Shiwiii

15 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

beg or petition. asking no problem

then why is that a talking point with the wt to try and set themselves apart from the rest? Asking is all the rest does, so now it comes down to ...........they're all the same, so there is no grounds to boast upon.

2 minutes ago, Gone Fishing said:

Yesterday's papers I'm afraid.

So then why do jws still insist that the wt does not ask for money?

Why then does the WT say they do not ask for money? 

2 minutes ago, Gone Fishing said:

Well why indeed? Unless other people's mail is your turn on of course.

It has nothing to do with me getting excited about a letter, it has more to do with pulling the curtain back and exposing the great Oz for who they really are. Its more like helping others to see that the emperor has no clothes. 

3 minutes ago, Gone Fishing said:

Oh! Clever pun!

lol, not intended, but yeah I guess it was.

On 9/23/2017 at 5:58 PM, John Houston said:

and we have never claimed this either.

maybe implication is a better description of what the wt has said. Stay alive til 75'

On 9/24/2017 at 3:19 AM, JW Insider said:

2 Peter 1 pointed out that Christ's parousia could be 1,000 years off

Who was it that said the "parousia" already happened? Isn't that what 1914 is? 

On 9/23/2017 at 4:49 PM, Gone Fishing said:

The letter is not addressed to publishers.

Why does that even matter? Its still the facts. So what you are telling me is you like being left in the dark about what really goes on, and would rather believe the wt does not ask for money, "like the rest do", when in fact they do. 

On 9/23/2017 at 4:49 PM, Gone Fishing said:

Jehovah's true worshippers always have to be asked to stop giving don't they?

I think you made this idea up to help your cause. 

On 9/23/2017 at 4:49 PM, Gone Fishing said:

That's good......"don't let your right hand know"........etc

you are truly grasping here. You know this doesn't apply. The context of that set of scriptures have nothing to do with what you propose. 

20 minutes ago, Gone Fishing said:

Don't think the publishers were actually given an amount as a requirement were they? Nope....Oh!Oh! argument fails.

Did you not read the letter? There IS a requirement per publishers. 

21 minutes ago, Gone Fishing said:

Actually,  an amount is specified so that the brothers don't give too much.

LOL, you really think that? my goodness.

22 minutes ago, Gone Fishing said:

Say you need something in Jehovah's organisation and it all comes pouring in!

like what? food, clothing? humanitarian aid? Never seen it come from the organization, individuals...yes, but not the org. 

22 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

So what? Money was asked for by Moses, David, Paul, Jesus had money given in support of his work. It was always genorosity in imitation of Jehovah that was emphasised as now. No need  to "beg or petition" is the phrase actually used. We don't have bingo, lotteries, Punch and Judy shows, book sales etc. nor accept money to atone for sins.

By the way, There ain't no DOs no mo'

What do you call a "recommended amount the average publisher needs to contribute" if not a beg and petition?  Oh wait, I think I get it now. It is not a beg or petition, but rather a demand and requirement, an additional law given to the people.

2 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

And please do not quote this cognitive dissonance nonsense, for it is no more than:

'You do not agree with me. Therefore you must be suffering massive cognitive dissonance.'

actually it is not, it is your inability to see with your eyes open that what you say and what the wt says is nowhere near the actual truth

3 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

What is it with your infantile obsession over this? Do you expect me to gasp at discovering they know what money is?

In your 'secret letter' that you gleefully post, you somehow manage to ignore how the elders may choose to adjust any contribution total up or down depending upon the economic abilities of the congregation. Nobody running an organization puts less emphasis on specific money donations than does the Watchtower. 

More telling is the fact that, at that same meeting, finances were atypically discussed at length, yet you somehow do not even notice it: From the God's Kingdom Rules book, the subject has, at long last, got around to 'how the work is funded':

ON ONE occasion, Brother Charles T. Russell was approached by a minister of the Reformed Church who wanted to know how the activities of the Bible Students were managed.

“We never take up a collection,” explained Brother Russell.

“How do you get the money?” asked the minister.

“If I tell you what is the simplest truth you will hardly be able to believe it,” replied Russell. “When people get interested in this way, they find no basket placed under their nose. But they see there are expenses. They say to themselves, ‘This hall costs something . . . How can I get a little money into this thing?’”

The minister looked at Brother Russell in disbelief.

“I am telling you the plain truth,” continued Russell. “They do ask me this very question, ‘How can I get a little money into this cause?’ When one gets a blessing and has any means, he wants to use it for the Lord. If he has no means, why should we prod him for it?” *

² Brother Russell was indeed telling “the plain truth.” God’s people have a long history of making voluntary contributions to support true worship. In this chapter, we will examine some Scriptural examples of this along with our modern-day history. As we consider how Kingdom activities are being financed today, each of us would do well to ask, ‘How can I show my support for the Kingdom?’

And there is much more. Whereas you do not hesitate to publish confidential letters, I am reluctant to publish excerpts from public books out of regard for copyright law. I don't think I have done it before. I do so now only to address your childish tantrum. Of course any organization uses money - any ten-year-old knows it . The real point is that no one seeks it less obtrusively or stewards it more wisely, even with techniques that your colleague in arms, @James Thomas Rook Jr., rails about, coming from the other side, where he tries to portray wise stewardship as stealing 'his' Kingdom Hall. He didn't really 'give' anything, did he? He just put his assets in another pot that he wants not to let go of. 

Your leaked letter makes us look good, not bad, as you have hoped. An ungodly organization would say "put the screws to them, no matter what!" Ours says "the elders may choose to raise or lower the amount based on the economic abilities of the congregation." And should their goal comes up short nonetheless, they simply readjust the goal, confident that those of greater means will make up for the deficiency of those of lesser means.

 

what you are failing to grasp is that while YOU say, and they say they do not ask for money, I have just shown you that they DO in fact ask for money. So when you stand on your soapbox and proclaim just how much better the wt is because they don't ask for money, just shows how hypocritical they really are. 

Hey, wasn't there something about money in this weeks meeting? Something about the average amount a publisher should be contributing? And you say they don't ask for money.......lol

14 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Oh. So now generosity is wrong, too? 

Would you be content with that relationship with your employer? - hope that you may get a 'green handshake?'

quit making excuses, your cognitive dissonance is showing. 

15 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

If your only goal is to get people to say "Accept the Lord and be Saved" to their immediate neighbors, not too much. In that case, go to the churches who emphasize money much more than us and ask for it back, since some of them have achieved only that small goal, despite (or because of) a paid clergy.

I don't pay to play so there are no churches that have my money. If you think that CO's and Do's don't get paid (green handshakes) then you obviously haven't been told the whole story. Do they get paid handsomely, nope, but paid none the less. To be honest, I really don't care who gets paid for what, I'm just not a fan of saying one thing and condemning other's for what you are doing also.  

6 minutes ago, Anna said:

I have discussed this under the appropriate topic already. My opinion is the overlapping generation makes no sense, and it doesn't make sense to quite a number of other Witnesses either. On the other hand, it does makes sense to quite a number too, and I am not going to argue with them. Opinion is opinion after all.....

Thank you for the reply. Interesting

6 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Ah. Here it is:

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2017/09/20/september-23-end-of-world-theory/

Saturday. Be ready. Tip off Shiwiii as well. Wouldn't want him to miss the cut.

i'm in i'm in!      Wait.................... which generation is this for? 

15 minutes ago, Anna said:

It's ok, you dot need to dig up any references, I'm quite familiar with the ins and outs of this subject. However, I thought we were talking about being pushed out if you don't believe the overlapping generation theory.  You are still misunderstanding me though. I was saying that the overlapping generation theory IS an opinion.

Do you believe the overlapping generation ? What is your opinion? 

10 minutes ago, Anna said:

 

If it's the same thread, then I have not seen any evidence for being pushed out for having difficulty with the overlapping generation.

You misunderstood, I was referring to the overlapping generation being an opinion. I thought that is what you were talking about.

Tell me how the overlapping generation is a matter of personal opinion? 

Didn't everyone think those old folks on the cover of that mag were not going to die? This was doctrine. Then it became those who were alive and could perceive the events of that time would not die. Next it was those who were born then would not die, and now it includes people not even in the same generation? how absurd. I can dig up the wt references if you'd like. 

26 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

If your focus is to be a 'Little House on the Prairie' church, your viewpoint is fine. But if you are serious about carrying out Christ's commission to preach 'this good news of the kingdom throughout the inhabited earth,' you have no problem with effective organization. In fact, you thank God for it, since it enables the most' bang for the buck' globally.

Primarily, it is not about us. Most gripers here think that it is. It is about the sanctification of God's name and the realization of his purposes.

And exactly how much money does it cost to speak to someone? None. There is a reason why "religion is a snare and a racket", there is a reason why we are told not to worship riches, etc.

19 minutes ago, Anna said:

But you make it sound like you get pushed out for having your own thought on something.

if you do not adhere to the teaching of the overlapping generation, you're out! See the thread about it. 

20 minutes ago, Anna said:

I understand the definition is an opinion.

if it were opinion, then why in the heck do we have dictionaries then? Are those rubbish? 

4 hours ago, Witness said:

Out of all those who put their hope in Christ, he chose 12 at the time to be joined to his Body. John 6:70  They formulate the foundation of the Temple. Eph 4:11-13  Jesus continued to choose the other “living stones” over the span of time until now. The Body/Temple has been building all along when those chosen ones succeed in faithfulness and receive the mark of God. 2 Chron 7:14; Ezek 9:4; Mal 3:16; Rev 7:3; 14:1

I'm with you up until here. 

4 hours ago, Witness said:

The number “144,000” is complete when God says it is; Revelation is symbolic; whether it is literal or symbolic is up to God; but the number alone bears symbolism. 

The number is also literal, but the specifics of who makes up that number as also literal. One cannot take part literal and not the rest. If it is to be taken symbolically, then the rest is also to be taken symbolically. To take part and not the other is to divide scripture. Does that mean that there is only one way of interpreting this 144k? Not at all! There is duality in scripture a plenty, but it either all fits or it doesn't. 

4 hours ago, Witness said:

The majority of us have the choice to believe in Christ; not so with the anointed ones, who God appoints to serve the rest of his children who desire to believe. These appointed ones are those Jesus said we will know them by their “fruits”.  Matt 7:15-20; 12:33-36; Heb 13:15   Yet, it is true that false prophets and teachers are found among those not anointed also.

So do you think that Paul had no choice? Peter? 

4 hours ago, Witness said:

whom Christ shares his inheritance with first; he, as the firstborn and the “second Adam”. (1 Cor 15:45) That inheritance is the earth. Gen 17:7; Heb 5:5; Gen 28:13,14; Rom 4:13   

Gal 3:16 – Christ

Gal 3:29,26 – and those who belong to him -  the “firstfruits”

Is it not logical to believe that Christ makes his choice of who will be his Bride and who are the “firstfruits”? 1 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:25  The rest of Abraham’s seed comes through this union. Rev 19:7; 22:17

I don't see where Christ shares first with any select group. In fact when I read Romans 8, I see where If we are in Christ we are heirs and if we are not in Christ, then we are not His. Consequently, if we are not His (Christs) then we have no life in us (John 6:53).

5 hours ago, Witness said:

Is it not logical to believe that Christ makes his choice of who will be his Bride and who are the “firstfruits”? 1 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:25  The rest of Abraham’s seed comes through this union. Rev 19:7; 22:17

of course it is logical, its even Biblical, John 15:16-19

5 hours ago, Witness said:

In Rev 22:17, who are being addressed if not the rest of God’s children? There are those anointed and those not anointed, but all can believe in Christ. If one not anointed listens to God’s truths from Christ and his faithful priests, they will be written in the Lamb’s scroll of life.  Zech 8:23; John 13:20  And there is no doubt in an anointed one’s mind that he or she has had Holy Spirit poured out into their heart.  It is an unmistakable “supernatural” event.  Rom 5:5; 1 John 2:27

I believe this is a completely separate topic, while tied in...agreed, but a whole different can of worms. We have to go backwards in Revelation to determine who is being talked about here. Remember that Revelation was written from a vision of future accounts to John while on Patmos. So the accounts describe both future and present, according to John. throughout Revelation, there isn't a separation and distinction of "the anointed" vs the rest of God's people. There is a distinction about the wicked and righteous for sure. There is plenty more we can gather as well from the rest of scripture. For instance Galatians 4 tells us a lot about who is from Abraham and who is our mother. I'm sure we'll dig into that a bit more as this discussion progresses. 

5 hours ago, Witness said:

Sealed anointed ones are the “new creation”, both human and spirit.  1 Pet 1:23; 2 Cor 5:17; John 3:5; 1 Cor 15:44,50; Heb 8:5;Eph 2:6; 1 Cor 3:16

Again, with regards to this new creation and 2 Cor 5:17, looking at Romans 8 tells us who is, it are those who are in Christ Jesus. If one is not in Christ Jesus that one does not belong to Him, and thus by means of scripture Jesus was sent to save His people (Matt 1:21), so if one is not found in Christ Jesus, then Jesus did not come to save them.  So all who are in Christ Jesus are anointed, all are called, all are not equal in gifts nor place, all are a part of the body of Christ. It is by those other scriptures you quoted that attest to this, once one is born of the spirit they become heirs, all of them. 

5 hours ago, Witness said:

Are the anointed only found in the Watchtower?  Except for those who have left to serve Christ fully, and who have rejected an idol - yes.  They are “gathered” in the organization – Gog and Magog - to face the fourth beast of Daniel and Revelation and the “divisive sword” of truth against lies is the final test to come upon the remaining “living stones”. Dan 7:23; Rev 13:5-10; 20:7-9; Matt 10:34; Heb 4:12; Rev 1:16; 19:11-16

This is opinion, not backed by scripture. The wt is never mentioned in the Bible, nor its group of men. This is the bottom line we are talking about and without scripture to prove this, it is merely opinion. 

5 hours ago, Witness said:

The organization is known as “the truth”.  How ironic it is that Christ, the firstborn, is “the truth”.  John 14:6; 1 John 1:6; 2 Cor 11:3-4; Rev 16:13-16  The struggle the anointed face, as well as everyone in there, is whether they are determined to serve God and Christ without the organization.  Ps 86:11; Ezek 11:19

To me this is borderline blasphemy, as well as other claims made by the men of the wt.

Do I believe that there are people in all walks of life in which God will use and save? Sure. If He can use drug addicts, harlots, murders, Idolaters and the like, then He can use anybody for anything and save whom He has chosen. To declare that only those whom men have organized to do their will, are selected and saved is taking the place and power of God.   

2 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Yes they do. Once a year. You posted the long article. And even that is not asking for money. It is simply telling those inclined to donate the most effective ways of doing it.

Nobody emphasizes money less than Jehovah's Witnesses. Moreover, they clearly have something to show for what is donated. 

Your opinion. Mine differs. Simple as that. I've given you my reasons why and that it is done on a larger scale then directly to you, the individual, but you ignore that. Ok. 

What do they have to show for the consolidation of kh's, in particular the ones paid for by the cong and dissolved by the wt? did the wt give the cong their money back? nope. Why not? I mean they paid for it themselves and not from a wt loan. What they did get was a big "thank you, now move along to the kh we tell you to go to now. 

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

The methods may differ but the fact that they 'shake em down' in religion for dough one way or the other is not. Nobody is as discreet as Jehovah's Witnesses, who have never taken collections and who rely on contribution boxes, which can be ignored by anyone who wishes to.

Hey, I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, as I'm sure it does, but it does not reflect the majority. That is the false assumption made by the wt. 

Your opinion that the wt is so discreet, but it is my opinion that they do ask for money. Maybe they do not on an individual level, but on a cong level for sure. 

17 hours ago, Anna said:

Well, I don't feel this is an obey or else scenario at all. As you see, there is an allowance for personal opinion/understanding. As for those who thought it was ok to take some blood fractions or organs prior to the change, well as you say, it doesn't matter now, they're dead (I presume you mean because of old age) so the point is, in the end we all must make our OWN decisions, and not blame the WT for them if we later change our mind....

You may not, but you know exactly what I am saying. The wt requires the jws to align and if they do not they are pushed out. 

I'd rather have questions I cannot answer than answers I cannot question

generation - definition? according to whom is the key. 

14 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

You're joking! The remark seems almost too disingenuous to answer.

I was raised United Presbyterian. Our family received pledge envelopes to put in the collection plate at services. Put in the amount pledged. Like any charity, a pledge was used as the basis to try to secure a greater pledge. My non-churchgoing dad even had words with the pastor about it, since my mom did not work outside of the home, thus he was the one who ended up paying.

My sister still is Presbyterian, Reformed. She tithes 10%. It is what's done.

What seems more trusting in God to you - a contribution box in the back where people may or may not give anonymously, or a collection plate passed through the rows and everyone nearby will know just how much one puts in?

I think you would have to be pretty obtuse to ask this question. I think I know why.

Your experience is not the experience of the majority I have encountered, nor anyone I know.  As far as you not wanting to ask them why, well that's up to you. The broad brush that the wt likes to paint against all who do not align with them, has infiltrated the minds of each jw to assume as the wt did. You can disagree, its ok. 

11 hours ago, Anna said:

My step son is a Mormon and they tithe 10%

and here are links where you can read up about the topic of passing plates

http://www.churchmarketingsucks.com/2009/03/passing-the-plate-poll-results/

http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/2009/march/passing-plate.html

The only reason why passing the plate might peter out in the future is because less and less people carry paper money and more will want to pay by card or check. Tithing no doubt will stay for some denominations.

You may be confusing tithing and mandatory giving. I have never been to a mormon church/temple, so I can't speak with authority on that particular sect, but the mormon church is hardly what is being referenced when the title "christendom" is used. That was my point. 

2 hours ago, Anna said:

I know. This is the craziest idea ever put in writing in any of our magazines. When I read it at the time I couldn't believe it...especially when used to support the identity of the great crowd and in turn to support the resurrection occurring between 1914 and 1935.  I wonder who came up with that idea and how it could have been sanctioned. This is the kind of reasoning I would expect in Russell's day, not 10 years ago! I think I've already had a rant about this somewhere, if yes, sorry for the repetition

It's thoughts like these that make me question the devotion to each and every teaching that comes from the wt's mouth as if it WERE from God. Obey or else! Why is there no allowance for personal opinion/understanding? What about all of those folks who thought that it was probably ok to take SOME blood fractions, or organs prior to the change made by the wt? Doesn't really matter now, they're dead.....well you get the point.