
by Nickolas inthere have been several threads in which the views of the universe provided by the hubble space telescope have been discussed.
i guess this will be another one.
there's a new series being broadcast here in canada on the oasis hd nature channel entitled hubble's canvas.
-
-
Awen
Thank you sizemilk for pointing out the issue of the shared common ancestor. I admit I might have skimmed over the article somwhat and missed that particular point. Nevertheless I thank you for educating me.
Peace.
-
269
The Hubble, Yahweh, the Bible, and faith.
by Nickolas inthere have been several threads in which the views of the universe provided by the hubble space telescope have been discussed.
i guess this will be another one.
there's a new series being broadcast here in canada on the oasis hd nature channel entitled hubble's canvas.
-
-
Awen
@ sizemilk. I wasn't trying to be mean. I am trying to understand something that is currently beyond my comprehension. I only asked for your sources so that I can see what you see. If I were in college and writing a paper on evolution my professor would ask me to cite my sources. I also take issue with your suggestion that I have "cherry-picked" my ideas. This would be dishonest and as I have already said I purposely stayed away from Christian Apologetic websites that would have an agenda and went to the scientific academic websites for my information.
I apologize if I have offended you with my remarks, such was not my intention at all.
@ EntirelyPossible
Wow, such anger and hatred. I'm sorry you were hurt by the WTBTS (as we all were). No need to take it out on me. Also I have been very polite and kind in my remarks in seeking to understand what many here already know. Too bad you're unable to be. No problem, I'm used to it. In Psychology it's called Cognitive Dissonance. Think about it.
-
269
The Hubble, Yahweh, the Bible, and faith.
by Nickolas inthere have been several threads in which the views of the universe provided by the hubble space telescope have been discussed.
i guess this will be another one.
there's a new series being broadcast here in canada on the oasis hd nature channel entitled hubble's canvas.
-
-
Awen
@ sizemilk You wrote:
"Even in the context of the link you provided this is not at all true. It may be an accurate description of the stratigraphic status quo at any given time within the parameters a particular taxonomical range, but genera, like species and other classifications in the taxonomic hierarchy, are all part of evolutionary progression. Variegation of genera is every bit as valid as variegation of species. It is simply further up the taxonomic heirarchy and therefore expressed over far greater periods of time than say species variegation. Time has the effect of greater variegal seperation of genera, through the more protracted extinction of common genetic ancestry. It's important to remember that extinction results from geological and cosmological cataclysm as well as gradual environmental change and natural selection. Evolution shows us that over time, the opposite is true . . . that new and distinct Genera emerge in the same way as new and distinct species. It's simply that the boundaries, through time, have now achieved a wider gulf of seperation.
To illustrate . . . it's like trying to positively identify the structure and shape of the branches and trunk of a tree by observing the new shoots of spring growth only . . . the abundance of the current growth show the tree must be there . . . but it is only from the evidence remaining that any semblance of the reality can be discerned. In terms of evolution, some smaller outer branches can be observed through the fossil record, but harmonious synchronicity is not assured, let alone an accurate picture of the whole "tree".
Interestingly, Nickolas's well cited points (in this and previous threads) on the incomprehensible vastness of the dimensions of time and space involved, lend ever increasing weight to the probability, even strong likelihood in terms of statistical probability, of this gradual, but very extensive progression IMHO."
I think I get what you are saying here. That the further we go up the Taxonomic web the more correlation there is between the species. I would accept this as accurate IF there were fossils backing up this claim. I have been looking and so far the only examples I can find are in the Hominid species, including Homo Sapiens and the groups preceding us. I have one problem with this. Humans do not look the same all over the world. We have differing facial features, jawbone structures, etc. Yet we are shown but one or two examples of Hominids from the past and are told those are our Human ancestors. How do we know that this isn't simply a variation in the species we call Homo Sapiens? Now I understand that there is a 98.4% shared genetic ancestry with Apes which would logically suggest we are descended from them, except the fact that they are in a different species than we are meaning among other things we cannot cross breed. Not that I would want to but it begs the question why not if we have only a 1.6% difference in our genetic code that is mostly made up of deletions, insertions and duplications? This genome seems to make all the difference in the world as far as disntinguishing us from Apes and yet it has developed very quickly as opposed to the gradual process of natural selection in an evolutionary model.