Island Man

Joined

• started 138 topics
• posted 2,374 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Island Man

• 
  19

  Overseer's wife accompanied my Elderette, to answer my question, "Who really is the faithful and discreet slave?"

  by Faithful Witness in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  as usual, i was unprepared for a "drop-in" visit by a jw.

  they seem to have a knack for coming when you're in the middle of something, or your house is a complete disaster... for me, both things are almost always true.

  it's better if you call me and warn me before you come over.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Island Man

  Londo's channel has a lot of good videos that would prove helpful to you:

  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnXY0-N67N4a5a8eKbar-iw/videos?flow=grid&view=0
• 
  19

  Overseer's wife accompanied my Elderette, to answer my question, "Who really is the faithful and discreet slave?"

  by Faithful Witness in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  as usual, i was unprepared for a "drop-in" visit by a jw.

  they seem to have a knack for coming when you're in the middle of something, or your house is a complete disaster... for me, both things are almost always true.

  it's better if you call me and warn me before you come over.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Island Man

  " They used Matthew 24:45 "Who really is the faithful and discreet slave...""

  Use the account of the faithful slave found in Luke. It throws their interpretation off. Luke's account shows that the illustration of the faithful steward was prompted by Peter asking Jesus if he was talking to the whole crowd or just the diciples. Then Jesus, in response, asks him who really is the faithful slave. Luke also more clearly mentions other slaves not mentioned in the Matthew account. Luke's account makes it more evident that it's really a parable rather than a literal prophecy. Here is a good video by Londo that might prove helpful to you:

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeURVCRK7GQ

  "As for you, Daniel, keep the words secret, and seal up the book until the time of the end . Many will rove about, and the true knowledge will become abundant."

  Let's take that scripture again, this time highlighting different terms:

  "As for you, Daniel, keep the words secret, and seal up the book until the time of the end . Many will rove about, and the true knowledge will become abundant."

  JWs account for 0.1% of the world's population. They can hardly be described as "many" and therefore it can hardly be said that the "true knowledge" they possess is abudant - not to mention the fact that today's JW truth is tomorrows old light. And then again, it is only the 8 members of the governing body that are authorized to "rove about" and come up with "true" interpretations of scripture which they then spoon feed to other JWs. That scripture in Daniel is clearly not describing 8 men roving about in scripture and telling others what they find. It is describing many people roving about gaining true understanding.
• 
  34

  There is law that can be applied to being DFed or DA

  by Giordano in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/2008/01/marian-guinn-vs-church-of-christ.html.

  liasobessa brought this site to our attention on another related topic.

  as i began to read i found that the information was excellent and extensive.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Island Man

  " Just as a religion would have every right to tell its members to shun drug users, homosexuals, or members of another religion, an unfair as it might seem, it has every right (under U.S. law) to tell them to shun former members of its own religion"

  The difference is that the Watchtower's own literature makes statements to the effect that shunning former members is with the goal that they'll return. So Watchtower's own literature damns them as exercising disciplinary action on non-members who have terminated membership with the organization. JWs do not shun homosexuals, members of other religions and drug users in the way that they shun former members and I don't think it's legal for a religion to teach members to completely ostracize to the extent of not even saying a single word to someone on the basis that they belong to another religion. Individuals may decide of their own free will to do so. But no religion, medium, or other teaching authority respected by a following should actively advocate this. It is just like hatred. An individual may decide to hate another individual. But no person should be teaching an audience to hate a person or group because that amounts to hate speech and/or inciting hate.

  It is also like slander. An individual may have his own personal reasons determined on his own for poorly esteeming the reputation of another person. The law permits this, no problem. But when it comes to actively influencing others to poorly esteem the reputation of someone that is a different matter. I suppose a fundamental moral/ethical principle is that no one should incite others to treat a person or group in a negative way. Individuals should only treat another person negatively based on their own personal motivation based on the other person's treatment of them. This serves to minimize the chances of someone being treated negatively without good reason.
• 
  19

  Overseer's wife accompanied my Elderette, to answer my question, "Who really is the faithful and discreet slave?"

  by Faithful Witness in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  as usual, i was unprepared for a "drop-in" visit by a jw.

  they seem to have a knack for coming when you're in the middle of something, or your house is a complete disaster... for me, both things are almost always true.

  it's better if you call me and warn me before you come over.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Island Man

  " She said she only wanted to review words that are "inspired.""

  Well then that means she will have to use only the bible and no WTBTS publications. That should give you the advantage if you can show from the bible alone how JW teachings are wrong. Some ideas:

  Their interpretation of the word "unrighteous" at Acts 24:15 is unbiblical. You can counter it easily with 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 2 Peter 2:9 which both show the word "unrighteous" being used to refer to the wicked (esp. 2 Peter 2:9). For ideas on how to reason about why Jehovah would resurrect wicked people only to consign them to condemnation and death see this comment made on a posting at meletivivlon.com.

  Their interpretation of Romans 6:7 as meaning that a resurrected person is automatically acquitted of his past sins by dying is wrong. Just read the preceding verses from the start of chapter 6 and it becomes clear that Paul was actually saying that a dead person, while dead is acquitted from the ability to sin because his sinful body is inactive. This is why he was telling them not to practice sin by reckoning themselves as being dead. Coupled with this, you can share Matthew 12:41 where Jesus speaks about his faithless contemporaries being resurrected and condemned for their failure to exercise faith in him. Also, 2 Corinthians 5:10 shows that anointed christians will be judged for what they did while still in the body - i.e. before their death and resurrection. The preceding verses make it very clear that Paul is referring to their resurrection after living in physical bodies. You can also compare the latter part of 2 Corinthians 5:10 with John 5:29. The thoughts expressed in both verses are uncannily similar showing that John 5:29 is talking about people being judged for what they did before they died.

  You can also reason that if a person's dying automatically acquits him of his sin then that essentially invalidates any need for christ's ransom as it would mean that we can all pay for our own sins by dying and Jehovah can thereafter re-create us without there being any legal hindrances to him doing so.

  Their interpretation of John 10:16 is wrong. You can make the real meaning of that verse (talking about the ingathering of gentiles) evident by reading these 4 texts in the following order:

  1. (Matthew 10:5, 6) . . .These twelve Jesus sent forth, giving them these orders: “Do not go off into the road of the nations, and do not enter into a Sa·mar′i·tan city; 6 but, instead, go continually to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

  2. (Matthew 15:24) . . .In answer he said: “I was not sent forth to any but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

  3. (John 10:16) . . .“And I have other sheep, which are not of this fold [i.e. not of the sheepfold of the house of Israel]; those also I must bring, and they will listen to my voice, and they will become one flock, one shepherd.

  4. Ephesians 2:11-18. This text perfectly harmonizes with John 10:16 essentially describing it's fulfilment.

  These scriptures give a more reasonable understanding of the meaning of John 10:16 - one which is supported by the Jewish-gentile context of the NT. The JW interpreation of John 10:16 is a strained, anachronistic and eisegetical one that is not explicitly supported by the NT.

  Their 1914 invisible presence doctrine is provably wrong. Here are two texts you can use to prove it wrong:

  1. You can read and reason on 2 Peter 3:4,9 as follows: In verse 4 the ridiculers ask where is the promised presence. As part of his response to their question Peter says Jehovah is not slow respecting his promise [clearly alluding to the promised presence mentioned in verse 4] but is patient because he does not desire any to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance.This statement in verse 9 leads to the unavoidable conclusion that the presence is being held back to allow people opportunity to repent because when the presence starts there would be no time left for any to repent. Do you see how this contradicts the 1914 century-long invisible presence doctrine? The 1914 invisible presence doctrine invalidates 2 Peter 3:9 because it necessarily implies that wicked people have had a whole century of time to repent after the start of the promised presence! You can also comment by saying it is noteworthy that Peter in responding to the ridiculers' question about the presence repeatedly makes reference to the destructive flood and the future destructive day of Jehovah. This shows that the inspired writer understood that the presence starts, not with a century of invisible rule, but the very destructive day of Jehovah.

  2. James 5:7 tells christians to exercise patience until the presence of christ. The use of the word "until" shows that when the presence does start they would no longer need to exercise patience since anointed christians will then be gathered out of this trialsome world to christ. (2 Thessalonians 2:1) However, the 1914 invisible presence doctrine invalidates this verse because it necessarily implies that an anointed christian alive at the start of christ's presence in 1914 would have had to still continue exercising patience his whole life long after the start of christ's presence.

  3. At Matthew 24, Jesus didn't tell his followers of events that will indicate that is presence has already begun. Rather, he gave them events that would indicate when his presence is near. At Matthew 24:33 Jesus used the expression "near at the doors". He was implicitly using the illustration of the master returning to the house. The master's presence would be denoted by him being inside the house with his slaves. "Near at the doors" indicates that the master is just outside the house about to knock the door to enter - about to be present, but not yet present.

  4. At Mathew 24:36-44, Jesus used "presence" and "coming" interchangeably because he knew that his final coming to destroy the wicked is what will mark the start of his presence. This harmonizes with 2 Peter 3:9 alluding to there being no time to repent when the promised presence starts.
• 
  68

  Pit Bull Mauls 2 Jehovah's Witness Door to Door

  by Shanagirl in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  click here: pit bull mauls 2 jehovah's witnesses - "it was biting her head, calves, stomach" - youtube what a horrifying thing to happen to these two women.

  shana

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Island Man

  Welcome SingleCell.

  No, the people on this forum do not hate JWs. The people on this forum actually pity JWs. Having done thorough independent and verifyable research into the history and teachings of the organization, we feel like we have been betrayed by the organization. We feel like we have been hoodwinked, tricked into making a decision to dedicate our lives "in association with" the organization without having all the facts about the organization. And do you know why we didn't have all the facts? Because the organization used propaganda to plant within us a fear of doing independent research from non-JW sources. We were indoctrinated to believe that all critical information about the organization is all lies. So we never made a truly informed decision in becoming JWs. We made a decision based only on the self-serving, pro-organization spin that was fed to us by the organization. The only history of the organization we knew of is an incomplete history presented in the form of whitewashed spin. It's like a criminal attorney at a trial convincing the court to listen to and believe only what the defense has to say and to disregard all the prosecution says as all lies; so that the court only accepts the submissions of the defense and comes to the conclusion that the guilty man is innocent. (Proverbs 18:17) This is analogous to what your organization does.
• 
  68

  Pit Bull Mauls 2 Jehovah's Witness Door to Door

  by Shanagirl in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  click here: pit bull mauls 2 jehovah's witnesses - "it was biting her head, calves, stomach" - youtube what a horrifying thing to happen to these two women.

  shana

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Island Man

  I have to disagree with you Island Man. Perhaps a few loopy publishers think that they are invincible but the word from Brooklyn and all responsible elders would be to " BE CAREFUL OUT THERE!"

  Common sense should prevail

  I wasn't denying that they are told to exercise good judgement. I was making the point that incidents like that are not enough to show indoctrinated JWs that they don't have angelic guidance and protection in the ministry. They will look for all kinds of twisted reasoning to explain how such things happen despite supposed angelic guidance and protection.
• 
  68

  Pit Bull Mauls 2 Jehovah's Witness Door to Door

  by Shanagirl in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  click here: pit bull mauls 2 jehovah's witnesses - "it was biting her head, calves, stomach" - youtube what a horrifying thing to happen to these two women.

  shana

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Island Man

  " There is definitely no angelic protection."

  Indoctrinated dubs will disagree. They will come up with all kinds of contorted reasons why something like that can happen: "maybe they were living double lives", "Jehovah permitted the attack so that attention could be drawn to the preaching work of Jehovah's Witnesses", "Satan is behind it! Jehovah only permitted it so the sisters' faiths can be refined", "Maybe Jehovah needs them to witness to persons at the hospital", etc
• 
  83

  Heard a rumor: Guy Pierce died this morning

  by respectful_observer in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  didn't see any other threads, apologies if one already exists.

  apparently died of a massive stroke this morning.. r_o.

  (completely unconfirmed.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Island Man

  " If there were any any potential changes that were stuck at 5-3, and Pierce was on the side of the "3", now it would be 5-2 and the change could be implemented."

  Bye bye 1914?
• 
  27

  My son has made his decision

  by CaptainSchmideo in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  this is the followup to this thread:.

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/276119/1/well-its-march-and-the-college-answers-are-coming-in#.uyjdu_ldv2e.

  the financial aid offer came in.. the first year of attending is actually cheaper than what we were going to pay at the state university after their scholarship offer.. i mean, really cheaper.. we would be fools to turn it down.. they are even flying him in for the preview week.. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Island Man

  Did you say M I T ???
• 
  33

  Is anyone else completely astonished that they're drawing attention to 1914/2014 - 100 years

  by jambon1 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i note that they're making reference to this in the upcoming convention programme.

  someone has has dropped a bollock here, have they not?.

  i mean, if i were a jw, i'd be sitting thinking of all the promises made and broken.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Island Man

  "They are rebranding 1914. It will now mark the beginning of Christ ruling in heaven."

  But that IS what they already long claimed christ's presence to be - his invisible presence in kingdom power. They already clam his presence refers to his royal presence as king in heaven. To JWs, christs ascending the throne in heaven is one and the same with his presence. They have even stated in the literature that the Greek word is sometimes used to refer to a king's royal reign or something like that. Didn't you know that?

  But of course what the bible says makes it evident that what they claim about christ's presence is bogus, as I mentioned in answering this YA question:

  " The JWs do this by twisting the meaning of scripture to separate christ 's presence from his final coming. They say that his presence begins before his final coming. But that's ridiculous. A person has to come first in order to be present, and this is exactly what the scriptures indicate.
  
  The JWs came up with their twisted invisible presence reasoning as a means of saving some face when their initial predictions about 1914 failed. They initially taught that the end of the gentile times in 1914 would mean the end of the present system of things. When that failed to materialize they eventually advanced the reasoning that 1914 marked the invisible enthronement of Jesus in heaven and the start of his invisible presence . This is one of the typical tactics that false prophets resort to when their date predictions don't bring the visible events they predicted. They resort to spiritualizing the event, saying it did take place but in a spiritual sense or invisibly.
  
  According to the bible, christ's presence starts with his final coming to destroy the wicked. Multiple texts indicate this. Here's some examples:
  
  At 2 Peter 3:3,4 mention is made of ridiculers coming in the last days and asking where is the promised presence. According to JWs the last days started with the start of christ's presence in 1914. So here is what JW doctrine would have us believe:
  
  1. That that text is saying ridulers living during christ's presence would foolishly ask where is his presence, and this great irony is completely lost on the inspired bible writer since he does not address it.
  
  2. That Peter also does not address the error of the ridiculers for their expecting christ's presence to start visibly. Instead he seems to corroborate their expectations of a visible presence by drawing a parallel with the destructive flood of Noah's day and by speaking of the destructive "day of Jehovah" that is to come, i.e. christ's final coming to execute the wicked. He makes no mention of an invisible presence as a prelude to the destruction.
  
  If the JWs are correct in their teaching, how could the inspired bible writer have missed these glaring errors of understanding implicit in the ridiculers' question? More than that, how could he have condoned their misunderstanding by going on to speak about the day of Jehovah, thus implicitly teaching bible readers that christ's presence is synonymous with the destructive "day of Jehovah"?
  
  It is obvious that the JWs are wrong. Peter and the ridiculers correctly understood that the start of christ's presence would be marked by climactic and destructive divine intervention. 2 Peter 3:9 proves this. It says (NWT):
  
  "Jehovah is not slow respecting his promise, as some people consider slowness, but he is patient with YOU because he does not desire any to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance."
  
  The implication of this text is inescapable, when you carefully analyze it. The ridiculers were arguing that the promised presence isn't coming. Peter responds by implying that the ridiculers regard Jehovah as being slow respecting his promise - the *promised* presence. Then notice that he gives the reason for the apparent delay to the presence: Jehovah does not desire any to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance! Do you see it? Peter's words here necessarily imply that when the presence starts there would be no time left for any to repent. This proves that the promised presence will not start with a century of invisible rule - which will afford time for repentance - but rather will start with christ's final coming to destroy the wicked. So 2 Peter 3:3,4,9 totally debunks their century long invisible presence doctrine.
  
  There are other texts too. James 5:7 is one. That text tells christians to exercise patience *until* the presence of Jesus. The use of "until" means that when the presence starts they would no longer need to exercise patience as they will then receive their heavenly reward. (2 Thessalonian 2:1) The JWs' century long invisible presence teaching invalidates the words of James 5:7 because according to their teaching an anointed christian alive in 1914 as to continue exercising patience his whole life - a whole century after the start of christ's presence!
  
  Matthew 24 shows that Jesus used "presence" and "coming" interchangeably because he knew that his coming will mark the start of his presence. Matthew 24:36-44 shows this. And when you think about it, it's basic common sense that an absent person has to come in order to be present. He is not present before he comes. Matthew 24:33 shows that the events Jesus predicted would not indicate that his presence is here, as the JWs falsely claim, but that his presence is *near*. Jesus used the expression "near at the doors" meaning outside the figurative house and just about to enter. His presence would be figuratively denoted by being inside the house.
  
  The JWs have allowed their prideful refusal to admit that they were totally wrong about 1914, to throw their eschatology completely out of whack!"