Srecko Sostar

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

My father of course decided to marry and have children, but my two aunts did not have any children, and in later years they were both quite sad about having followed these "instructions from the Lord."

In 1950, the Watchtower was already loosening up on those instructions,

At the International Congress in Vienna, I think 1989 or so, they repeated that nonsense about marriage and children.

11 hours ago, WalterPrescott said:

EHOVAH’S WITNESSES 2019

MARLEY COLE

Introduction to British Edition

by J. W. Felix

J. F. Rutherford— ‘The Kingdom Is Here!

‘WHO will be our pastor?’

The question rang out when Charles T. Russell died, and resounded through the ranks of International Bible Students around the world. ‘I will not be your pastor,’ replied Joseph F. Rutherford. He had been appointed to Pastor Russell’s place as president of the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society of Pennsylvania, of the Peoples Pulpit Association of New York, and the British corporation, the International Bible Students Association.

This reminded me of Space Merchant claiming that Rutherford also held the title of “Pastor”. From this quote it seems how JFR thought differently.

14 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I haven't heard enough about any of the others to know if they might be of any use.

There is a book written by someone long ago here in Croatia. The name is "Prison without Walls". I don’t remember ever reading it and right now I don’t know where it can be found.

17 hours ago, WalterPrescott said:

Just remember, that comes from an Ex-Bethelite's account. I wouldn't place faith on anything an apostate writes, since it usually exaggerated for dramatic effect.

Exaggeration is not something invented by ex-JWs. I would not be surprised if some biblical texts are exaggerated in their description of events. Exaggeration or alteration of the description sometimes comes when things are retold. And this is often the case in this human activity, regardless of origin.

17 hours ago, WalterPrescott said:

Case in point, the book by Zoe Knox There are negative and positive points to religion. Rutherford was referring to the negative aspect of religion, which is a racket, even today. Yet, this person makes an assumption of what that person believes Rutherford’s thought was. False parameter and premise!

GB has often dealt with interpretations of the biblical text relating to Jesus' statements. And they used just this kind of parameter and premise you mentioned: It is like this: "We, GB, know what Jesus meant when he said this or that. It is therefore important that you now believe what we have changed in our interpretation." :))

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

In effect, the Watchtower was calling it 'the political expression of God's Kingdom on earth."

Please can you tell me where it was written? Ever since I know for myself, and while I was JW, I have been taught in the Congregation that this claim was made by the Catholic Church and how blasphemous it is on their part.

quote from "Revelation book":

As early as December 18, 1918, the body now known as the National Council of the Churches of Christ in America adopted a declaration that declared in part: “Such a League is not a mere political expedient; it is rather the political expression of the Kingdom of God on earth. . . . The Church can give a spirit of good-will, without which no League of Nations can endure. . . . The League of Nations is rooted in the Gospel. Like the Gospel, its objective is ‘peace on earth, good-will toward men.’” - https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/index/r1/lp-e?index-ref=1101988033%3A30%2C1101988033%3A38%2C1101988033%3A44%2C1101988033%3A83

3 hours ago, Thinking said:

I have never heard or read the GB likened to Jesus….and I dont know anyone who even thinks that?

The freedom to go in that direction of interpretation stems from the silly comparisons and logic of GB members. In style, "Jesus and JHVH have complete confidence in us (GB) so you rank and file JWs should have complete confidence in us too".
GB, on the other hand, claims for himself that he is the only FDS who shares only accurate spiritual food. If you want to ask me as a former JW, whose spiritual food could be the only health-spiritually correct one, then it is probably only from Jesus, not from the self-proclaimed members of the GB. Comparing the same kind of activity, and that is “sharing spiritual food,” from Jesus and / or GB cannot be in the same rank, class.
Because GB promotes the constant need to be trusted just as people trust Jesus, it sends a clear enough message that one should be extremely careful with GB.

How did Rutherford feel? In what role did he think he was?

1 hour ago, WalterPrescott said:

What's the difference if apostates call it a coup, takeover, etc.?

What's the interest to those claiming to be JW's? 

Rutherford, made a choice to move the Bible Students into a better understanding under the banner of JWs. There are many books from the Org that explain that process. Why do people here find it a need to be influenced by apostate views?

The direction of movement of the WTS organization after Russell's death may be called by some as a distance and apostasy from what was established as "the truth" by Russell. This Russell is now called a "messenger" in the JW circle, and is likened to John the Baptist as the messenger of Jesus Christ.
On the other hand, today's WTJWorg opted for an explanation in which every "old truth" was never a "lie" but only a stepping stone to the "new truth".
Certainly, such an idea of WTJWorg is unbearable, because the truth cannot be built on false theses. Can false theses lead to true doctrine? Obviously, this is possible in the theory and practice of "Rutherford's organization".

If there is already a tendency to compare and give a certain meaning to Russell that he is like John, then we can ask ourselves what “doctrinal errors” did John make while preaching Jesus? And how can this be applied to Russell?
The comparison of GB with Jesus is unknown. I don’t think it’s ever been so openly portrayed in the WTJWorg literature, but it is hidden in a previous comparison / illustration and in an attempt to portray historical figures from the near and far history of the organization.

4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

So someone has a longer drive twice a week so that 50X friends overseas have a place to meet? Who would object to that?

I guess those who drive longer and pay more gasoline for more kilometers. :))

4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

If they sell it, it’s because the sale of one underperforming Hall in the West can fund the building of 50 in developing lands where they are clamoring for them.

Most Croatian citizens are richer than those living in Africa, that is true. But we are actually among the poorer EU countries.
When an ordinary and average JW with a modest income gives money and / or work to build a KH, and then the WTJWorg sells that same hall, without a congregational resolution and without any monetary or material reimbursement to those brothers and sisters, then that is very rude and dishonest. And such examples are not lacking.

Bethel could at least invite them to a barbecue, drinks and cakes to celebrate the sale. :))

51 minutes ago, Arauna said:

modern equivalents.

In the ancient Israeli congregation, rich people and the nobility had slaves.
In the new WTJWorg congregation, religious leaders have volunteers.

After the volunteer workers invest their labor and money in building the JW hall, GB sells it and keeps the money in the corporation.

12 minutes ago, Arauna said:

Ha-ha.  I just laugh at the ridiculousness!  You quote a very old watchtower and you have a peeve with that!  LOL.

You misjudged my feelings. I don’t care in that context, because I’m beyond/outside your JW concept. Drawing “old light” into the light of present time and present context serves to illustrate the WTJWorg context.  

18 minutes ago, Arauna said:

I have repeated so often on this forum that one must put historical actions and attitudes in the light of the period.

If the historical context is to show that former JW leaders were only in some kind of "theological error", so their false beliefs should not be taken for evil, not to be blamed, then on the basis of such "historical experience" we should expect the same recklessness of today's JW theologian.

Because, why would it be any different? Just because today is 2022, not 1939? What kind of guarantee is that? Today, these JWs are smarter (have spirit) more than their predecessors were before?

27 minutes ago, Arauna said:

You want the truth to be truth with no changes.........

So you're suggesting that the truth needs to be adapted to the "historical context"? Then you tear down your own claim, that the truth is always the truth. 

If the context of the event needs to change the conclusion about what is right and what is wrong (true and false), then we have a bigger problem than the one we are discussing.

The context of the event can help in understanding how and why something happened. For example, JW committed adultery. Circumstances of how it came about and what happened next can help someone understand the person and the situation. Will our knowledge of the circumstances (context) of the event simultaneously create our feelings about the person and will some justify him and others condemn him? Probably yes. But what should JW conclude about whether adultery is allowed or not? What does "religious truth" conclude about this?

54 minutes ago, Arauna said:

In the 60s in USA many people who came in the truth still had racist ideas

What should I conclude from that fact? That the truth turned a blind eye to racism and allowed the practice of racism in the JW Congregation because U.S. law legalized the lie about whites and blacks?

53 minutes ago, Arauna said:

  The differences do not in any way shape or change the fundamental truths. 

Then it is really strange how once the fundamental truth was that YHVH commands the worship of Christ, and now you believe in another truth. Has the biblical text, translation, interpretation, or anything else changed?

https://ia600902.us.archive.org/5/items/WatchtowerLibrary/magazines/w/w1939_E.pdf

5 hours ago, Arauna said:

Truth is truth and cannot be a half-truth.  Truth that is exaggerated or minimized is not truth.  Most of the propaganda in the media today (no matter which country one goes to) starts with a truth-like sounding statement and then twists it ever so slightly so that it is no longer truth.  This is how they get millions of people to harm themselves without realizing they are being harmed by what they listen to.

Can we claim that every word, letter, and comma in the Bible is true? I don’t think so, because there are countless copies and there are countless translations and there are countless interpretations of this book. 

Changes to the text were made not only by non-JW experts, but also by the JW individuals themselves who participated in the creation of the several NWT Bible translations.

Since, as they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, then we can also say that the truth is in the subjectivity of each individual. Whether an individual is more or less subject to external influences and creates his own judgment after absorbing all such factors is not always possible to determine. But we can generally agree that sometimes it is difficult to classify a physical reality as truth or falsehood. How often this is in vain in the sphere of the spiritual and moral / ethical when it comes to religious doctrines.

WTJWorg is unfortunately a great example of how “some truth” becomes a half-truth or a complete lie. The history of changed doctrines provides irrefutable proof and confirmation. Your statement should be accurate and true in its very claim and strength, and I adhere to the idea that truth is true and cannot be half-true. But it all falls into the water because people have the tools with which, because of which our common hope turns into futile desire.

On 5/9/2022 at 6:42 PM, Anna said:

I would say they are the same in that particular context. If someone is uneducated and only interested in basics, they are not going to be open to other ideas to be able to make an informed decision and therefor accept or not accept the good news. But Jehovah can read hearts, so he knows how the person might have reacted if their circumstances were different....

As we read this report we do not see any need for “informed consent”. Jesus does not conduct a “biblical study,” he does not condition the acceptance of the doctrine for an act of grace and “salvation” toward these people.
When Jesus, to the one who returned to give thanks, said; "Go, your faith has saved you," then we may wonder what and how long the leper should have learned about God? How long did it take to change his personality to become “Christian”? How many new doctrines did he have to accept? ...,

Those lepers showed interest in basic, good health. This did not stop Jesus from showing them goodness.

Luke 17

¹¹ Now on his way to Jerusalem, Jesus traveled along the border between Samaria and Galilee. ¹² As he was going into a village, ten men who had leprosy^[b] met him. They stood at a distance ¹³ and called out in a loud voice, “Jesus, Master, have pity on us!”

¹⁴ When he saw them, he said, “Go, show yourselves to the priests.” And as they went, they were cleansed.

¹⁵ One of them, when he saw he was healed, came back, praising God in a loud voice. ¹⁶ He threw himself at Jesus’ feet and thanked him—and he was a Samaritan.

¹⁷ Jesus asked, “Were not all ten cleansed? Where are the other nine? ¹⁸ Has no one returned to give praise to God except this foreigner?” ¹⁹ Then he said to him, “Rise and go; your faith has made you well.”

1 hour ago, xero said:

To me this is why I don't sweat it when someone says that I gave a "bad witness". I try not to, but it's going to happen and happen repeatedly. We all have patterns. I just keep trying and relax while doing so. Straining to me or OCD-like obsessive behavior like somehow I held the life of another person in my hands is spiritual narcissism in my view. The same kind of spiritual narcissism I see in apostates. If the GB screws up, so what? They'll figure out how they screwed up and do better next time. I doesn't change me or my responsibility to take charge and responsibility for my own actions or beliefs. You want to know who's engaging in idolatrous creature-worship? It's apostates. They imagine the organization is equal to Jehovah or Jesus and they aren't. We aren't Catholics with a holy see and a pope. Jehovah may be using the organization, but it's not infallible, nor do they have any urim and thummim. They have the bible, just like the rest of us. It isn't "disrespectful" to take note of that. The path to apostasy in my view is an over-reliance on human organizations as if these were Jehovah or Jesus. Organizations are necessary, but not sufficient. They can't point the way, but we individually have to make decisions. We CAN disagree and make our own conscientious decisions and we should. True that some of us in my view want to ride the coat-tails of others, but eventually they'll be bumped off by time and circumstance to stand on their own biblical legs.

One can certainly notice the emergence of one particular generation (various age groups) of JWs that has reached a stage of maturation in which they are ready to tear down the “Berlin Wall” in their organization. At least or primarily on a personal level, while remaining within that same “wall,” more physically than spiritually. Many of your comments here give such an impression and confirmation.
Of course, it is "your" organization and you have the right to it as it is and as you support it and change or confirm it.

10 hours ago, Anna said:

I don't think people in the slums of Calcutta have been spoken to by a JW..... at least not to the point of being able to make an informed decision*

10 hours ago, Anna said:

It makes a point that: Very few are interested enough to want a Bible study. Making a living and bettering their station in life seem to be the only things on their mind. That, coupled with minimal, if any, education, makes it very difficult for them to accept the good news.

I would be interested in your clarification on the similarities and differences between:

being able to make informed decision (about good news represented by JWs

and

to accept the good news (also represented by JWs)

What can save a man? Informed consent or faith in something divine?

3 hours ago, Anna said:

Par 12 WT 2006

"We therefore have reason to think carefully about our personal situation. Are we actually inside Jehovah’s arrangement of spiritual protection? When the great tribulation strikes, tears of joy and thankfulness will stream down the faces of those who have sought such protection. For others, there will be only tears of sorrow and regret."

When you carefully read this paragraph, it is important to note it is addressing people who have access to the Study version of the WT, which is studied at the KH of Jehovah’s Witnesses. . I do not see a resident of the slums of Calcutta mulling over this WT. Logically, it cannot apply to those people who are not in a position to read these words, and therefore it must apply to those who are able to make a choice, i.e. those who are associated with JWs, know what they should do according to Jesus, but are sitting on the fence. (Or it it sitting on their hands?)

The person in the slums can hardly have regret over something he was not aware of in the first place.

I am of the opinion that this type/logic of reasoning does not bring good results.

13 minutes ago, Witness said:

“Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone?  Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11 So if you who are evil know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask Him!”

This interesting biblical quote points to another problem in WTJWorg (or in the individual believer). Religious JW leaders have been praying to God for 140 years for Bible truth and understanding. So they prayed for bread and fish. And they got something. They put it on paper and in public speeches. They developed doctrines and beliefs in these things.
Then they came to the conclusion that they did not get bread and fish, but stone and snake. They rejected doctrines and prayed to God again. Again they got something from God. So they rejected it again, because, it seems, they got a stone and a snake again.

So what's wrong with all that? Are they bad kids or is he a bad father?

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

Still doesn’t say the ark equals Jesus ….I remember that passage…didn’t like it then and still don’t …..since 2006…the brothers now say only Jesus can decide who will be saved….WE CANNOT…long time in coming I admit,…just goes to show you one must study and reason and not beleive everything written…nor have heart failure and run for the hills screaming ..in panic….one must use the oil in the lamp…..remember…the apostles preached the kingdom had come on their first mission….they no doubt had to eat those words….there are a number of things the WT has had to be humbled on….this is one ….

Sereko you are as shallow and panicked out as they come…you must learn to reason….the WT is not the Bible …it is not holy….those who write it are not holy…it’s a tool…it’s a guidance which gets things wrong from time to time…and some who have written some things have had to eat humble pie…

I did not get my knickers In  A knot over that passage when I read it years ago….I sighed deeply and wondered how they ever passed it..and just who on earth wrote it…

Needless to say Bro Luciano gave a excellent talk recently on …..it is only Jesus who can Judge who will be saved NOBODY else can say that or even try to say it….he was politely letting us know..the above statement is wrong….

WTJWorg points out, as far as I can remember, two things related to “salvation”; these are place and state. The place is - the JW Congregation which is part of the WTS legal body. The condition is - full membership in the congregation as a baptized member or as an unbaptized member on the way to baptism, or an individual as part of the family being baptized.

It is not entirely clear to me that you are reprimanding me for some things while at the same time you see / look at things like me, and you notice the problems of the "YHVH organization".

20 minutes ago, Thinking said:

The Ark DOES NOT REPRESENT THE ORG….that thought was put forth by Rutherford…and it has been corrected…Russell had the correct understanding .

Confused i am. Because quote from 2006 said:

Just as Noah and his God-fearing family were preserved in the ark, survival of individuals today depends on their faith and their loyal association with the earthly part of Jehovah’s universal organization. - https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2006366

7 hours ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

It would be sad to think that anyone would be physically hurt in what should be a 'safe place'. 

WTJWorg describes its organization as a “place of salvation,” as Noah’s ark. From the scanty description of life in Noah’s ark as they floated on the water, the people and animals inside the ark seemed to have no conflict of any kind. Let's say it was like that, without conflict and suffering.

In the modern Ark, WTJWorg, there are conflicts and sufferings. That means there is no “safe place” anywhere inside "spiritual paradise".

The illusion of a NW without conflict of any kind is not realistic. Eden was the perfect place, Heaven was the perfect place. And everything there was full of "questions" that escalated into "conflicts".

2 hours ago, Arauna said:

John the Baptist was a messenger who prepared the way and so did Russel.  I did not say it was an anti-type did I?  You made that assumption.

Another assumption:

- Russell fulfilled the role of  John the Baptist

- GB fulfills the role of Jesus

Or it is just a matter of self-appointment and self-proclamation?...made by individuals or/and by collective.

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

You and I both remember when the premier sponsors for TV news programs were manufacturers or merchants. Now they are lawyers.

This is new to me. In Croatia, I have never seen an advertisement for lawyers on TV. Maybe they don’t need it because they have enough work to do because our people like to sue each other more than Americans?  

7 hours ago, Arauna said:

It does not matter if he was the slave or not. (With new light we know he was not - he was only the messenger before the faithful slave rendering service in the Parousia)  Mal 3: 1  “Look! I am sending my messenger, and he will clear up a way before me. And suddenly the true Lord, whom you are seeking, will come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant will come, in whom you take delight. Look! He will certainly come,” says Jehovah of armies. ). 

Russell did not die a martyr's death. No one beheaded him like that "real" messenger John the Baptist. Drawing parallels on the type-antitype model shows its shortcomings, again.

7 hours ago, Arauna said:

They already had most of the basic truths and were contemplating newer ones... and had discarded some wrong ones. 

JWs are very disgusted at the mere mention of the word "cross". You see this as a fundamental difference between true and bad worship of God. Russell had no problems with crosses. How is it possible that he saw the truth about “hell” and the “immortal soul” and his mind remained darkened about the “cross”?

How come he didn’t see that he wasn’t FDS or GB or whatever you want to call him? A true “messenger” in the first century said he was not worthy to untie the sandals of Jesus, and Russell allowed his followers to “untie his sandals” and call him titles.

You, as collective, create legends about your religious leaders, past and present, and attribute to them positions, that are in fact, empty and useless like hollow sacks.