Anna

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Come on! We all know (at least, non-trinitarians do) that the Bible's use of "holy spirit" is just a metaphor for God's power, or better, just God. So saying that "holy spirit did this and that" means "God did this and that".
So are you claiming that God did not know about pedophilia, or that Greenlees was a homosexual pedophile?

I thought I already gave you an answer to that, that of course God knew, and therefor Greenlees couldn't have been appointed by God using holy spirit.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Most Christians claim to follow the directions in the Bible, and you certainly don't accept that God directs them, metaphorically or directly.

Claiming one thing and actually doing it are different. And we have already established God is not deceived.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Quote

Since God used holy spirit, his force, to inspire people to write down His directions, when appointing overseers, elders do so according to those directions. Doing so correctly is contingent on the honesty of the one being appointed, and the astuteness of those doing the appointing. If the person actually qualifies, then it can be said they were appointed by holy spirit as per Acts 20:28 "Pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of God...."

Once again, by that reasoning the Pope has been appointed by God.

If the Pope qualifies by doing God's will according to the Bible, seen and unseen by human eyes,  then yes.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

18 hours ago, Anna said:

It might sound mealy mouthed, but it's hardly deception.

They tried hard not to be dogmatic, but they didn’t always succeed. Sometimes they did well and were not dogmatic, and sometimes they didn’t do well, and were dogmatic.

I believe they endeavored to avoid being dogmatic. But obviously didn't always succeed.

Kind of like "he endeavored to avoid being dead". But he didn't always succeed.

You are what you are until you're not.

I don't think so, more like "some people just can't help themselves"

5 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Of course they pay one. 

“Besides those things of an external kind, there is what rushes in on me from day to day, the anxiety for all the congregations.  Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is stumbled, and I am not incensed?” 2 Corinthians 11:28

And of course there is the:

“But if ever that evil slave says in his heart, ‘My master is delaying,  and he starts to beat his fellow slaves and to eat and drink with the confirmed drunkards, the master of that slave will come on a day that he does not expect and in an hour that he does not know,  and he will punish him with the greatest severity and will assign him his place with the hypocrites. There is where his weeping and the gnashing of his teeth will be". Matt 24: 48 - 51

That would keep me awake at night!

19 hours ago, AlanF said:

Franz was insane but brilliant. A sort of idiot savant of religion. Such people are capable of feats far beyond those of mortal men.

I think this is interesting and so I created a new topic here:

Anyone who wishes to share their opinions, personal experiences, (or the experiences of others) they had with Fred Franz, can do so here!

12 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Tell me someone, please, how is possible that some individual in USA start to make gossips about 1975 and how that wrong idea ended in one little town in one communist Balkan state ???  :)))))

Because that kind of gossip travels fast!

14 hours ago, AlanF said:

Tell me if the statements quoted below about 1918 and 1920 are dogmatic or not.

Yes, very dogmatic. Obviously this was when they "didn't succeed" in not being dogmatic. I didn't say they were never dogmatic.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Why do you keep saying "cured"? That assumes that someone knew Greenlees was a pedophile before any of his appointments. But no one ever knew -- at least, not those in responsible positions in Bethel -- until 1984.

I did assume that someone knew he had done something in the past, but that it was believed he was changed and would never do it again in the spirit of 1 Cor 6:11. 

I have noticed this is one of the reasons why in the past pedophiles ended up molesting other victims besides the original victim. Elders assumed the person was "cured" and would never do it again. 

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

And even back in 1984 it was well known that pedophiles are never cured.

Well known by whom?

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Quote

I don't know what happened in 1984 when he was forced to resign.

I've said what happened in gory detail in earlier posts.

Missed that.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Quote

the holy spirit had nothing to do with it, that he was appointed by men who were evidently deceived.

 

Correct. But the holy spirit was not deceived.

Well, in a manner of speaking, since holy spirit is not a person but a force.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Discussed perhaps, but even now you still don't understand that holy spirit does no direct appointing of elders. Such "appointing" is only a metaphor, a manner of speaking. It's not real. Go back to my Julia Childs example. Does she direct you in the kitchen? Or do you follow directions in her cookbook? Do you understand the difference?

I do understand it is a manner of speaking, since holy spirit is not a person, as I mentioned above. You obviously meant it as a metaphor as well when you said it "was not deceived". By the same token, it can be said someone is appointed by holy spirit even though it was merely written directions that were being followed. Since God used holy spirit, his force, to inspire people to write down His directions, when appointing overseers, elders do so according to those directions. Doing so correctly is contingent on the honesty of the one being appointed, and the astuteness of those doing the appointing. If the person actually qualifies, then it can be said they were appointed by holy spirit as per Acts 20:28 "Pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of God...."

7 minutes ago, AlanF said:

I don't believe I said in 2000, but by 2000.

Ok, well that's what I wanted to clear up. I thought you said in.

9 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Quote

and 1975, which was not official anyway.

Of course it was.

 Disagree. It was insinuated, but never official. 

12 minutes ago, AlanF said:

The Society puts 'experiences' like that in its publications for a reason -- to tell JWs what they ought to be thinking.

Your opinion. I think you are reading too much into it.

15 minutes ago, AlanF said:

You keep forgetting what Jesus warned his followers: do not follow anyone who claims to represent him and God, and says "the due time for the end has approached". That's what he meant by "keep on the watch", because his followers could not possibly know in advance when the end had approached. He even said,"if you think you know -- that's not it!"

Jesus said to keep on the watch because you do not know the day when it's coming, so yes, logically one would have to stay alert. But Jesus also gave signs when the disciples asked him when, and Jesus said when these things occur, (the signs) you will know he is near at the door. So when one sees the sign, one is merely led to a logical conclusion that the "end must be approaching". In any case, what is the objective of someone who says the end is approaching? Is it to help rouse and warn people to become alert so that they can be ready and "found by him spotless and unblemished and in peace" ? Why would Jesus be upset and warn about false prophets and those saying "the due time for the end has approached" unless these people were doing it with evil motives, such as those pretending to be Christ's followers but really are ravenous wolves. I do not believe this applies to the org. Perhaps that is what Schroeder meant when he said "that Bible verse does not apply to us".

27 minutes ago, AlanF said:

My favorite example of such mealy mouthed deception is from the Proclaimers book (p. 163). Speaking about what Rutherford and company taught in the decade after 1914, it said:

<< As the years passed and they examined and reexamined the Scriptures, their faith in the prophecies remained strong, and they did not hold back from stating what they expected to occur. With varying degrees of success, they endeavored to avoid being dogmatic about details not directly stated in the Scriptures. >

It might sound mealy mouthed, but it's hardly deception.

They tried hard not to be dogmatic, but they didn’t always succeed. Sometimes they did well and were not dogmatic, and sometimes they didn’t do well, and were dogmatic.

I believe they endeavored to avoid being dogmatic. But obviously didn't always succeed.

21 hours ago, AlanF said:

22 hours ago, Anna said:

It's because they thought he was cured.

You know that, do you?

You're wrong. I told you earlier: Greenlees was a pedophile in 1964 when he was appointed a Director, and before that according to one of his child victims, Mark Palo, who has put his story online. Greenlees was 72 when he was forced off the GB. Pedophiles don't start up at age 72 -- they just keep doing what they've long been doing

I don't know it, I am being logical about it. Why would anyone knowingly want to appoint a practicing pedophile?

21 hours ago, AlanF said:

And even back in 1984 it was well known that pedophiles are never cured.

I agree. But as you say, he was appointed director in 1964, and then as GB in 1971. So it could have been believed he was cured. I don't know what happened in 1984 when he was forced to resign. But whatever it was led the rest to believe he wasn't cured after all.

21 hours ago, AlanF said:

Furthermore, if holy spirit had anything to do with the Governing Body -- which formed the judicial committee that found Greenlees guilty of child molestation -- it would never have 'directed' Nathan Knorr to appoint Greenlees as Director in the first place, or it would have seen to it that Greenlees was not appointed a GB member in 1971, or that he was removed long before 1984.

I thought I had already agreed that if Greenlees was a pedophile when he was appointed director, and then later GB member, the holy spirit had nothing to do with it, that he was appointed by men who were evidently deceived. And I thought we had already discussed the "mechanics" of how holy spirit works.

4 hours ago, AlanF said:

The Society made direct statements as well as more subtle suggestions. Take a gander:

<< How thrilling that must have been for Paul and Barnabas-sailing to their first foreign assignment! The apostle Paul was spearheading the Christian missionary activity. He was also laying a foundation for a work that would be completed in our century. >> January 1, 1989 Watchtower, p. 12

Note that "in our century" was changed to "in our day" in the bound volume and in the CDROM Library.

Note that when the following statements were made, the Society was teaching that "the generation of 1914" meant the group of people alive in 1914 who survived until "the end".

<< Shortly, within our twentieth century, the "battle in the day of Jehovah" will begin against the modern antitype of Jerusalem, Christendom. >> -- "The Nations Shall Know That I Am Jehovah"-How? - 1971

<< And if the wicked system of this world survived until the turn of the century, which is highly improbable in view of world trends and the fulfillment of Bible prophecy, there would still be survivors of the World War I generation. However, the fact that their number is dwindling is one more indication that “the conclusion of the system of things” is moving fast toward its end. >> -- October 15, 1980 Watchtower, p. 31

<< It has been thrilling to see the fulfillment of Jesus’ sign showing that the Kingdom was established in the heavens in that momentous year 1914. And Jesus has told us to rejoice at seeing the dark storm clouds of Armageddon gathering since that time. He has told us that the “generation” of 1914—the year that the sign began to be fulfilled—”will by no means pass away until all these things occur.” (Matthew 24:34) Some of that “generation” could survive until the end of the century. But there are many indications that “the end” is much closer than that! >> -- March 1, 1984 Watchtower, pp. 18-19

<< The Time for a Change Is Near!
Carole, from France, has a “marvelous hope” and foresees, for the near future, “something marvelous—not at all like the world we live in.” Samuel, a 15-year-old youth from the same country, also believes in a complete change: “For the year 2000, I visualize a world transformed into a beautiful paradise! But I don’t think that either the present world or its rulers will live to see that day. . . We are living in the last days of the system of things.” Ruth, a German girl of 16, also expresses her confidence in these changes: “I know I’m not smart enough to change the world and make things run right. Only Jehovah, our Creator, can and will do that soon.” >> November 8, 1986 Awake!, pp. 7-8

Thanks for those references. I obviously must have read some of them, especially the ones from the 80's and I am aware that our mothers would say we would never go to school, that Armageddon would be here by then. This was nothing new to me since we were saying this almost since the founding of the JWS. What I was questioning was the specific date 2000. That Armageddon would come in that year, in the same way as was insinuated for 1975. "Within the 20th Century" is open, and just because 15 year old Samuel "visualizes something happening in 2000" doesn't mean we had to think it will happen exactly then, lol. Samuel is 48 today, probably with kids, maybe a grandad,  and probably still a JW. I know plenty of people who visualized something happening, and nothing happened, and they are still visualizing it. But, everyone in their right mind yearns for good things, and Jesus told his followers to "keep on the watch" and Peter "await and keep close in mind the presence of the day of Jehovah".  As for the society setting specific dates for the end, 1925 sticks in my mind, for which Rutherford apologized, and 1975, which was not official anyway. And 1914 of course....

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

The prediction for 2000 was made at various times from the 1970s through 2000

I don't remember anything being said about the year 2000. It must have been very obscure. All I remember is it worried computer programers a little, and got people's panties in a twist.

4 hours ago, AlanF said:

Remember that the GB itself excused homosexual pedophile Leo Greenlees.

It's because they thought he was cured.

31 minutes ago, AlanF said:

What are the units of holy spirit? Cubic meters? Gallons? What?

It's holy molys of course!

53 minutes ago, AlanF said:

This notion of "quantity of holy spirit" is completely unscriptural and ridiculous on its face.

By saying "how much", I did not mean quantity at a given time. I meant how many times hs would be given over a period of time. So correction: "how often or how many times it would be given"

Round one:

@James Thomas Rook Jr. & @AlanF

Please place your bets here

On 11/27/2019 at 2:03 AM, Srecko Sostar said:

are not in position to "know more" if they are out of working range of holy spirit, to understand more about some subjects, if Bible text not explicit say or explain what is what. If it is, as you say, how Bible not give any prove to all of us, that FDS will know more, than what spiritual food they producing?

The spiritual food can only be what is in the Bible. But obviously, this is not what you’re talking about, but rather the interpretation of the Bible. The Bible says it’s good for setting things straight …so man of God is completely equipped for every good work.  This concerns the basic teachings, as you say: "To be good, not lie, love your neighbor, to preach Kingdom, not have idols ....and similar". If that was all there was, then it would be a much thinner book. I don’t know, what percent is here of the basic teachings? I have not looked into that, but let’s say it’s 50% of the Bible. So that leaves the other 50% that concern other things. Should we say that there is no use for that other 50%? What is for example the use of the book of Revelation? It’s a “A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place”. Would it be of any use unless it was understood? Verse five (of ch1) goes on to say: “Happy is the one who reads aloud and those who hear the words of this prophecy and who observe the things written in it, for the appointed time is near”. You can’t observe it unless you know what you are looking at.  That’s great because not only is it a highly symbolic book, but its chapters and verses are not always in chronological order! It’s a real challenge to interpret the riddles that are in it. Have the JWs done this perfectly. No, I don’t think so. We have changed how we understood a few things already, and some we still don’t understand. Does that mean we should stop trying to understand, and just ignore it? The same goes for the rest of the prophetic Bible books, such as Daniel etc. They are there for a reason. Does it mean JWs didn’t get enough holy spirit if they made mistakes in some interpretations?  Don’t forget the holy spirit does not work on our terms. God is perfectly in control of holy spirit and knows when and how much to give, it’s not up to us to judge. The Bible is full of examples where it appears that God’s servants were not getting help from God. Think about Joseph, all the things he had to go through before finally things worked out for him.

On 11/27/2019 at 2:03 AM, Srecko Sostar said:

Bible not say who is FDS. When and how will come or came. Will they originated from Pennsylvania and then move to Warwick. 

I would not expect it to say that. It would be out of character of all the other scriptures. It stands to reason that there should be a centralized system of direction. As you say, organizationally it’s doing very well, but your problem is with the spiritual aspect. Why should that be a problem though? Jesus said that the shepherds were to feed his sheep spiritually. It started of as one congregation. But now it’s thousands. You just have to look at it that the whole world of JWs is one big congregation, being fed by shepherds that happen to be in Warwick. You are putting too much emphasis on 8 imperfect men, whilst what you should be looking at is the arrangement which has a Biblical basis.  Congregations are not autonomous spiritually. All JWS are one big congregation. What about interpretation? There has to be a centralized tenet of belief. Otherwise no one would be able to identify Jehovah’s Witnesses by their beliefs. Every religion has their doctrine by which they can be identified. Jehovah’s Witnesses hope to have a doctrine based exclusively on the Bible, free of pagan influences, and as close to the 1st. century Christians as possible. As for complicated prophecies, well, that is a work in progress, but that should not be a deterrent. 

@AlanF I am just a few more posts away from putting a bullet in my head.

Alan says to himself: "good, that's the intention. Natural selection at work.... with a little help"

Both WT, January 2016, and January 2020 that talk about the anointed, applies to ALL the anointed, which includes the GB. There is no difference between them as regards their anointing, and how they should be treated. And, even how much holy spirit they get. Some will disagree with me on this, but in my opinion the GB do not receive any more, or any "special" type of holy spirit or insight than any other anointed, or anyone else for that matter. The Bible does not say the FDS anointed know more, all it says is that they are to provide timely spiritual food, which is already in the Bible, and dispense it to the others and to each other, since they are also "domestics".  Also they are not the only spokesmen for God. Anyone speaking the truth about God and Christ are also his spokespersons.

3 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Under the current environment and polices, if we DO "rescue a sheep on the Sabbath", we will be disfellowshipped and ostracized.

I know this, not on a theoretical level, but from recent personal, painful experience

I think it's because they just don't trust a man who carries a gun

23 hours ago, Witness said:

Wouldn't you say that the elders, as a majority, feel privileged to possess the power given them to judge another in place of Christ?  After all, the WT calls it a "privilege" to serve "God" in this way.  Dan 8:24,25

Again Anna, what will you believe, men's doctrine or God's word?

"Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand."  Rom 14:4

 

Paul at Romans 14:4 was obviously not talking about the kind of judging that is to be done in order to keep the congregation spiritually and morally clean, as per:

"All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness" 2 Tim 3:16. .

 "For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Do you not judge those inside, while God judges those outside? “Remove the wicked person from among yourselves. 1 Cor 5:12,13

"Now I urge you, brothers, to keep your eye on those who create divisions and causes for stumbling contrary to the teaching that you have learned, and avoid them. Romans 16:17 

In order to do any of this there must be the ability to discern, or judge, who it applies to. And finally:

"Be obedient to those who are taking the lead among you and be submissive, for they are keeping watch over you as those who will render an account" Heb 13:7

8 hours ago, AlanF said:

People do that all the time. In the meantime, those who time proves were right all along have to shut up and defer to the Society's false teachings. Do you really think that's good?

It is Christian.The way of a true Christian is so much more elegant than that of the world. I agree, the biggest changes in secular history have been made because of violent uprisings and protests of a large majority. After all, if a King loses the support of most of his subjects, he becomes powerless. However, the way of a Christian is not that way. Within the framework of the Christian congregation, a Christian relies heavily on God, and that if there is a change or correction to be made, it WILL be made*. And that is without Christians employing the ways of the world. But this concept is very difficult to understand by someone who does not believe in God.

*The exception is child sexual abuse. No one should wait in that case, it must be dealt with immediately, for the protection of innocent children who cannot defend themselves.

8 hours ago, AlanF said:

Exactly when was "Daniel's prophecy" "figured out as pointing to A.D. 1914"? And by whom? And what evidence can you cite for your answer?

Belongs under another topic. Has been discussed many times on here actually.

8 hours ago, AlanF said:

What the Society really should do is become more tolerant of dissent. That would make being a JW much more pleasant for intelligent, knowledgeable people.

If it did that, then it would be no different to Christendom. Plus, the Bible does not teach that this is how the Christian congregation should be. There are plenty of intelligent and knowledgeable people in the org. but also they are wise. And humble.

8 hours ago, AlanF said:

You're not being particularly honest here, because when I brought up the Albert Schroeder / Luke 21:7-8 topic, you suggested making a new topic -- which I did -- and you ignored.

Yes, I did, and I did not ignore it. I read yours and JWI comments. I have honestly not had the time. I am having a hard time trying to keep up with the posts on here, never mind other topics somewhere else. I haven't replied to one of your posts on here which I wanted to, but now it has been buried under so much, I think it's already about 10 pages back.

8 hours ago, AlanF said:

Apparently you want to have your cake and eat it, too.

No, I just want to filter out some blatantly off topic stuff because they clog up the thread. This is why your other comment to me is 10 pages back!

8 hours ago, AlanF said:

Apparently your humor is not very good.

I think you are right, it wasn't very humorous.

11 minutes ago, AlanF said:

I would have thought you could figure that out from comments like, "I dun gradjiated 6th grade in 1963".

I had. Apparently you lack humour too 🙂

13 hours ago, AlanF said:

Watchtower writers are past masters at manipulating the JW community with smooth words that are deliberately ambiguous, or say one thing but mean another. Again you're far too naive.

If naive means taking things at face value, so be it. As for ambiguous wording, then my motto is "if the cap fits, then wear it" .

I do admit though that especially in the past, some wording was, shall we say, rather noncommittal. This had to annoy any who wanted to be taken by the hand, led to a specific spot, and told exactly what to do. Sometimes though it's better if people work things out themselves. The Bible is available to everyone, and the Bible is the measuring stick.

13 hours ago, AlanF said:

You forget the most important thing: since out of one side of its mouth the GB claims to admit that it is fallible, then its Bible interpretations are open to questioning. If a dissenting JW has figured out the truth of some Bible teaching, finds it at odds with Watchtower teaching, and lets it be known to others, then who is "causing division"? The one teaching the Bible, or the one teaching the commands of men? 

Yes, the GB's Bible interpretations are open to questioning. The Bible says we should question. It also says many things about how true Christians should behave. In my experience, those who insist "their" interpretation is "more correct" than that of somebody else, do it is such a way as to cause upset. Divisions cause tension and hostility. Not something Jesus had in mind for the Christian congregation. If that person truly believes that their interpretation is correct, and that of the GB is wrong, and if it is of utmost importance to them, then the right thing is to state their grievance and  peacefully leave. If it is not of the utmost importance, then the right thing is to stay and wait.

13 hours ago, AlanF said:

Remember that God is not directing these fallible men of the GB.

In your opinion who is God directing then? Those dissident JWs? No one in your opinion of course, since you don't believe in God.

Just a recommendation: it might be a good idea to put scientific discussions in another topic.