I just got back from an eight day trip to Aruba with Supernurse. Fantastic beach, beautiful sunsets, iguanas, spending each entire day drinking Balashi......feasting on unlimited assorted food........and gambling in the casino every night.............needless to say........I had no election, no problems, no stress, no aggravations, no nothing to pester me..........I was one happy man on one happy island. A man has gotta like this stuff.In the next few days or so, I will be writing here about the trip to Aruba. Unfortunately, as with all vacations, those wonderful days are far too short and we must return home. We returned to Baltimore around midnight Wednesday. I cannot say that I was tired, but I can say that I was exhausted.......I guess my adrenalin decreased rapidly as we approached Baltimore Washington Thurgood Marshall Dixon O'Malley Obama International Airport. I went from mid-80s tropical weather to a very cold 40 degree vacation ender.........blahhhh.
So I spent Thursday "resting".......getting things in order......yakking on the phone.......and giving attention to the dogs. It is good to be home........but it is not always so good to be where home is. Home is in Baltimore and I am back to the world in which I live. The election is fast approaching and just maybe I will get to actually vote this time. Two years ago my absentee ballot was never sent to me........can you say "rigged" election? This time around, I am here and I will be at the polling booth on Tuesday.........I will be right there in line at the poll......standing in line behind the homeless, illegal aliens, non-residents, felons, deceased, illiterate, brain damaged, uneducated morons....that will also be voting. This is the Maryland political tradition and it seems that the rest of the country has followed suit...............ain't it wonderful?
Okay....okay.....I have veered off course and went political on you...........let me get back on track.........after resting on Thursday and getting stuff in order at home, I began Friday with tending to grandkids because their schools were closed. This was not a bad thing.......I love my grandkids and I did miss them while I was away. It was about 10am Friday morning when I looked outside my window and noticed a car had pulled up and parked across the street from me. Three women and a child exited the car and began to scatter and head for the homes in the neighborhood. "Oh yeah!......make my day!"..............this was gonna be fun.......well, maybe not so much fun for whichever one of these people head my way...........let's just say this was gonna be one of those moments where somebody was gonna get an educational experience. Education should be fun, right?
The woman with the small child headed towards the front of my house........and she never got to knock on the door.......I popped the door open and stepped outside before she could even get up the front steps...........this was gonna be interesting.Here is Signtopia doing one of the things he does:
She says: "Hello"
I said: "How ya doin'?"
She says: "Fine"
I said: "Let's see, you must be one of two things.........either you are with ACORN and you want to get me to vote for Obama.....or you must be trick or treating dressed as an alleged Christian"
She smiles.
I said: "Seriously.....I know.......you are a Jehovah's Witness.......it IS Halloween"
She smiled some more.
I smiled as well.
I said: "What brings you out today?"
She begins to pull a two page tract out of her bag.
She says "We are just here to give out these......."
I said: "I don't want one of those, thank you."
She just keeps it in her hand.
She says: "Its just some information for you about some things......."
I interrupted her and said "Yeah.....but I have some information for you though and I am glad you stopped by to receive it."
She smiles.
I smile.
She smiles some more.
I say: "How old is your child?"
(the kid was standing next to her and kept looking up at me as if he had no clue why he was here)
She says: "Two"
I said: "Two?......He really should not be outside...it is very chilly and he could catch pneumonia"
She nodded and smiled.
She begins to turn around to walk away but she is on MY time now and I plan on continuing the conversation.
I said: "I am very familiar with Jehovah's Witnesses"
She smiles and her eyes light up.
I said: "I have two sisters who were Witnesses......one was for over 30 years....but they are both out of it now."
She says: "Oh.......you had some bad experience"
I said: "No, I always have a good experience.......I have never been a Jehovah's Witness"
She smiles.
I smile.
I say: "Let me ask you something."
She says: "Yes?"
I said: " I have conversed with Jehovah's Witnesses countless times. I have had many discussions, particularly on the internet, around the world......and I have noticed that the majority of Jehovah's Witnesses do not seem to realize a few things that they are being taught."
She looks at me curiously and smiles and says "Oh?"
I said: "Yes.......it seems that the rank and file Jehovah's Witnesses are not fully aware that they have a very peculiar view of Jesus. Aside from believing Jesus is NOT God and that Jesus is also Michael the Archangel, they don't seem to realize that they are taught that Jesus is also the fallen angel of the abyss named Abaddon."
She smiles and says "You must have had a bad experience"
I said: "No.......I know you have studied the Revelation, It's Grand Climax Is At Hand book......it is in there........and the Insight book has it as well.......and maybe one or two other of your books that you have studied."
She smiles and says "Yes"
I said: "But you never realized that the Watchtower view of Jesus is that he is the fallen angel of the abyss?"
She says: "You must have had a bad experience"
I said: "Not at all.......I do not "study" those books, but you do"
She smiles.
I said: "For your information, you can read about Abaddon in your bible......it is found in Revelation 9.
She smiles and says "Maybe you have a different translation of the bible"
I said: "No......I can use any bible"
(that line had to send a chill up her spine)
She smiled and said "We have a translation......."
I interrupted her with "I know.......but I would question the validity of that translation since they keep the translators names anonymous. It is hard to verify any qualifications of anonymous people, wouldn't you agree?"
She smiles.
I said: "One other thing I have noticed........your organization has this thing called a Memorial every year."
She smiles and says "Yes....the Memorial"
I said: "Yes......the Memorial......The Memorial is the only ritual, I have found, that is exercised.....where the symbolic flesh and blood of Christ is rejected by all. In fact, your organization very specifically encourages and advises its members to reject it."
She ain't smiling any more.
I said: " I cannot find ANY Christian organization that would teach rejection of the symbolic flesh and blood of Christ. I can only find Satanic groups that would do that. Isn't that a bit odd?"
She says: "You must have had a bad experience"
I said: " In your bible, if you look at John 6:53-56....you can see where Jesus was speaking and said that those who do not partake of his flesh and blood have "no life in them".........and he wasn't speaking to just his apostles......he was speaking to a crowd."
She smiles.
I said: "I found that to be very interesting.....you might want to research that."
She smiled again.
I said: "Oh......and another thing.........How is it that Venus and Serena Williams can do what they do and participate in patriotic stuff like carrying around the American flag at the Olympics, but YOU cannot get away with even reciting the pledge of allegiance in a school?"
She smiles and says: "I am sure they will be dealt with......Jehovah sees everything."
I said: "I am sure Jehovah DOES see everything.......even I could see them with the flag. I wouldn't think that He is asleep at the wheel, do you? I mean he would treat the Williams sisters equally as He treats you, right? He wouldn't give them different rules than He would give you, would He?
She smiles and says "No"
I said: "Do you suppose that it is because they are celebrities and have donated tons of money to the organization?"
She says: "It was nice to speak with you."
I said: "Before you go.....I have one other thing I need to ask you"
She smiles and says "Yes?"
I said: "You came here to day to my door.......was there some sort of message that you wanted to bring? Is there something you would want to tell me.....share with me.....some sort of message?"
She thinks for a moment and says "It's a message of hope for life from the bible."
She smiles.
I said: " Ahhhhh.......hope for life from the bible."
She nods.
I said: "It seems to me that it was ME that gave YOU that message and it is found in John 6:53-56 and the last time I checked...........yep......that's from the bible!"
She smiles.
I said: "Well, you have a good day now, and get that kid out of the cold air before he catches pneumonia."
She walked away.
I said: "God Bless ya!"
The woman then walks across the street and tries knocking on some more doors. Needless to say, nobody was answering their doors. All she could do was leave her pamphlet. Hopefully, her conversation with me would click..........nothing else to remove it from her mind.After a few more doors.....she headed back to the car and, with her child, sat out of the cold air waiting for the other two women.
About fifteen minutes later, the other two women got back to the car and they drove away. I wonder if the woman with the child told of her conversation with me.
I am sure the others couldn't help but notice how much time she spent speaking with me. Maybe somebody gets the message...........then again........maybe they were disappointed that they didn't get any candy on this Halloween.You have to wonder about people.
How kind of you to try to educate one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Your story says a lot about you. I hope you feel better tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteNow, if the lady had been truly been taking part in the practice of "trick or treating" with her small child dressed in costume, would you have told her to get the kid in out of the cold?
Would you have accused her of taking part in a heathen Satanic holiday that has no basis in any transation of the Bible?
I thought not.
You are intolerably smug.
I can guess that her thoughts as she left your door were along the lines of, "Well, that was interesting. Next!"
You have a nice day now.
Greetings Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteYou said: "How kind of you to try to educate one of Jehovah's Witnesses."
My response:
"Awww shucks......your words here suggest that you either thought I was trying to educate the woman OR that you agree that the woman needs to be educated."
You said:
"Your story says a lot about you."
My response: "Interesting.......and I haven't even mentioned my broken toe yet."
You said:
"I hope you feel better tomorrow."
My response: Contrary to popular opinion, I never get sick "educating" those who seek it.
You said: "...if the lady had been truly been taking part in the practice of "trick or treating" with her small child dressed in costume, would you have told her to get the kid in out of the cold?"
My response: Fair question. I would say there would be a great chance that I would indeed say something in that regard. By the way, why do you suppose the Witnesses specifically chose to come proseletize on Halloween?
You said: "Would you have accused her of taking part in a heathen Satanic holiday that has no basis in any translation of the bible?"
My response: Well.....if you reread what I wrote, I pretty much did that......remember the part about the "Memorial" where Witnesses reject the flesh and blood of Christ? If that ain't a Satanic holiday, I don't know what is.
You said: "I thought not."
My response: Never ask a question and not wait for your answer to that question. By the way, while you are assuming how I would respond to your questions.....can you tell us all how I will answer your next three questions?
You said: "You are intolerably smug"
My response: I will take that as a compliment.
You said: "I can guess that her thoughts as she left your door were along the lines of, "Well, that was interesting. Next!"
My response: One should never assume how the lady would be thinking. As a Witness though, you most likely would expect her to be exactly as you are.....so that would explain your comment. Contrary to popular belief among Witnesses, not all Witnesses are clones nor robots completely mentally regulated to toe the expected organizational program. Then again.....it was the Watchtower that once wrote "Independent thinking is not necessary....we have done it all for you.". Go figure!
You said "You have a nice day now."
My response: You can count on that.
God Bless.
It really does say alot about you.
ReplyDeleteand anonymous does make great points, which you have answered very politically.
Hello Jimmy O,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote: "It really does say alot about you."
My response: Interesting. Anonymous, and now you Jimmy O, cannot seem to find one or two words either in support or rejection of what I have written about Jehovah's Witnesses.....specifically addressing my remarks about the "Memorial", having "no life in them" (John6:53-56), and the Watchtower view of Jesus as Abaddon, the fallen angel of the abyss. I fully understand why it is far easier for Witnesses and their sympathizers to simply respond with a comment about the messenger as opposed to the message.
You also wrote: "anonymous does make great points"
My response: Do you call this critical thinking? Okay.....I really did expect a little cheerleading from the sidelines in support of Anonymous.....it must feel better for Witnesses to be in a crowd of failure rather than to "test all things" and "make sure of the truth". At this point, I should remind you that the issue of the blog entry was not about me, but about Jehovah's Witnesses visiting on Halloween. Sadly, the tactic of diversion off the primary topic is something that occurs with every encounter with a Jehovah's Witness.......it must be something that is taught to them.........now that I think of it.......YES, it IS taught to them......remember the term "tacking"?
You also wrote: "which you have answered very politically"
My response: You have got to be kidding me.
God but you're a jerk!!!
ReplyDeleteIt's easy to berate someone who conveniently comes to your door. I've been tempted to do that, too. But do you have the courage and conviction they showed during WWII, or do you even have the courage they show in going to a stranger's door to speak about what they consider an important message? And if you're going to only speak about Jesus' message when someone else brings it up, at least you could do it out of love, not arrogant contempt.
ReplyDeletehttp://atheism.about.com/b/2006/03/03/jehovahs-witnesses-resistance-to-hitler-and-the-nazis-book-notes-hitlers-prisons.htm
Hello Lost,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote : "It's easy to berate someone who conveniently comes to your door."
My response: Huh?........now just exactly what was it I said to the woman that was berating? As to any part of the situation being "convenient"......actually, whenever a dub comes to the door it is an INconvenience.
You wrote: "I've been tempted to do that, too."
My response: Sometimes people at your door can be tempting, eh?
You wrote: "But do you have the courage and conviction they showed during WWII, or do you even have the courage they show in going to a stranger's door to speak about what they consider an important message?
My response: If you believe only the "history" as told by the Jehovah's Witnesses, you ain't getting the entire story. Try reading the biography of Rudolph Hess. He has much to say about those who some call Jehovah's Witnesses. Actually he was very fond of them and preferred them as personal servants. By the way, you might want to check out the actual paperwork of that era and see exactly the name of those people......hint hint......."bibelsforscher", which also included Catholics and other religious denominations. Furthermore, the "witnesses" in Germany at the time had never been told about the name change back in the US. In Germany, they were still known as International Bible Students. As you may know the history of the Watchtower, It was Rutherford who coined the name "Jehovah's Witnesses" and that was his way of differentiating between his branching off of the Russellites. I could go on......but I think you get the idea.
Furthermore, You question my courage and conviction here......which I suppose is very easy to do for you. I would bet the house that you would not question such things about me if you actually knew me.
You wrote: "And if you're going to only speak about Jesus' message when someone else brings it up, at least you could do it out of love, not arrogant contempt."
My response: I enjoy a good joke every once in a while. For you to attempt to counsel me about how I should speak about Jesus' message.....and you following it up with a link to an atheism site.....well......that is pretty darned hilarious.
My guess is you could very well be a former dub or had been raised by them. Somewhere along the road, you either weren't buying what they were selling, or you got yourself disfellowshipped resulting in your complete void of comprehension about Jesus and any messages contained in the bible. For some reason, the bible story about Jesus tossing a few tables comes to mind...........do you suppose he was just being arrogant and contemptible?
Thanks for responding "Lost".
God Bless!
Hello Lost, again
ReplyDeleteI noticed your comment..."God But you're a jerk!!!"
I suppose this is supposed to make me fond of you and at the very least keep me from writing about Jehovah's Witnesses that come around on Halloween.......hehehe......nice try.
To anyone else that reads this.......have you noticed that nobody has mentioned the Abaddon stuff ........nor the "Memorial".......go figure.
Signtopia....
ReplyDeleteVery interesting!
The young sister was probably not very experienced. She knew what she believed though. You should've had her look up your reference to Abaddon in her Bible. Gee, I have to look it up myself, and I've been a JW for over 30 years.
Let's see....Abaddon seems to actually be, as you inferred, Jesus Christ. Our Insight book says, "At Revelation 20:1-3 the angel having 'the key of the abyss' is shown to be God's representative from heaven, and rather than being 'satanic,' he binds and hurls Satan into the abyss. Commenting on Rev.9:11, The Interpreter's Bible says: 'Abaddon, however, is an angel not of Satan but of God, performing his work of destruction at God's bidding.'...At Rev.1:18 we find Christ Jesus stating: 'I am living forever and ever, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.' His power with regard to the abyss is shown at Luke 8:31. That he has destroying power...is evident from Hebrews 2:14, which says that Jesus partook of blood and flesh in order that 'through his death he might bring to nothing the one having the means to cause death, that is, the Devil.' At Rev.19:11-16 he is clearly represented as God's appointed Destroyer or Executioner ['Abaddon' meaning 'Destruction.']."
So what was your point about this, if you would remind me?
Also....We are informed not to eat & drink unworthily of the emblems of Jesus' body & blood, because only the anointed who are going to heaven are instructed to take these emblems. The rest of us aren't spurning these emblems. We [about 7 million of us] don't plan on going to heaven. We are VERY appreciative of what Jesus did for all mankind, and that's why we attend the Memorial. We show our respect for Jesus and his Father and the anointed. What is the problem there?
Greetings Pam Tolliver,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote: "Very interesting!"
My response: Thank you.
You wrote: "The young sister was probably not very experienced."
My response: "You may well be correct, however, after decades of discussing things with Witnesses, both at the door, or online or elsewhere, it seems to be an epidemic. I would say that it is most likely that it would be rare for any Witness at my door to anticipate or expect the sort of query or discussion that they get from me. Don't get me wrong here, this is not meant to be self tauting........it is just that the majority of people who even bother to speak with a Jehovah's Witness at their door would most likely never even know about what is taught to a Witness.
You wrote: " She knew what she believed though."
My response: She did? She certainly did nothing to indicate that. Maybe she just knew certain stuff.......what with her being as you said "not very experienced".
You wrote: " You should've had her look up your reference to Abaddon in her Bible.
My response: Some might say that she missed her opportunity to "spread the word" eh? Actually, I know why she did not seize the moment..........I have been told in the past that I knew too much. Personally, I would say that that what little I know is sufficient.
You wrote: " Gee, I have to look it up myself, and I've been a JW for over 30 years.
My response: "I would think that if a religious organization teaches that Jesus is Abaddon, while all others do not hold that view, it would be something that would be so memorable that you would think it sets you apart from all others. As I said before, when told of such, the majority of Witnesses have to refer to their Grand Climax book or Insight book to find out that they do indeed believe such a thing. Usually, the Witness will say, "No....we do not believe that".......that is until they check their books. If only a bible is used, they would say that they do not believe Jesus is Abaddon. I find that very interesting.
You wrote: "Let's see....Abaddon seems to actually be, as you inferred, Jesus Christ."
My response: This is where you have your books out and are confirming that indeed Witnesses are taught that Jesus is Abaddon. Not as "I" inferred, but as the Watchtower does.
I will respond to your next comment in such a way that I will need to address every few words rather than one whole lump at one time. I appreciate your bearing with me on this.
You wrote: " Our Insight book says,...."
My response: I would just like to remind all who may read this, that the Insight book is published by the Watchtower Society. It is a commentary and not a version of the Holy Scriptures.
You wrote:.... "At Revelation 20:1-3 the angel having 'the key of the abyss' is shown to be God's representative from heaven, and rather than being 'satanic,' he binds and hurls Satan into the abyss."
My response: Yep, that is exactly what the Witness will read in the Insight book. But the bible mentions some other things about Abaddon that you haven't mentioned here, for one, Abaddon is "given" the key to the abyss. Revelation does not specify that Abaddon is Jesus, nor does it identify exactly who gave the key to Abaddon. Only a commentary would be extra-biblical to suggest otherwise.
You wrote: "Commenting on Rev.9:11, The Interpreter's Bible says:...."
My response: So that it is clear to all who read this, the Insight book, a commentary, is citing another commentary for support. The important thing about this is one would have to question that commentary as to exactly who today uses it and if you actually had one in your possession for verification of citation.
You wrote: ".... 'Abaddon, however, is an angel not of Satan but of God, performing his work of destruction at God's bidding.'...At Rev.1:18 we find Christ Jesus stating: 'I am living forever and ever, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.'
My response: Nothing there about being "given" those keys. He simply has the keys.
You wrote: "..... His power with regard to the abyss is shown at Luke 8:31. That he has destroying power...is evident from Hebrews 2:14, which says that Jesus partook of blood and flesh in order that 'through his death he might bring to nothing the one having the means to cause death, that is, the Devil.' At Rev.19:11-16 he is clearly represented as God's appointed Destroyer or Executioner ['Abaddon' meaning 'Destruction.']."
My response: Jesus the Destroyer? Can you name any other organization other than the Witnesses that they are Christian and believe that Jesus is the fallen angel of the abyss? Can you give me the name of one valid Christian organization that uses the Interpreter's Bible as their source of scriptures?
You wrote: "So what was your point about this, if you would remind me?"
My response: I could come up with several points but I will give you one for now. Actually, you probably are refreshed about the other points by reading my responses above. The purpose of writing what I did about Jehovah's Witnesses and Trick or Treating, was that I usually do write about stuff that happens in my life. It just so happened that a Witness showed up on my doorstep on Halloween. I enjoy sharing a good story. As to the point of it, particularly, I mentioned those particular teachings because most people are unaware of it, both witnesses and non-witnesses. As a lifelong Christian, I can safely say that I do not believe that Jesus is the fallen angel of the abyss, nor would I reject His flesh and blood.
You wrote: "Also....We are informed not to eat & drink unworthily of the emblems of Jesus' body & blood, because only the anointed who are going to heaven are instructed to take these emblems."
My response: I would disagree with that. John 6:53-56 indicates no such restrictions.
You wrote: " The rest of us aren't spurning these emblems. We [about 7 million of us] don't plan on going to heaven.
My response: So the rank and file Jehovah's Witnesses" have no expectation of being in heaven.....hmmm......seems a bit odd, doesn't it? Whenever something is offered and you do not accept it, you are declining or rejecting that which is being offered. Is it not true that those "emblems" are indeed passed to each person in attendence at the Memorial? Surely the crackers and wine are not sitting on a table in the corner of the Hall in wait for a handful of people. Furthermore, when Jesus said, "those who do not partake of my flesh and blood HAVE NO LIFE IN THEM.", what do you suppose he meant. Surely He meant what He said. Remember the thief on the cross? What restrictions did he have on him? How did he qualify?
You wrote: "We are VERY appreciative of what Jesus did for all mankind, and that's why we attend the Memorial.
My response: A wise man once said "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". I do not question the intent of most of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Perhaps it is where they may be heading that is worthy of concern.
You wrote: "We show our respect for Jesus and his Father and the anointed. What is the problem there?
My response: I am sure that you believe that.
I hope that you found my responses as interesting as what was written prior.
Have a great day and God Bless.
Signtopia....
ReplyDeleteI have to commend you for not just castigating JWs and tossing them, so to speak, in the dustbin. You really are trying to alert us to some points you feel are glaringly important. I see your point. It is kind of odd that we don't know that we believe Jesus is Abaddon. But I have to ask....why do you refer to him as a "fallen" angel? I don't get that out of it at all. Abaddon seems to be an angel in good stead with God, who apparently gave him the keys to the abyss.
Another comment.....You are right to question what I said about the sister knowing what she believed. She apparently didn't, as I said about myself. What I was thinking was that at least she knew that Jehovah is God and Jesus Christ is His Son and all Christians are commissioned to go out and preach about God's Kingdom. That is undoubtedly why she was out in your neighborhood. But, sadly, she didn't know enough to grasp the opportunity to tell you what she was there to tell the folks in the neighborhood! It was a grand opportunity she muffed. I don't know why you get the luke-warm inexperienced ones at your home. There are plenty of JWs that would have a great conversation with you, I know for a fact. :)
I did think your comical suggestion that those JWs could've been early Trick-or-Treaters dressed as JWs was funny. I like your sense of humor.
Now let me check out John 6:53-56, and I'm looking in my King James. OK...Jesus was talking to the Pharisees. To me, what he was saying was that they had to accept him as their Messiah & all that that implied (his death for a ransom sacrifice) for them to attain eternal life. If they had, at that time, they would've been of the anointed class, as all the people were then who accepted him as the Messiah. So for me, I don't find anything in this that would contradict what I believe about being a respectful onlooker at the Memorial, which only about 8,000 anointed people are partaking of [the emblems] world-wide.
The emblems are passed around to everyone, yes. But it's because nobody judges exactly who is anointed. Someone may be there who feels that they are, so they would partake. Those of us who know we are not would simply pass the emblems along. So people with the earthly hope are not being offered the emblems. They are being offered to anyone who is anointed for heavenly life that might be there.
Yes, I do find all of your comments interesting, and thank you for them.
Pam,
ReplyDeleteThanks again for responding.
You wrote: "I have to commend you for not just castigating JWs and tossing them, so to speak, in the dustbin.
My response: Well thank you. Castigation comes when necessary, common sensibilities flourish when challenged to be sensible, and it is difficult to toss anyone into a dustbin because I cannot afford a huge enough dustbin. :)
You wrote: "You really are trying to alert us to some points you feel are glaringly important."
My response: Absolutely........and your choice to use the words "glaringly important" says much.
You wrote: "I see your point. It is kind of odd that we don't know that we believe Jesus is Abaddon."
My response: Thank you. After such a long period of time.....decades....sadly, that which was once odd becomes so routine and typical that it becomes the standard.
You wrote: "But I have to ask....why do you refer to him as a "fallen" angel?
My response: Because that is how he is described in the bible. Example......if you read a book and you see the sentence, "I saw a tree fall in my back yard. All of the other trees remained intact."........those words are very clear. If you were asked about the one tree laying on the ground, you would call it the fallen tree. Obviously, it is no longer a viable tree. In the bible, specifically Rev 9, it states "I saw a star that fell from heaven...". Since you are taught that the "star" is actually an "angel", then to call that fallen star a fallen angel is appropriate. Furthermore, Rev 9 goes furthere to say that this fallen angel is "of the abyss". This explains why I use the term "Abaddon, the fallen angel of the abyss."
You wrote: "I don't get that out of it at all.
My response: Of course not. That is because Witnesses are buried in extra-biblical commentaries and publications from your own Watchtower Society. It is interesting, though, that your own translation of the bible, the New World Translation, sticks with the proper "had fallen" or "fall". Having said that, the Watchtower publications outside of the NWT go a bit further and suggest to you that the word "fell" or "fallen" doesn't mean what you or I would think it means. I call this redefinition. Whenever you or I "fall", regardless if we fall down the steps or fall down on the sidewalk, we are no longer in our originally intended position. I would never fall down some steps and then go on to say that it was enjoyable or that I did exactly as I was designed to do.
You wrote: "Abaddon seems to be an angel in good stead with God, who apparently gave him the keys to the abyss.
My response: Speculation should never be taught as truth. Only the facts are truth. Anything beyond that is speculation. What "seems to be" is not always "true". I believe that many people have problems grasping the facts regarding God and instead of accepting those facts, they twist them and turn them to fit their "beliefs". Most people get their beliefs first and then read the bible. I prefer that people read the bible and then their belief will be the result. Surely you know that God is Almighty and all powerful. With God all things can happen. No exception. Then surely you can believe that God can and does utilize things that you would equate with being "evil" or "not too good" in order to do His own bidding or even to enact His plan. In Isaiah, it is written that God Himself says that he creates evil and woe. He says also that "I alone, do ALL THESE THINGS". Perhaps because this was said so early on in scriptures, that by the time one gets to the book of Revelation those words are long forgotten. I see that you believe that God gave the keys to Abaddon......yet there is no verse in Revelation that states that God did this. It only states that the star that had fallen from heaven to the earth was given the keys. It is an assumption that God distributed those keys. I would agree though, that God most likely did give those keys to Abaddon. Furthermore, in regards to Jesus in Revelation 1, He "has" the keys, which, to me, indicates that if He HAS the keys, then it was HE who gave them out later on. It is understandable that since some would have a problem with that, they would put a spin on what occurred in order to make it taste better or be consistent with their "beliefs".
You wrote: "Another comment.....You are right to question what I said about the sister knowing what she believed.
My response: Thank you.
You wrote: "She apparently didn't, as I said about myself."
My response: You, her, and the majority of Witnesses that I have encountered. If I was a pollster, one could extrapolate that most Witnesses do not know what they believe until they check their Watchtower books. :)
You wrote: "What I was thinking was that at least she knew that Jehovah is God and Jesus Christ is His Son and all Christians are commissioned to go out and preach about God's Kingdom.
My response: That is definately the expected line.......however, the woman did nothing even resembling preaching about God's Kingdom.....unless you believe that offering a booklet or flyer fulfills that requirement.
You wrote: "That is undoubtedly why she was out in your neighborhood."
My response: I could easily pick that notion apart....as to why she was here........but let me just sum it all up like this........she most likely needed to pencil in some service time on her card. :)
You wrote: "But, sadly, she didn't know enough to grasp the opportunity to tell you what she was there to tell the folks in the neighborhood!
My response: I have to come up with an analogy here. Hmmmmmm....it's like going to a hockey game and cheering for a baseball team. No that one won't work............try this one........it is like a person at a hockey game.....seeing the pucks flying through the air and over the ice........and just smiling and leaving the game in a couple of minutes..........No....that one won't work............It will have to come to me later. :)
Actually, I believe she wasn't there to "tell the folks" about anything. I believe she was there to "place" those brochures. I have seen this before and when questioned, the Witnesses would say "We are not here today to speak with you but we can come back at another time."
You wrote: "It was a grand opportunity she muffed.
My response: I might agree.....then again, it was a grand opportunity for me.
You wrote: "I don't know why you get the luke-warm inexperienced ones at your home. There are plenty of JWs that would have a great conversation with you, I know for a fact. :)
My response: I seem to get some rather inept ones. It has been my experience, though, that those "inexperienced ones" sometimes are willing to come back in tote with someone "more knowledgable". One came back with an elder once and after about two minutes of questions from me, ducked out of the situation by stating "I have to go sit in the car, I have a prostate problem". He went and sat in the car and left the inexperienced woman to fend for herself. Go figure. Surely you must know that ordinarily, Witnesses would "mark" my home and deem me "unteachable". :)
You wrote: "I did think your comical suggestion that those JWs could've been early Trick-or-Treaters dressed as JWs was funny. I like your sense of humor.
My response: Awww Thanks!.....at least ONE person on the planet saw the humor in it. :)
You wrote: "Now let me check out John 6:53-56, and I'm looking in my King James. OK...Jesus was talking to the Pharisees.
My response: He was speaking to a crowd and yes they were Jews.
To me, what he was saying was that they had to accept him as their Messiah & all that that implied (his death for a ransom sacrifice) for them to attain eternal life.
My response: It says what it says.
You wrote: "If they had, at that time, they would've been of the anointed class, as all the people were then who accepted him as the Messiah.
My response: Of course you did not read that in John 6:53-56. :)
You wrote: "So for me, I don't find anything in this that would contradict what I believe about being a respectful onlooker at the Memorial, which only about 8,000 anointed people are partaking of [the emblems] world-wide."
My response: Okay, but if you were simply an "onlooker", you would watch and observe from the sidelines. Onlookers are never in the middle of the game. Once again, Jesus spoke in John 6:53-56, to a large crowd of people and His instructions and words were spoken to ALL that were in attendance with no exceptions.
You wrote: "The emblems are passed around to everyone, yes. But it's because nobody judges exactly who is anointed."
My response: On the mountainside in John 6:53-56, bread was given to everyone. There was nothing spoken about being "anointed".
You wrote: "Someone may be there who feels that they are, so they would partake. Those of us who know we are not would simply pass the emblems along."
My response: As you know, the Memorial is open to the general public and not solely for Witnesses in the fold. And you also know that the general public have no idea about the things that you have written here about partaking and not partaking, anointed or not anointed. The general public (aka the "crowd" much like in John6) would have to be informed as to what exactly is to take place and what is asked of them. Jesus spoke to the crowd and informed them, and at the Memorial, the representatives of the Watchtower Society, probably in the form of a n elder or overseer speaks to those in attendance.......right? At the very least, something would be given to a guest at the Memorial to read about what is expected of them. I once called a Kingdom Hall around Memorial time and when I stated that I was not a Witness but if I attended I would partake of the "emblems", the man on the phone told me very specifically that all guests are instructed to NOT partake. For me, that instruction is the complete opposite of what Jesus instructed.
You wrote: "So people with the earthly hope are not being offered the emblems. They are being offered to anyone who is anointed for heavenly life that might be there."
My response: In fact, it is not offered except to a select few that believes that they are of the select few. This contradicts John 6.
You wrote: "Yes, I do find all of your comments interesting, and thank you for them.
My response: Thank you very much.
Now don't count this exchange as time on your service card :)
God Bless!
The big toe of the lord strikes again. Keep speaking someone is bound to hear you. I never liked those magazines anyways, I'm already Awake!
ReplyDeleteThere must be more than one "Anonymous." Anyway, the last one said that he never liked the magazines the Witnesses gave him...he's "Awake" anyway. Well, I just had to say, Anonymous, that if you are truly "Awake," you would love the magazines, because they are wonderful. The best spiritual food on the planet.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Signtopia, for your latest response. You have a very good point about the angel having fallen. I did a little research on it & couldn't come up with anything about why we would think of Jesus as having fallen from heaven. I'll continue to look into it.
ReplyDeleteI have to say, the reason many of us, if not most, accept alot of things that aren't readily understood....is because the main things have been explained and we accept those things, after having done our research. I studied things for years, and when the Witnesses told me there was no hell-fire I thoroughly scrutinized the Scriptures & determined for myself that they were telling me the truth about that. They also are right, in my carefully thought-over estimation, about the falsehood of the Trinity Doctrine and the Immortal Soul. Since they got these right, I accept some things out of sheer respect for the brothers. I don't really care who Abaddon is. Like I don't care what the measurements of the temple are in Ezekiel. There are alot of things that the anointed brothers appreciate that I don't really get and it doesn't matter to me.
They are right when they say that Christmas, Easter & Halloween are pagan originated and to worship God in a pure way we would not want to celebrate them. I agree wholeheartedly. Birthday celebrations are a stick in my groin so to speak. I adhere to their thinking on that out of sheer respect for the governing body. If they came out tomorrow and said it's OK to do birthdays, I'd be delighted. But....no biggie. I give my grandkids lots of presents all year, and try to make them feel special every day.
So....again, I think JWs have the basic stuff down real good. The little incidentals that the brothers find fascinating and worthy of mention I'll accept because I honor their opinions.
Pam,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote: "There must be more than one "Anonymous."
My response: Yep.
You wrote: "Anyway, the last one said that he never liked the magazines the Witnesses gave him...he's "Awake" anyway. Well, I just had to say, Anonymous, that if you are truly "Awake," you would love the magazines, because they are wonderful. The best spiritual food on the planet.
My response: Hmmmm, shouldn't the bible be the only spiritual food needed? Personally, I believe the magazines are rather elementarily written. After a quick analysis of a few issues of the magazine, I can plainly see that it is written primarily for certain target markets.
Hello again Pam Tolliver,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote: "Thank you, Signtopia, for your latest response."
My response: You are quite welcome.
You wrote: "You have a very good point about the angel having fallen. I did a little research on it & couldn't come up with anything "about why we would think of Jesus as having fallen from heaven. I'll continue to look into it."
My response: There are many folks who believe it is a good point. Oddly, there are many folks who are unaware of the Abaddon teaching of the Watchtower Society. I am delighted that you did attempt a bit of research regarding the matter. Others have done so in the past and some of them have taken maybe a more in depth study of the issue. I can tell you that I have pretty much heard all sorts of explanations and the like. I would also say that none of what I have heard to date has negated the fact that Jehovah's Witnesses are taught that Jesus is Abaddon, the fallen angel of the abyss. You mention that you had not been able to come up with anything as to "why" Witnesses would think of Jesus as having fallen from heaven. This is interesting. I find that rather odd. Remember Revelation 9? it was the star that fell. :)
You wrote: "I have to say, the reason many of us, if not most, accept alot of things that aren't readily understood....is because the main things have been explained and we accept those things, after having done our research."
My response: Hmmmm......what should I think of that statement? Okay, I would agree that many Witnesses simply accept things which are not understood as being truth.........hmmmmm.....the main things are explained but all other stuff isn't necessarily explained? And Witnesses just accept all of it because Witnesses believe that since they agree with some of the main teachings they automatically do not question the rest? Hmmmmmmm.....If I was to write as much about Witnesses before a Witness wrote it, I would be called all sorts of names.......hehehe. Research is essential to getting to any truth. Without a doubt, every person should "make sure of ALL things" and not just some of the "main" things. The Watchtower itself never wrote "make sure of only the main things". Having said that, the Watchtower DID once write that "heavy research was not necessary" and that they "have done it all for you". That would be the equivalent of me telling my kids to not bother with school because I already had been there and done that.
You wrote: "I studied things for years, and when the Witnesses told me there was no hell-fire I thoroughly scrutinized the Scriptures & determined for myself that they were telling me the truth about that."
My response: That is another issue where we differ.......but I would just say that elimination of a belief in hellfire goes far into getting people to readily accept some of the other teachings such as that about Abaddon. I would suggest that any glass of water that contains just one small portion of a fatal poison would have the same effect as if the glass was full of poison.
You wrote: "They also are right, in my carefully thought-over estimation, about the falsehood of the Trinity Doctrine and the Immortal Soul.
My response: Of course I would disagree with you on those two issues. Once again, I see the Witness view on these as being consistent overall.......which makes every Witness preconditioned and more likely to accept the "Jesus is a fallen angel" and the rejection of the flesh and blood of Christ at the "Memorial" more easy to swallow. So much that some Witnesses would even go as far as to say "I accept some things out of sheer respect for the brothers".
You wrote: "Since they got these right, I accept some things out of sheer respect for the brothers."
My response: See what I mean?
You wrote : "I don't really care who Abaddon is. Like I don't care what the measurements of the temple are in Ezekiel.
My response: That is very telling. Some folks would call that blind faith. How is it possible to equate the importance of identity of Jesus (as Abaddon) with something as trivial as measurements of a temple? There are two ways that would view this.........Jesus once referred to Himself as a temple, so maybe both temples are worthy of careful consideration and inspection. The other way I could view it would be that........what would you say if some time in the future you were confronted by Jesus on judgement day and He asked you "Why did you not care?"..... Personally, I would want to be able to have an answer for that.
You wrote: "There are alot of things that the anointed brothers appreciate that I don't really get and it doesn't matter to me.
My response: I understand your position.....after all......you are a Jehovah's Witness. But I must say that it does indeed matter how Jesus is viewed. Surely you would not accept any suggestion or teaching that Jesus was a dragon or a lizard........or a refuse collector.....or even a pyrotechnics dealer......at least you would not believe any such thing about Jesus unless it could be verified in some way other than hearsay. It should matter to you.
You wrote: "They are right when they say that Christmas, Easter & Halloween are pagan originated and to worship God in a pure way we would not want to celebrate them. I agree wholeheartedly.
My response: First, Halloween is hardly a holiday that I feel is observed due to any worship. Certainly the three holidays have some pagan origins involved. However, you suggest that in order to worship God in a pure way one should have nothing to do with those three holidays.......yet.....one of the most sacred acts that any Christian performs is the act of marriage and married people "traditionally" wear wedding rings. Witnesses are no different, right?........but what if you find out that, in fact, wedding rings have pagan origins? You might want to check into the history of wedding rings. Furthermore, let's say you just bought some property with a nice house on it. Let's also say that you absolutely love that house...it is your home. Now what happens if you look into the history of that house and property and find out that it built or at least previously owned by a Wiccan couple..........then what? Wouldn't you then say "Who should care? It is mine now!". Likewise, isn't it possible and reasonable to have the view that those holidays, particularly Christmas and Easter, belongs to Christianity now? I also would advise you that in the history of the Jehovah's Witnesses, it was acceptable to celebrate Christmas. There is plenty of documentation for that. For some reason, "God's sole channel of communication" has times when it is disconnected. :)
You wrote: "Birthday celebrations are a stick in my groin so to speak. I adhere to their thinking on that out of sheer respect for the governing body. If they came out tomorrow and said it's OK to do birthdays, I'd be delighted.
My response: The celebration of birthdays are a celebration of life. Celebration of life is a no-no....yet celebrations of death (funerals)are okay, eh?
You wrote: "But....no biggie. I give my grandkids lots of presents all year, and try to make them feel special every day.
My response: Every grandparent, regardless of beliefs, do whatever they can for their grandchildren at all times. Celebrating birth is the issue and having a special day to celebrate that particular birth. When I give stuff throughout the year to my own grandchildren, it is not done to celebrate their birth. It is done because I love them always. Birth is obviously important enough to be worthy of mention throughout the bible, especially in regards to the birth of Jesus. If birth was not important it would never have been mentioned......but I can see where the Watchtower would frown upon birthday celebrations.
You wrote: "So....again, I think JWs have the basic stuff down real good. The little incidentals that the brothers find fascinating and worthy of mention I'll accept because I honor their opinions.
My response: Well I appreciate your responses here. It can never be said that I blocked or disallowed commentary from a Jehovah's Witness. I surely have been called many names over the years, but as with this recent blog post about Witnesses and what is taught to them, there has been nothing offered by any Jehovah's Witness to negate what I have written. I do appreciate your efforts though. More than once I have heard some Witnesses refer to the Jesus is Abaddon teaching as a "minor detail". You referred to it as one of a few "little incidentals". I gotta say that I fully expected that. You also said you accept the brother's opinions about such....and ......this is where I must ask you "Should opinions ever be taught as truth?"
God Bless!
Oh come on, Sign! Don't be such a poop. Those magazines are incredibly awesome! Of course they're written so that anyone can understand them. I can read a chemistry book too, but I appreciate good solid wonderfulness when I see it.
ReplyDeleteSign....I'll try to remember all of what you said. Let's see....firstly, you didn't understand what I was saying about Jesus being a fallen angel. I said that I can't see why the WT would say that Jesus is a fallen angel. FALLEN?? It never hit home with me before you brought it to my attention. It's a very valid point. I wouldn't consider Jesus to be "FALLEN" anything. As I said, I'll check into it a bit more.
ReplyDeleteLet's say that your church can explain Abaddon real nifty-like. But they teach the Trinity & Hell-fire. Who am I going to listen to about other things? JWs or your religion? I'll just put Abaddon on the back burner. Some day it'll be explained to everyone's satisfaction. Just like who knows where the real Mt. Sinai is? Most people do not. I think it's across the "sea" of the Gulf of Aqaba, and it is that gulf that the Israelites passed through. But I'm just going to have to wait to find out for sure. The CCJW doesn't say definitely which gulf they crossed. I could get all upset because they don't know, but it's just something I'll wait to find out. We'll find out ALOT of things during Christ's Millennial Reign! I'm dying to find out who Jack the Ripper is, and who killed the Black Dahlia!
I'd say that the CCJW issues more than opinions. They probably have as good an understanding of everything in the Bible as anybody, and mostly a better understanding. If they even change their stance on Abaddon, I won't be disturbed. It's possible. It's just another thing, as I said, to keep in mind to fully appreciate later on.
I know about the wedding rings. But you see, if people didn't wear them others might think they're available. Wearing them helps to avoid major problems. It's a protection. I remember years ago when I was still married to my 2nd husband, I was at a party and some guy came along a grasped my hand and held it up--to see if I was married. I was wearing my rings, and he just went his way, thankfully.
I would not buy a house that had been occupied by Wiccans, neither by Satan worshippers, nor vampires, nor even if the house was reputed to be "haunted." Demons are very real, and they feel comfortable with certain groups of people, and they might hang around if the house was sold.
Sign, I know you can pick me apart and draw and quarter me, no matter what I say. I haven't been bamboozled or brainwashed or "conditioned" so that I close my mind to some things that may be important. I have thought about the main doctrines of Christendom for my entire life, and I believe that JWs teach the truth. You are right....I should care who Abaddon is, and I hope I can find out more about him.
Thanks for your input.
Hi again, Pam Tolliver,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote: "Oh come on, Sign! Don't be such a poop. Those magazines are incredibly awesome!"
My Response: Somehow only a Witness would say that. If I wanted to read elementary magazines I would subscribe to Scholastic Highlights. :)
You also wrote: "Of course they're written so that anyone can understand them."
My response: Some people probably DO like them........then again there are some people who read People Magazine to get informed too. :)
You wrote: "I can read a chemistry book too, but I appreciate good solid wonderfulness when I see it.
My response: "Solid wonderfulness"??? You must be easy to impress :)
Greetings again, Pam Tolliver.
ReplyDeleteYou wrote: "Sign....I'll try to remember all of what you said."
My response: No need to overload the gray matter, Pam........you can always review everything I have written by simply viewing the blog entry.......it looks like it will be floating through cyberspace for a long, long, time. :)
You wrote: "Let's see....firstly, you didn't understand what I was saying about Jesus being a fallen angel. I said that I can't see why the WT would say that Jesus is a fallen angel. FALLEN?? It never hit home with me before you brought it to my attention. It's a very valid point. I wouldn't consider Jesus to be "FALLEN" anything. As I said, I'll check into it a bit more.
My response: Excellent.........now just don't ask me how the WT also taught that those locusts that were loosed from the abyss were those governing body members of the late 1920s or maybe it was the early 1930s. Yep, apparently there is more to all of this.
You wrote: "Let's say that your church can explain Abaddon real nifty-like. But they teach the Trinity & Hell-fire. Who am I going to listen to about other things? JWs or your religion?
My response: Well, Pam, I must tell you that I personally would not allow a church or organization to dictate what it is or isn't that I believe I should hold onto as truth. The business of religion can sometimes dilute the facts. I would tell you that for me, when one comes to realize and understand the concept of the Trinity and "hell-fire", as you call it, other things actually come into perspective. I never would be the kind of person to ask a church or organization what it is that I believe. Only "I" can be the one to tell myself. Gee, I do not even ask my wife what I should believe about her cooking......hehehe.
You wrote: "I'll just put Abaddon on the back burner.
My response: Would you say the same if you was to find out that your organization taught that Satan and Moses were the same person? (of course the WT does not teach it).....but what if they did? Does it go on the back burner because you agree with two other things that they teach?
You wrote: "Some day it'll be explained to everyone's satisfaction."
My response: Of course, but in the meantime, we should never teach speculation as truth, should we? When nobody knows, then nobody knows.......plain and simple.
You wrote: "Just like who knows where the real Mt. Sinai is? Most people do not. I think it's across the "sea" of the Gulf of Aqaba, and it is that gulf that the Israelites passed through. But I'm just going to have to wait to find out for sure."
My response: Actually, there are many historians and many documents that could help provide an answer as to where Mt Sinai is and has always been. It is hard to move a mountain :)
You wrote: "The CCJW doesn't say definitely which gulf they crossed. I could get all upset because they don't know, but it's just something I'll wait to find out.
My response: "CCJW"??? Hmmmmmm......never seen those initials......must be yet another corporate moniker for the ole WTB&TS, eh?
You wrote: "We'll find out ALOT of things during Christ's Millennial Reign! I'm dying to find out who Jack the Ripper is, and who killed the Black Dahlia!"
My response: I am sure that you could find out all sorts of stuff that you currently wouldn't care to know as well. I could think of several things I wouldn't mind finding out :)
You wrote: "I'd say that the CCJW issues more than opinions. They probably have as good an understanding of everything in the Bible as anybody, and mostly a better understanding.
My response: Hmmmmm.....there's that CCJW thing again.......I take it they must be what you consider some sort of authority in your world as a Witness?
You wrote: "If they even change their stance on Abaddon, I won't be disturbed. It's possible. It's just another thing, as I said, to keep in mind to fully appreciate later on."
My response: Well, someone in the bible once said "WHO do you say that I am?". I would think that knowing the identities of certain characters in the bible is rather important......especially when a person may not have an extreme amount of time to wait around for others to figure it out for you. I heard somewhere that the time is short and that the end is near :)
You wrote: "I know about the wedding rings. But you see, if people didn't wear them others might think they're available.
My response: One must be consistent. If you are to not participate in things of pagan origin, then the rings gotta go.......unless you are telling me that not using or participating in things of pagan origin is something that is at your own option and not any sort of rule or requirement.
You wrote: "Wearing them helps to avoid major problems. It's a protection. I remember years ago when I was still married to my 2nd husband, I was at a party and some guy came along a grasped my hand and held it up--to see if I was married. I was wearing my rings, and he just went his way, thankfully."
My response: In this day and age, alot of folks aren't even fazed by seeing a ring on a finger.
You wrote: I would not buy a house that had been occupied by Wiccans, neither by Satan worshippers, nor vampires, nor even if the house was reputed to be "haunted." Demons are very real, and they feel comfortable with certain groups of people, and they might hang around if the house was sold.
My response: I guess the question would be.......how well would you have checked to find out about the place in which you currently live?....and have you done that? Surely you must know that the Watchtower Society has no problem using buildings that were previously owned by some notorious groups.......one building in particular was once used by an Islamic group, and another building was used by Trinitarians. That which is good for the goose is also good for the gander, right?
You wrote: "Sign, I know you can pick me apart and draw and quarter me, no matter what I say.
My response: Hmmmmm, I will take that as a compliment :)"
Actually, I would have thought that you would be confident enough with your truths that it could withstand any or all scrutiny. Truth should always be able to do that, agree?
You wrote: "I haven't been bamboozled or brainwashed or "conditioned" so that I close my mind to some things that may be important."
My response: Hehehe...actually I think the term the Watchtower Society uses for that is "mentally regulated".........yep.......they have used that term themselves. I have only mentioned "preconditioning" in a comment to you. Nobody that discovers they have a drinking problem, ever believes that they could have a drinking problem until they are convinced of it in some way. I would say that some people can be addicted to their religion. What anyone cares to call it is up to them. I would hope that things do not get so far that it is ever too late to correct a problem, regardless.
You wrote: "I have thought about the main doctrines of Christendom for my entire life, and I believe that JWs teach the truth.
My response: There ya go using that Watchtower lingo. Surely you must realize that not everyone is a Witness or former Witness and that some good ole average people will read this blog. Many of those people won't know that you believe that only the Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians, and that you group all other denominations as being "Christendom". While the general public holds no negative connotation with the name Christendom, Witnesses do. I would recommend rechecking everything and making sure of everything.Especially the details......Remember, someone once said "the devil is in the details"....and I would believe that he is indeed.
You wrote: "You are right....I should care who Abaddon is, and I hope I can find out more about him."
My response: Pam, the bottom line is........let's say that you study the issue thoroughly for a year or two.........then you find out that you have not been able to find anything other than commentary about Abaddon..........at this point you must go with what you find in the bible, specifically in Revelation 9. It is then that you will be able to say with confidence, as I am able to say, "Who is Abaddon?.........well.....it tells you who he is in Revelation 9." Nothing more and nothing less.
The Book of Revelation is an interesting read. If you really, really, believe, then you have to believe what is written towards the end of the book........that we should never ADD TO or TAKE AWAY from those words. To do so......"let them be cursed". I believe that is a very clear message. :)
You wrote: "Thanks for your input."
My response: You are welcome. It has been my pleasure. Thanks for participating on the blog.
God Bless!
Signtopia...regarding your latest posting....
ReplyDeleteI'm commenting on various points of conversation as I go down your post....
It's easier to reply when one has the post printed out, as I have done today. It appeared in my email, so I could do that. It's kind of a bore to have to go all the way down to the current blog entry when going to your site, and then back up again. Is there a faster way to do it?
I don't find any problem with the locusts as the GB sees them.
You say, "The business of religion can sometimes dilute the facts." How true!! And that's what I think happened with the doctrines of the Trinity, Hell-fire, Immortal Soul & many other things religion has come up with. It is "I" who tells myself what I believe. Right now I don't believe anything about Abaddon except I have to look into it more. I'm going to ask our Circuit Overseer tomorrow & see what he says.
You encourage people to research and scrutinize & think for themselves, right? I have done that on the subject of Mt. Sinai. Everyone thinks that it is where Constantine's mother said it was and that the Israelites crossed the Gulf of Suez arm of the Red Sea. I have been reading about it for awhile, and I think that Mt. Sinai is not where everyone has traditionally thought it to be. I sent for a gentlelman's doctoral thesis research that was offered in Biblical Archaeology Review, entiltled, "The Lost Sea of the Exodus." (Glen A. Fritz) He covers every argument and concludes that Mt. Sinai is really on the far shore of the Gulf of Aqaba in NW Saudi Arabia, not in the Sinai Peninsula. "The impressive Jabal al Lawz mountain range, 30 miles inland from the gulf, has already been postulated in recent decades as a candidate for Mount Sinai."
So, perhaps something YOU believe could use some spiffing up. :) No offense meant!
CCJW means "Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses." And yes, that is what the WT would like to be known as now.
I think there was more to your post, but that's all my printer spat out. And I'm not going to go at a snail's pace down the whole blog to see what was left.
I saw your post to The Vicar. Did you read my comments to him? What did you think of my points?
Have a pleasant day...
Pam
Hello again, Pam Tolliver
ReplyDeleteYou wrote: "It's easier to reply when one has the post printed out, as I have done today. It appeared in my email, so I could do that. It's kind of a bore to have to go all the way down to the current blog entry when going to your site, and then back up again. Is there a faster way to do it?
My response: Yes indeedy, there is a faster way. What I do is......when I get to the page to start writing my comments, I scroll down to your most recent comment and highlight the entire text of your comment. Then I click on "Edit" which is in the toolbar of Internet Explorer or Mozilla Firefox ( I prefer Firefox ). The popdown has a list of edit options, one of which is "copy". I select "copy". Then I simply go to the text box at the top of the page and put a cursor in the box. Then I select "Edit" again but this time when the popdown appears I select "Paste". The entire highlighted text of your comment will then appear in the comment box. Then, I simply edit your text by removing non-necessary text and leave only the text of yours that I wish to comment on and I type in my comments along with your text. That's the way I do this. It makes doing this a thousand times easier.
You wrote: I don't find any problem with the locusts as the GB sees them.
My response: I suppose it all depends on how they see 'em. :)
Do you really believe the locusts of Revelation 9 were those members of the governing body who were "falsely" imprisoned in 1929? (I am not sure of the correct year) If so, then I must ask you some stuff about that.
You wrote: "You say, "The business of religion can sometimes dilute the facts." How true!! And that's what I think happened with the doctrines of the Trinity, Hell-fire, Immortal Soul & many other things religion has come up with.
My response: Yep...it is true. Wasn't it ole Judge Rutherford who once said "Religion is a snare and a racket!"???
You wrote: "It is "I" who tells myself what I believe.
My response: I am delighted to hear that.
You wrote: "Right now I don't believe anything about Abaddon except I have to look into it more. I'm going to ask our Circuit Overseer tomorrow & see what he says.
My response: Okay, I appreciate your honesty about it. Yes, do look into it more.......perhaps from all sides even. I am sure he will tell you pretty much what I have told you that is taught by Watchtower books.
You wrote: "You encourage people to research and scrutinize & think for themselves, right?"
My response: Absolutely! without a doubt.
You wrote: "I have done that on the subject of Mt. Sinai. Everyone thinks that it is where Constantine's mother said it was and that the Israelites crossed the Gulf of Suez arm of the Red Sea. I have been reading about it for awhile, and I think that Mt. Sinai is not where everyone has traditionally thought it to be. I sent for a gentlelman's doctoral thesis research that was offered in Biblical Archaeology Review, entiltled, "The Lost Sea of the Exodus." (Glen A. Fritz) He covers every argument and concludes that Mt. Sinai is really on the far shore of the Gulf of Aqaba in NW Saudi Arabia, not in the Sinai Peninsula. "The impressive Jabal al Lawz mountain range, 30 miles inland from the gulf, has already been postulated in recent decades as a candidate for Mount Sinai."
My response: Obviously the subject of finding the actual location of Mt Sinai is something that is of high interest to you. I understand. For me, while it is interesting, I do not find it necessary in the grand scheme of things........unless a person would not believe it ever existed and needed proof that it did. Surely, Mt Sinai's location could not have any bearing on a person's salvation. Archaeology is a fascinating subject though.......I still wonder how pyramids and entire towns are found buried underground as if tons of dirt and sand was dropped on them at some point in history.
You wrote: "So, perhaps something YOU believe could use some spiffing up. :) No offense meant!"
My response: No offense taken. I would say that pretty much everything could use some spiffing up.....hehehe......then again, who knows?......one day the ultimate spiffer upper will show up and then everyone will see how unspiffed everything might be. :)
You wrote: "CCJW means "Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses." And yes, that is what the WT would like to be known as now.
My response: Interesting. I do recall that there are several corporate entities that the Watchtower holds under its umbrella. I do know that a few had been created and added to that list around the time alot of the pedophile lawsuit reports started popping up. It has been said by some that this may be yet another example of corporate obfuscation in order to protect holdings. Do you have any particular reason for the creation of a new corporation?
You wrote: "I think there was more to your post, but that's all my printer spat out. And I'm not going to go at a snail's pace down the whole blog to see what was left.
My response: I cannot blame you.......but now you know how to do this quickly :)
You wrote: "I saw your post to The Vicar. Did you read my comments to him? What did you think of my points?"
My response: I will have to try to find that blog again and refresh my memory......from what I can recall, I found the blog interesting. The British have an interesting way of writing. As to your comments, Yes, I obviously did read them. As to your points, as I sit here now....I believe your points were flagrantly from the view of being an anti-trinitarian :) Ahhh yes, and for you to cite or recommend a book by Jason BeDuhn is so very typical of what I have come to expect to hear from a Witness. The Witnesses seem to hang on desperately to BeDuhn yet I have yet to ever hear anyone from any other group ever cite him as an authority on any subject. As to any position you offered regarding the Trinity, if I thought my input would have contributed to the discussion I would have offered up a few things that you perhaps had not considered in the bigger picture. As I recall, I think you had written something about Jesus not being equal to God. Here's a thought for you........Jesus said "If you had seen me, you had seen the Father. If you had heard me, you had heard the Father. If you had known me, you had known the Father." I take it that Jesus wasn't much of a liar, was He?
One thing that I definately remember about your comments to the vicar was that you actually violated the number one rule of internet usage!!!!!!
You have provided the entire planet with your personal address. That is a HUGE no-no. There are way too many wacky people out there. I believe the vicar did request that comments include a name and location......such as "Ralph in Pennsylvania". Location as in what part of the world you are in and NOT your personal address. You may feel relatively safe, but I can tell you that through my own personal experience, there are people who do NOT need that kind of info.
You wrote: "Have a pleasant day..."
My response: Every day I do the best that I can to make sure of it.....thank you.......except, of course, so many things seem to get in the way of that.
Take care.........oh.....by the way......get the vicar to remove your address!
God Bless!
Sign...
ReplyDeleteYes, the members of the GB as well as all other JWs that were supporting them & the witnessing work would be considered, in effect, the locusts of Rev.9. That was 1918-1919 when they were "abyssed," and then when they came out, the witnessing work went forward like a swarm of locusts.
Yes! Rutherford said that great line about Religion being a snare and a racket. How did you know? You don't seem old enough to remember that first-hand.
I really don't think that there was a new corporation created. The brothers want to be known as something that people can really relate to and understand. So many people think we are not Christian. It's about time people can see unequivocably that we are Christian. I appreciate the decision of the GB to change how they are referred to. Perhaps now people will think twice before they shrug us off.
You mentioned Jesus saying that if we have seen, heard, known him, we have seen, heard, known the Father. This apparently is good enough for you to think of him AS the Father, God. But Jesus, in my mind, was saying that he acted, spoke and represented the Father in every way just as he had learned from the Father. This doesn't make him equal to the Father. This shows the opposite--that everything he did and said he learned from the Father. He would say that he did not speak of his own originality but only what the Father told him to say.
Thank you for the warning about my address. Did I post it? I'll have to ask the Vicar about that.
You take care also.
Pam
Hello again, Pam Tolliver,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote: "Yes, the members of the GB as well as all other JWs that were supporting them & the witnessing work would be considered, in effect, the locusts of Rev.9. That was 1918-1919 when they were "abyssed," and then when they came out, the witnessing work went forward like a swarm of locusts."
My response: That is one particular belief that definately sets your group apart from all other groups. Thank you for providing the correct year. This is interesting because you also were taught to believe that Jesus had returned in 1914, which would have been four years prior to when the governing body was allegedly "abyssed". Having established that, I must ask you a few things. 1. What did Jesus do for those four years? 2. You seem to indicate that the locusts were put into the abyss in 1918, yet the bible does not indicate such. The bible merely states that locusts were already in the abyss and were let loose. It says nothing as to how the locusts got into that abyss. The bible does not indicate that anyone in particular locked the locusts into the abyss. I am sure that you would agree that the governing body, though, were locked up in prison by a particular entity and that the prison was a specific place. The bible, though, does not specify anything of this sort. This is pure unadulterated speculation being taught as truth by your organization. What exactly did the locusts (governing body) do to warrant being locked away into the abyss? Exactly who locked them into the abyss? If the abyss was the Federal Penitentiary in Atlanta in 1918, then who had the key to that abyss in 1918? Who gave that key to the authorities in order to lock them up? And at what point were the keys then handed over to Jesus?
You wrote: "Yes! Rutherford said that great line about Religion being a snare and a racket."
My response: What year was it that Rutherford seized control of your organization?
You wrote: "How did you know? You don't seem old enough to remember that first-hand."
My response: Actually, I have been asked similar questions many times before. There is a very simple answer........Everything regarding the history of the Watchtower is well documented and there are countless books available to the public, both published by the Watchtower itself and other authors.
You wrote: "I really don't think that there was a new corporation created."
My response: Then you are suggesting that it is merely yet another name of a subsidiary under the Watchtower umbrella?
You wrote: "The brothers want to be known as something that people can really relate to and understand. So many people think we are not Christian."
My response: I would agree that many people do not view your group as Christian.
You wrote: "It's about time people can see unequivocably that we are Christian.
My response: Simply altering a name is hardly anything "unequivocable".
You wrote: "I appreciate the decision of the GB to change how they are referred to. Perhaps now people will think twice before they shrug us off."
My response: I would think including the name "Abaddonians" would be a fairly proper name to have used. :) Then again, we both know that would be offensive to those who are Christian already.
You wrote: "You mentioned Jesus saying that if we have seen, heard, known him, we have seen, heard, known the Father. This apparently is good enough for you to think of him AS the Father, God."
My response: That would not be the sole argument for the Trinity.
More later.......
Sign....
ReplyDeleteOf course I understand your point of view that what the GB has said about the abyss & the locusts would be appreciated only by those who think the GB is perfectly OK in analyzing what the verses mean, they being Jesus' brothers & directed by him concerning the functions of the Church, etc. I say...what if they ARE, in fact, Jesus' brothers and are actually, in truth, taking orders from him (however they do that)? Then whatever they say about the locusts would be relevant, I would say. And the thing is....I believe that they are in fact running Jesus Christ's Church. So I would accept what they say about the events symbolically portrayed in the Revelation.
(1) What was Jesus doing for 4 years? Basically what he's doing now. Overseeing the goings-on of his Church.
(2) The abyssing of the locusts--seemed to them to jibe with the imprisoning of Rutherford & the others. They just observed: "Scripturally, 'the abyss' is a place of inactivity, even of death. (Compare Romans 10:7; Revelation 17:8: 20:1,3.) The small band of Jesus' brothers spent a short time in such an 'abyss' of relative inactivity at the end of the first world war (1918-19)."
So, I guess they look at the events in Revelation and say, "Let's see, what could that be referring to?" So, my attitude is....can anybody come up with anything better? Probably not. So, no one can say that they definitely are wrong. Conversely, no one can convince you or anyone else that they are right. I choose to think that they are, or, could be, on the right wave-length.
The brothers were arrested and imprisoned due to clergy action against them, who, apparently, had schemed against them to get them out of the way (not liking being exposed for the frauds they were, just like the Pharisees in Jesus' day). Right at this moment I can't recall what they were charged with, but the charges were dropped after a relatively short time.
I beg your patience. I am very very tired, having not slept since Thursday night. I'll have to further address your questions later. So far I see that apparently Abaddon, or, the angel of the abyss, merely let the brothers OUT of the abyss, and did not put them in it. I'll scrutinize this more when I have a rested set of marbles.
What year did Rutherford become President of the WT Society? I believe it was 1916, but I'll have to double check. I think that was the year Brother Russell died.
I'll try to get some sleep now, so I don't somehow become overly obnoxious! :D
Hello Pam,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote: "You mentioned Jesus saying that if we have seen, heard, known him, we have seen, heard, known the Father. This apparently is good enough for you to think of him AS the Father, God. But Jesus, in my mind, was saying that he acted, spoke and represented the Father in every way just as he had learned from the Father."
My response: It appears that you are going extra-biblical with that one. Again, you are choosing speculation in order to better fit the organizational view. Again, speculation is not truth.
You wrote: "This doesn't make him equal to the Father. This shows the opposite--that everything he did and said he learned from the Father.
My response: As I stated above, this is all speculation. Jesus never said anything other than what he actually said.
You wrote: "He would say that he did not speak of his own originality but only what the Father told him to say."
My response: Really? Did he really say specifically that he only says what the Father tells him to say?
Hello Again Pam,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote: "Of course I understand your point of view that what the GB has said about the abyss & the locusts would be appreciated only by those who think the GB is perfectly OK in analyzing what the verses mean, they being Jesus' brothers & directed by him concerning the functions of the Church, etc."
My response: The governing body (the board of the Watchtower corporation) are the brothers of Jesus? Also, they claim direct communication with Jesus? Really? I find that to be truly questionable.
You wrote: "I say...what if they ARE, in fact, Jesus' brothers and are actually, in truth, taking orders from him (however they do that)?"
My response: Now I am getting the impression that you are not completely sure if they are or not the brothers of Jesus and taking orders from him. In life, just about anything is possible, however, when it comes to things being factual, one would need proof of all claims.
You wrote: "Then whatever they say about the locusts would be relevant, I would say. And the thing is....I believe that they are in fact running Jesus Christ's Church."
My response: So now a sentence later you suggest that you DO believe that they are running things as they claim. Hmmmm.
You wrote: "So I would accept what they say about the events symbolically portrayed in the Revelation."
My response: That makes me wonder........does this mean that you automatically would accept everything they utter as being the truth? If not, then how do you differentiate from when they are uttering as imperfect people and when they are uttering as brothers of Jesus being directly led by Jesus.?
You wrote: "(1) What was Jesus doing for 4 years? Basically what he's doing now. Overseeing the goings-on of his Church.
My response: Did Jesus ever miss a day or two? Also, let's say that in 1917 the organization had no problem celebrating certain holidays and Jesus was fully aware of it since he was "overseeing" all of the goings-on. Does it take years for the direct communication to be acquired from him or does he only check certain things?
You wrote: "(2) The abyssing of the locusts--seemed to them to jibe with the imprisoning of Rutherford & the others.
My response: When Jesus says something, we can quote him. As to other events and stories from the bible, instead of quoting those verbatim, some folks choose to go with impressions or how things "seem". "Seeming" comes from speculation.
You wrote: "They just observed: "Scripturally, 'the abyss' is a place of inactivity, even of death. (Compare Romans 10:7; Revelation 17:8: 20:1,3.) The small band of Jesus' brothers spent a short time in such an 'abyss' of relative inactivity at the end of the first world war (1918-19)."
My response: Surely you must be quoting a Watchtower publication there because it simply is not from the bible as I know it.
You wrote: "So, I guess they look at the events in Revelation and say, "Let's see, what could that be referring to?"
My response: Now you "guess"? Once again, a "guess" comes from that speculation stuff. I find it to be acceptable if when one does not or cannot come up with a factual explanation about things, to simply say the bible "doesn't specify such things" or "while the bible does not address this specifically, the Watchtower leadership has the OPINION that......"
You wrote: "So, my attitude is....can anybody come up with anything better? Probably not."
My response: I wouldn't use that line on Jesus if He was to ask me about it. :)
You wrote: "So, no one can say that they definitely are wrong. Conversely, no one can convince you or anyone else that they are right. I choose to think that they are, or, could be, on the right wave-length."
My response: I see a huge difference between "thinking" someone is right and that someone "could be" right and things actually being right.
You wrote: "The brothers were arrested and imprisoned due to clergy action against them, who, apparently, had schemed against them to get them out of the way (not liking being exposed for the frauds they were, just like the Pharisees in Jesus' day).
My response: Clergy action? Do you have some documentation or references for that outside of Watchtower publications? Also......you comment that the clergy did not like being "exposed for the frauds they were".......did someone tell you that stuff?
You wrote: "Right at this moment I can't recall what they were charged with, but the charges were dropped after a relatively short time."
My response: Somehow I doubt that you would be old enough to "recall" any of the facts of that time. Maybe you meant that you cannot recall what you had been taught about it. The charge was "sedition" and it was a Federal charge. As history has shown, the clergy would have been more likely to have filed papers in support of releasing or dropping charges.
You wrote: "I beg your patience. I am very very tired, having not slept since Thursday night. I'll have to further address your questions later.
My response: No worries, while I have lots of time, I also have tons of other things that I do with my time :)
You wrote: "So far I see that apparently Abaddon, or, the angel of the abyss, merely let the brothers OUT of the abyss, and did not put them in it. I'll scrutinize this more when I have a rested set of marbles."
My response: I would hope you do scrutinize it some more. I would also want to you think about when it was that Jesus fell......and when it was that Jesus became Abaddon.
You wrote: "What year did Rutherford become President of the WT Society? I believe it was 1916, but I'll have to double check. I think that was the year Brother Russell died."
My response: Yep......History is something that ought to be remembered :)
'Til next time
God Bless
Hi Sign....
ReplyDeleteYes, Jesus did say that he spoke only what the Father told him to speak.
"...Whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak." (John 12:50, King James Version)
"...I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things." (John 8:28, KJV)
To further comment about the clergy....I didn't have to have someone tell me about them. I have seen it for myself for years. I was a member of the Methodist Church and then the Southern Baptist churches, and then an assortment of fundamentalist non-denominational churches, so I learned alot in amongst them. And I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to be able to see the racket that clergy everywhere are running in this world. It's quite obvious to me, and has been for many years.
I work at the Post Office, and I see all sorts of journals and magazines going through. Many of them are religious, and I have read what the Catholic clergy, for example, say to their parishioners about Jehovah's Witnesses. They can't stand them, and tell their people to not listen to us, and shut their doors in our faces. Most religions can't stand us. It can be read in the news media. And I know first hand how much "born again" churches hate JWs. I was taught that JWs are demonic and the worst things out there. "Hatred" is a mild term to describe how evangelicals and others feel about us. So I don't doubt one bit that the clergy framed Rutherford and the others, to get them in trouble with the government.
Greetings Pam,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote: "Yes, Jesus did say that he spoke only what the Father told him to speak.
"...Whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak." (John 12:50, King James Version)
"...I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things." (John 8:28, KJV)
My response: Somehow we have gotten into the Trinity debate. Your comment above is only understandable if you could accept the fact that there is only one Alpha and Omega and since the Alpha and Omega is as powerful as He is, He can easily make a way to communicate with us in other ways than He did during the days of the Old Testament. I have the impression that you do not believe that God could actually do this.......and yet you easily believe that Jesus can be Michael AND Abaddon. How is it that Jesus can be three entities yet God cannot?
You wrote: "To further comment about the clergy....I didn't have to have someone tell me about them. I have seen it for myself for years."
My response: Seriously, Pam, I was expecting you to write that instead of acknowledging that you were not alive in 1918-19 and have no way of knowing firsthand of the events and their causes of that specific date. Even I was not around then, and I would not try to cite anything but news reports from unbiased publications. To get to the truth a person needs facts and not any sort of stereotypical impressions that one might come to from experiences which might come a half of century later.
You wrote: "I was a member of the Methodist Church and then the Southern Baptist churches, and then an assortment of fundamentalist non-denominational churches, so I learned alot in amongst them."
My response: I understand that most Witnesses are expatriates of other groups.........gee, the people still in those groups might even label you as being "apostate" :) I noticed that there are some groups that you were never a member of. I am delighted that you can say that you learned much from the groups that you had been a member of.
You wrote: "And I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to be able to see the racket that clergy everywhere are running in this world."
My response: I agree.......Judge Rutherford was not a rocket scientist.....hehehe. Seriously, what you might believe today has nothing to do with the actual reason that the "governing body" were arrested and held in the Federal Penitentiary in Atlanta. Once again, speculation is what I find that the Witnesses rely on for "truth".
You wrote: "It's quite obvious to me, and has been for many years."
My response: Of course you are entitled to your opinion......but that is all it is.....opinion.
You wrote: "I work at the Post Office, and I see all sorts of journals and magazines going through."
My response: Interesting.......it seems that many Witnesses have jobs within the government. I will try to remind myself not to get any impression or come to any particular opinion about the government based upon what some of their employees might say over the years :)
You wrote: "Many of them are religious, and I have read what the Catholic clergy, for example, say to their parishioners about Jehovah's Witnesses."
My response: I hope that you are not saying that you have been reading other people's mail. And if you have been, I cannot imagine why you would pick up a Catholic publication unless you were looking for something specific. I have been alive for 53 years now and have yet to actually see any Catholic publication that has anything to say about Jehovah's Witnesses other than mentioning them in praise of their door-to door efforts. Furthermore, I have never heard the Catholic clergy speak to its parishioners regarding Jehovah's Witnesses. Surely they do not do such a thing from the pulpit or altar. I really question your comment about this.
You wrote: "They can't stand them, and tell their people to not listen to us, and shut their doors in our faces."
My response: Pam, I almost do not have words to describe the comment above. Perhaps you have this notion because you are a Jehovah's Witness? Personally, I have not seen any such behavior.
You wrote: "Most religions can't stand us. It can be read in the news media."
My response: I would love to see an actual legitimate survey of this. How could it be that the Christian religion cannot stand Witnesses if the Witnesses are Christian? Could the same be said about Witnesses as well? Could I say that most Witnesses cannot stand most Christian religions? I do not see how you can say that the news media is something that you would use to support your idea that most religions cannot stand Witnesses. Sure, I have seen news reports about certain criminals that happen to be a Witness....I have seen news reports about the pedophile problem that has been rampant in your organization as well as many other organizations.......I have read the many articles about Kingdom Halls being built quickly by its members......I have read articles which are written to advertise the conventions that you hold each year.........but I have never read anything in a newspaper or other such media that would give me the impression that the media "can't stand" your group. I will say that sometimes you might read responses to articles that might be a bit hostile, but those are only comments to the articles.
You wrote: "And I know first hand how much "born again" churches hate JWs. I was taught that JWs are demonic and the worst things out there.
My response: I wouldn't know anything about that. Perhaps they have a view of Witnesses much like the Witnesses have a view of them. Surely, the Witness view is that the "born agains" are "apostates" and that they are essentially "dead" and that they are "not to be associated with" and that they are considered "enemies". I would disagree with both sides on this one.
You wrote: "Hatred" is a mild term to describe how evangelicals and others feel about us.
My response: It is interesting that you wrote this. Hasn't your group also been taught to "hate"? Of course it has.
You wrote: "So I don't doubt one bit that the clergy framed Rutherford and the others, to get them in trouble with the government."
My response: It appears that you have taken this a step farther to suggest that the only reason the government acted was because of the clergy. Could you honestly say that if it was to have occurred a year ago?...or even twenty years ago? Of course not. If what you suggest is true, then the government would have been influenced by the clergy to the extent that the Supreme Court would have ruled against your organization every time that the Watchtower lawyers presented a case. See how ridiculous this can get? One cannot have it both ways. Surely the clergy, if they have been as powerfully influencing as you suggest, would have managed to have your organization banished from our country. Furthermore, if the government was intent on the demise of your organization because of religious reasons, they would not have dropped any charge. You really might want to take a deeper look into this event and get to the truth about it. The charge against them was "sedition".
The Sedition Act of 1918 was an amendment to the Espionage Act of 1917 passed at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson, who was concerned that dissent, in time of war, was a significant threat to morale. The passing of this act forbade Americans to use "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" about the United States government, flag, or armed forces during war. The act also allowed the Postmaster General to deny mail delivery to dissenters of government policy during wartime.
Freedom of speech in the United States is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states in part: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or the press". The United States Supreme Court upheld the Sedition Act at the time it was in effect in Debs v. United States, but subsequent Supreme Court decisions (such as Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969) make it unlikely that a similar law would be considered constitutional today.
The Espionage Act made it a crime to help enemies of the United States, but the Sedition Act made it a crime to utter, print, write or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the United States' form of government.
Now pay attention to this particular tidbit of information.......
U.S. citizens, including members of the Industrial Workers of the World union, were also imprisoned during World War I for their anti-war dissent under the provisions of the Sedition Act. Anti-war protesters were arrested by the hundreds as speaking out against the draft and the war became illegal under this law.
So Pam, in light of what the facts are about 1918, is is safe for me to say that EVERYBODY who was arrested in 1918, should be seen as the locusts of Rev 9:11? The Watchtower would have you believe that their governing body was SINGLED out and were the only folks rounded up and thrown in the penitentiary. Can you cite me just one Watchtower publication that shows you that hundreds of other people were arrested?
Hi, Sign....
ReplyDeleteIs it always a "Trinity Debate" when we are discussing Scripture? Let's just analyse what the Scriptures are saying. You mention the Alpha & Omega. I believe that it is only Jehovah, the Father. There is no clear equating of this with Jesus. To really examine the couple of verses that speak of the Alpha & Omega, in context, it is possible to see that there is no reason to think of this as referring to any other but Jehovah.
I don't believe that Jesus is three entities. He is one person & he is the same person always....just, perhaps, with different assignments. Or simply with different names. One person with different names. No one objects that he is also called "Immanuel." He's called "Sprout" or "Twig" or "Branch" in one Scripture in Zechariah, and also "Shiloh" in Genesis (Zech.3:8; Genesis 49:10) But call him "Michael" and everyone gets into a snit. I don't get it.
Now why are you so certain that I am wrong about the reasons for Rutherford's incarceration? What are your sources?
The things I said about Catholics and their intolerance of JWs reflect the views I've had for many years, and I base my views on things I've read or experienced. Yes, I did read someone's mail. I always look at religious publications that come through...the outside cover...to see if there is anything interesting being written. If I see something on the outside about JWs, I just can't resist carefully leafing through to the article.
I took notes on that article (but don't know where they are), and it told its readers to do exactly what I said before. I have called at the office of a big Catholic church in my assigned territory, and the woman who answered the door did not want to talk to us at all. The door was quickly shut.
We are Christian, but many if not most other self-proclaimed Christian religions do not consider us so. We do not consider these other religions Christian. And yes, you could say that we really can't stand those other religions. May I say, though, that it's not the people we can't stand, it's the religion. There's a big difference. That's why we're out there trying to help people see the truth.
How many news reports have you seen about "the pedophile problem" in our organiztion? I have seen maybe three. One of them was on a Dateline show a few years back, and I almost laughed. It was pathetic. It showed no such "problem" within the organization. But it did show a definite bias against us. The other 2 things I read referred to the same people that were involved in the Dateline show.
No, we do not consider "born-agains" and other faiths to be Apostate. Apostates are those who have taken the vow of obedience to Jehovah and His Son AND the organization they are using on earth today....and then these people decide they don't want to be obedient to the direction any more. They either want personal prominence, or they want to commit fornication, or they want to join the military, or any number of things that we believe the Bible teaches against, and they are either disfellowshipped or they disassociate themselves, as Michael Jackson did. No, we don't shun others besides these. I talk to many "born-agains" and Catholics and Orthodox and Kabbala-ists and Mormons and whoever will talk.
We are taught to "hate what is bad, and love what is good." (Ps. 97:10) We hate the insidious religious doctrines that are taught to unsuspecting people, just like my family was taught as I was growing up. We want to show people that the Bible really doesn't teach God-dishonoring doctrines such as they have been taught.
We would not ignore or turn away from someone of another religion, but others do just that when they find out someone is a JW. I was talking to a Mormon in the store one day. He was pretty gabby until I told him I was a JW. From that instant on he acted as if I wasn't standing there. Completely ignored me. I would've loved to continue our discussion.
The clergy have tried to get out organization banned, from many countries. But Jehovah wouldn't allow it. "No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD [YHWH]..." (Isaiah 54:17, KJV)
I know the charge was "sedition." The same charge that was levelled at Jesus. JWs were accused of all those things that "sedition" means, even though the brothers were not guilty of it. No brother would treat even the flag profanely or abusively. Yet they were accused of having such views. No, JWs held--and still do--the view that we are neutral in matters of the government, including the flag, and we would not denigrate it but would show respect without actually pledging any allegiance to it. This is not good enough for many people.
About the locusts....No, I wouldn't say that everybody that spoke out against the Great War and those that were arrested would be considered the locusts of Rev.9:11. Rev.9:11 is referring to those who spoke religious truth, trying to point people towards the true God, Jehovah. Those others who spoke out, right though they were concerning war in general, are to be commended, but JWs wouldn't take it as far as to demonstrate against the government. We speak Bible truth and speak of God's own government--which worldly governments don't like at all, just like Herod didn't like the fact that a King had been born during his reign. God's government was threatening his own. We don't direct our anti-worldly-gov't. message against any one government. We include ALL governments in the world. So we have to remain neutral within whatever country we happen to be living in.
There were many more people that were arrested during war-time, WWII included, and they were even tarred and feathered, right here in the U.S. I'd have to do some research to find all the references to these instances.
I appreciate your postings, Sign. Not many take the time to reason together with JWs. (Isaiah 1:18)
Have a good day (or evening, whichever the case may be).
Pam
Hello again Pam Tolliver,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote: "Is it always a "Trinity Debate" when we are discussing Scripture?"
My response: Having many years under my belt conversing with people who happen to be Jehovah's Witnesses, yes, it certainly always come down to that. In my honest opinion, I have found that all of the other issues actually need to be resolved first before ever getting to any "Trinity" discussions.
You wrote: "Let's just analyse what the Scriptures are saying. You mention the Alpha & Omega. I believe that it is only Jehovah, the Father. There is no clear equating of this with Jesus."
My response: I would say that there is a great chance that it would not be clear for anyone that would rely on the NWT as the bottom line for clarity. Obviously the translation that the JWs use is very "different" from the rest. :)
You wrote: "To really examine the couple of verses that speak of the Alpha & Omega, in context, it is possible to see that there is no reason to think of this as referring to any other but Jehovah."
My response: The Book Of Revelation and Isaiah are both rather clear as to the issue. I must ask you WHO is coming? .......and why would Jesus say that He is the First and The Last?........was he lying about it?
You wrote: "I don't believe that Jesus is three entities. He is one person & he is the same person always....just, perhaps, with different assignments. Or simply with different names. One person with different names."
My response: One person with different names?....hmmm.....is an angel a "person"?......how about a fallen angel?......would that be a "person"?
You wrote: "No one objects that he is also called "Immanuel." He's called "Sprout" or "Twig" or "Branch" in one Scripture in Zechariah, and also "Shiloh" in Genesis (Zech.3:8; Genesis 49:10) But call him "Michael" and everyone gets into a snit. I don't get it."
My response: See Above.......once again. Often names are given people to describe them......you might be Pam, but your parents may have referred to you as "Sparky" or "Honey"......these are nicknames that are descriptive. Suggesting that Jesus is also Michael is over the top. Nowhere in the bible is Jesus called "Michael".
You wrote: "Now why are you so certain that I am wrong about the reasons for Rutherford's incarceration? What are your sources?"
My response: History shows us all that sometimes history itself falls prey to revisionism. It is obvious that the Watchtower provides you with a slanted view of their history......I cannot blame them. But to call themselves the "truth" while not providing all of the facts.....well.....it is like watching those political spin doctors on television.......mostly half-truths and never the entire story. The charge was "sedition". Is there a Watchtower publication that mentioned the charge of sedition? If there is or was, I have never seen it. What I have seen and read, though, have come from non-religious sources. There are all sorts of archives of various newspaper reports about that incident. You obviously appear to have the ability to research stuff, as you have regarding Mt Sinai.....I am sure you know how to access it.
You wrote: "The things I said about Catholics and their intolerance of JWs reflect the views I've had for many years, and I base my views on things I've read or experienced."
My response: I would bet that you have read more stuff that the Watchtower has published regarding Catholics than you have read published by the Catholic Church. I would also bet, from what have have already told me about yourself, that your "experience" would also be minimal regarding Catholicism. But I understand that just about everybody gets stereotyped in some fashion, one way or another.
You wrote: "Yes, I did read someone's mail."
My response: I cannot reconcile that kind of thing.......it makes me wonder about my mail. :)
You wrote: "I always look at religious publications that come through...the outside cover...to see if there is anything interesting being written."
My response: Hopefully, all of what is written in any religious publication, is interesting.
You wrote: "If I see something on the outside about JWs, I just can't resist carefully leafing through to the article."
My response: So you really actually are looking for stuff that is written about the JWs? I hope that is not all that interests you :)
You wrote: "I took notes on that article (but don't know where they are), and it told its readers to do exactly what I said before."
My response: I have never taken notes like that. I really doubt that an article such as you described....was an official statement by the Vatican. If it was, then I would say that I find it odd that it would be only one such kind of article. I would think it would be repeated as often as possible given the alleged "hatred" and how much they allegedly "despise" JWs. Personally, I have never seen such an article, but I have seen tons of stuff printed by your organization about Catholics and they are never positive in any way. I am sure you would agree that if all you are subjected to was negative articles about a group, you might get a somewhat terrible opinion of that group.
You wrote: "I have called at the office of a big Catholic church in my assigned territory, and the woman who answered the door did not want to talk to us at all. The door was quickly shut."
My response: This story seems to be legendary......I have heard the very same thing several times from only JWs. I have never heard such from anyone else. I can safely say that, without one doubt, if you called at the office at "my" Church, you would most likely get someone to answer the door who happens to be a secretary or even a volunteer of some sort. I have never heard or seen anyone turned away from the door. Many homeless and hungry people come to that door as well. As you know, the Catholic Church has huge efforts to help their community. In fact, I have called several local Kingdom Halls and asked them where they would send someone for help or food if a hungry person or a homeless person was to knock on a Kingdom Hall door. The resounding answer was "there are government programs" and "we would refer them to Catholic Charities". I cannot explain this, it is what they said from their own mouths. Unfortunately, I have been told by a few JWs that "it must not be true" and that I must be only "saying this to make them look bad". Hmmmmmmm. I would tell you this.........if I got wind that MY church turns anyone away or refuses to speak with someone, they would get an earful from me.
You wrote: "We are Christian, but many if not most other self-proclaimed Christian religions do not consider us so."
My response: The majority do not consider your organization as Christian........that is correct.
You wrote: "We do not consider these other religions Christian."
My response: That is correct. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that you have to be a Witness to be a Christian. Seems to me that the name Christian implies that you follow Christ alone. Your organization obviously does not. :)
You wrote: "And yes, you could say that we really can't stand those other religions."
My response: I knew that :)
You wrote: "May I say, though, that it's not the people we can't stand, it's the religion. There's a big difference."
My response: Hmmmm....then again there is that little Watchtower policy regarding guilt via "bad association". Yeah, there is a big difference. I would even go as far to say that JWs will associate with people of other denominations up until "those ones" are deemed "unteachable". :)
You wrote: "That's why we're out there trying to help people see the truth."
My response: Oh really?.....then explain the JW woman that I saw on Halloween :) Surely, she wasn't thinking such.
You wrote: "How many news reports have you seen about "the pedophile problem" in our organiztion? I have seen maybe three."
My response: Quite a few, actually. If you have only seen three, you must be referring to only television reports. Not all of those television news reports go national and they remain local, however there are ways to avail yourself of ALL of the reports regarding the "pedophile" problems in your organization. One such way is to visit www.silentlambs.org .
You wrote: One of them was on a Dateline show a few years back, and I almost laughed. It was pathetic."
My response: Dateline has had at least two reports about it. CNN has had at least one big story, and 20/20 has had a report. All of these were aired nationwide. If you saw the story hosted by Connie Chung a few years back, I would agree that it was laughable......but only because she is a lousy interviewer and never asks the right questions. The report though, was very serious. Child abuse is no laughing matter however the story is delivered.
You wrote: "It showed no such "problem" within the organization. But it did show a definite bias against us. The other 2 things I read referred to the same people that were involved in the Dateline show."
My response: I have a differing impression. Maybe you are sensing the kind of feelings a Catholic might have when they read a little news tidbit in a Watchtower publication about nuns being force to lick floors clean as punishment.
You wrote: "No, we do not consider "born-agains" and other faiths to be Apostate. Apostates are those who have taken the vow of obedience to Jehovah and His Son AND the organization they are using on earth today....and then these people decide they don't want to be obedient to the direction any more."
My response: Huh? Say what? Let me get this straight...........you are saying that the name "apostate" only applies to people that leave YOUR organization?
You wrote: "They either want personal prominence, or they want to commit fornication, or they want to join the military, or any number of things that we believe the Bible teaches against, and they are either disfellowshipped or they disassociate themselves, as Michael Jackson did. No, we don't shun others besides these."
My response: Hmmmmmm........you don't shun "those ones" who are "bad association"?
You wrote: "I talk to many "born-agains" and Catholics and Orthodox and Kabbala-ists and Mormons and whoever will talk."
My response: Of course you do.......but I bet you wouldn't caught dead hanging out at the bingo hall with a group of Catholic women............oh no.......the elders would not like that at all, would they......hehehe. :)
You wrote: "We are taught to "hate what is bad, and love what is good." (Ps. 97:10)
My response: Of course that depends on the Society's definition of what is good and what is bad, correct?
You wrote: "We hate the insidious religious doctrines that are taught to unsuspecting people......"
My response: I do too......that's why I always have discussions with people that show up, oddly enough, on Halloween :)
You wrote: ".....just like my family was taught as I was growing up. We want to show people that the Bible really doesn't teach God-dishonoring doctrines such as they have been taught."
My response: Nobody should want to dishonor God, that is why a person needs to be careful of what is being taught to them.
You wrote: "We would not ignore or turn away from someone of another religion, but others do just that when they find out someone is a JW."
My response: Surely you know that there are indeed many JWs, especially online, that DO, in fact, ignore and turn away from others of another denomination. And I know full well that there are many folks who claim to be Christians, that also do the very same thing. I would say that those kind of people are morons.
You wrote: "I was talking to a Mormon in the store one day. He was pretty gabby until I told him I was a JW. From that instant on he acted as if I wasn't standing there. Completely ignored me. I would've loved to continue our discussion.
My response: I would have loved to see that discussion..........you telling him about Abaddon and the Mormon telling you about the holy underwear and the planet Moroni....hehehe.....then again........wasn't it the Watchtower that once taught that God lives on Alcyone in the Pleaides star system of things? :)
You wrote: "The clergy have tried to get out organization banned, from many countries."
My response: There you go again.......you have them all stereotyped as doing the same thing. The reality is that NOT ALL have done this because it would happen to them as well. That is the bottom line, Pam. You might want to start saying "SOME clergy have tried......"
You wrote: "But Jehovah wouldn't allow it. "No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD [YHWH]..." (Isaiah 54:17, KJV)
My response: Hmmmmm.......Jehovah wouldn't allow it, eh? Do you suppose Jehovah had to convince the authorities of the government to let them go? Maybe Jehovah sent a direct communication to them. Maybe Jehovah didn't need to act at all and the authorities simply saw that they really had no case.
You wrote : "I know the charge was "sedition." The same charge that was levelled at Jesus."
My response: Jesus was an entirely different situation and is not a valid comparision, in my honest opinion........unless you want to suggest that the governing body members were claiming to be God :)
You wrote: "JWs were accused of all those things that "sedition" means, even though the brothers were not guilty of it."
My response: Was there a trial where they were found "not guilty"?
You wrote: "No brother would treat even the flag profanely or abusively. Yet they were accused of having such views.
My response: Huh? They were accused of improper treatment of the flag?......huh? Where did you get that from?
You wrote: "No, JWs held--and still do--the view that we are neutral in matters of the government, including the flag, and we would not denigrate it but would show respect without actually pledging any allegiance to it. This is not good enough for many people."
My response: Oh, I have seen Venus and Serena Williams with the flag and they weren't abusing it or denigrating it at the Olympics........I believe you about this. Regarding being "neutral", I would disagree with you. Historical facts show otherwise. There have been times when the Watchtower Society, via its leadership, found it in their interests to do otherwise. An example of this is their association with the U.N. for about ten years and there was that nice letter that Rutherford sent to Hitler back during the war where he wrote that Germany and the Society shared a common enemy. You gotta check into that history :)
You wrote: "About the locusts....No, I wouldn't say that everybody that spoke out against the Great War and those that were arrested would be considered the locusts of Rev.9:11. Rev.9:11 is referring to those who spoke religious truth, trying to point people towards the true God, Jehovah."
My response: Hmmmmmm, yet the bible, regardless of which translation you use, says nothing even resembling that. That statement is complete and pure speculation and is simply not written in the bible.
You wrote: "Those others who spoke out, right though they were concerning war in general, are to be commended, but JWs wouldn't take it as far as to demonstrate against the government."
My response: I suppose it would have been really, really, bad if they had tossed and turned over a few tables like Jesus did, eh? :)
You wrote: "We speak Bible truth and speak of God's own government--which worldly governments don't like at all, just like Herod didn't like the fact that a King had been born during his reign."
My response: Apparently JWs speak alot of speculation as truth. To be honest with ya, I wouldn't like that very much either. I doubt that many governments care what JWs have to say.....with exception of a few. You still are commanded to render unto Caesar........:)
You wrote: "God's government was threatening his own."
My response: Yep......I would bet that God is seen as a threat by many........so much that people still crucify Him.
You wrote: "We don't direct our anti-worldly-gov't. message against any one government. We include ALL governments in the world. So we have to remain neutral within whatever country we happen to be living in."
My response: Once again, I understand that you have been led to really believe that, but it simply is NOT reality. I could list all of the evidence that shows you otherwise, but you could easily find it yourself as I have, via the internet.
You wrote: "There were many more people that were arrested during war-time, WWII included, and they were even tarred and feathered, right here in the U.S. I'd have to do some research to find all the references to these instances."
My response: Yes there were many others. I simply want Watchtower publication references though :)
You wrote: "I appreciate your postings, Sign."
My response: Well, thank you! I know there alot of other people that appreciate them too :)
You wrote: "Not many take the time to reason together with JWs. (Isaiah 1:18)"
My response: Let's face it.......not many people take time for important stuff.......and all my stuff is important :)
Hmmmmm........I am looking at the words you wrote...."reason together with JWs"..........personally I would not call it "reasoning".....I would say that not many people share the truth with JWs :).....but I will let you say it is "reasoning" ......hehehe.
You wrote: "Have a good day (or evening, whichever the case may be)."
My response: Well, I am writing this at 1:26 AM on the night before Thanksgiving. I am presently on vacation in Florida. Likewise, here is hoping that you have a great Thanksgiving holiday with you and yours :)
High Sign....I mean, Hi, Sign! I keep wanting to write High Five....
ReplyDeleteI don't know why. :)
I printed out your post, and I'll address one point before I have to go in for work.
You aren't happy with the NWT, so I'll examine solely the King James and the New International Version.
With regard to Alpha & Omega.......
The King James (Red Letter Edition)at Revelation 1:8 has the verse in black type--not the words of Jesus. Therefore we can safely say that this verse refers to God, the Father. The same can also be said of Rev. 21:6.
At Rev. 22:13 the KJV becomes inconsistent. Why they attribute this to Jesus is probably because verse 12 says, "Behold, I come quickly." But these words had applied to Jehovah in other Scriptures (see Isaiah 26:21 and also Malachi 3:1-6).
The number of persons speaking in this chapter is multiple, and sometimes it's tricky to actually discern who is speaking, particularly in verse 13. It could be someone other than Jesus, and I believe it is. In verses 8 & 9 it is the angel that spoke to John. In verse 16 it is obviously Jesus. The first part of 17 is the Spirit and the bride, and in verse 20 it is John (latter part of verse). So, to be consistent, and use reasonable deduction, verse 13 alludes to the Father, Almighty God, Jehovah.
I will peruse your post at work and try to answer tonight when I get home, if I have any energy left. ;)
Have a pleasant evening.
Pam
Sign...
ReplyDeleteWhat part of Florida are you visiting? I used to live in Tallahassee, then Melbourne, then Miami. My ex-husband had a nice place in Largo.
I'll address a point or two before I go down and put some spaghetti in the water that I'm waiting to boil.
I call an angel a "person" as I do God and Jesus. It probably would be more accurate to say "personage" but I usually say "person" to denote an individual with feelings & SOME kind of body. I'm still looking into the fallen angel thing. I'm not well & I haven't been to meetings in a while. I usually tie in on the phone line. I haven't forgotten the question.
You yourself presented good reasons for thinking of Jesus as being Michael also. "Michael" means "Who is like God?" An apt name for God's Son who always looked for his Father's glory and elevation.
I'll be back after I eat dinner & watch a couple episodes of Gunsmoke.
Pam
Sign....
ReplyDeleteYou asked, "Is there a Watchtower publication that mentioned the charge of sedition?"
Yes. "Revelation/Its Grand Climax At Hand," pages 167 & 168. The charges are discussed in some detail in the book "Jehovah's Witnesses Proclaimers of God's Kingdom," also. It says: "The first indictment...included 4 counts: Two charged them with conspiring to violate the Espionage Act of June 15, 1917; and two counts charged them with attempting to carry out their illegal plans or actually doing so. It was alleged that they were conspiring to cause insubordination and refusal of duty in the armed forces of the United States and that they were conspiring to obstruct the recruiting and enlisting of men for such service when the nation was at war, also that they had attempted to do so or had actually done both of these things. The indictment made particular mention of publication and distribution of the book 'The Finished Mystery.' The second indictment construed the sending of a check to Europe (which was to be used in the work of Bible education in Germany) to be inimical to the interests of the United States. When the defendants were taken to court, it was the first indictment, the one with 4 counts, that was pursued."
You surmised that my experience with Catholicism would be minimal. Not really. I was married to two baptized Catholics. The middle one (the one who lived in Largo) had a big family, and his parents were devout Catholics. I was intimately exposed to Catholicism for almost 10 years. When I got serious about Jehovah's Witnesses, his family expressed a variety of feelings, from finding it ridiculous to not speaking to me for years.
I'm sorry about the mail thing. We aren't supposed to read mail, but sometimes the magazines are just so interesting, and they're already open (not sealed)! I try not to open them up. But as I said, when there's an article on JWs I can't help myself. I really wouldn't mind if someone read my magazines, as long as they were careful. But anyway, I know I'm still wrong for doing that. I'll try harder to do what our boss said....get the address and send for the magazine. (That also involves opening up to the first one or two pages!)
The article I mentioned was not written by the Vatican. It was a local church in whatever city it was in.
I can't imagine any brother turning away anyone who was looking for help. I'm sorry, I just can't see that. You said the brothers would send them to "gov't programs" or "Catholic Charities"? Not the brothers I know.
You referred to the "silent lambs" web site. That literally turns my stomache. I went there before that former JW was disfellowshipped, after I saw him on Dateline or one of those shows. Some of the things he said I knew from personal experience were not true. He was telling the guy on Dateline that JWs are taught that people like him were the devil! I know this is not so! He said something else too that I knew was a lie, but I can't recall what it was. He's a typical apostate....lying through his teeth. I don't believe a word he says on that website. You can believe what you want. I will not believe this guy.
Yes, you are right. We call only people who have left the organization "apostates." They have known the Truth, they have vowed to Jehovah that they would serve Him and support His earthly organization, and then they go back on their vow. Not very admirable, wouldn't you say? Why take the vow in the first place? No one forced them to.
And no, we don't "shun" even "bad association." Shunning refers to not even giving a greeting to a person (2 John 10,11). That involves disfellowshipped people. We speak to someone we might consider bad association, but we just wouldn't want to hang out with them, you know, be close buddies.
The reason I wouldn't be caught dead in a bingo hall is that I wouldn't WANT to go there myself! I can't stand bingo & never have.
And I look at what is "good" and "bad" based on what the Bible says is good or bad.
You mentioned the JWs who are online. Probably on Beliefnet, on the JW boards? I don't go on those boards. I find JWs there are like kids...they're largely immature and naive. And there are so many apostates on those boards that it's ridiculous. I tried to warn other JWs about them, but really to no avail. I just don't go there anymore.
I haven't heard the one about God living on Alcyone in the Plaeides star system!
Yes, SOME clergy have tried to get JWs banned, in many countries. The Orthodox are particularly vigorous at this. In Greece they are very influential, as they are in the Balkan countries and other places. The Orthodox church is the state religion in Greece and some other countries, is it not?
Well, I'm tired and I think I'll hit the hay. I'll finish answering your post, hopefully, tomorrow (Sunday).
Pam
Sign....
ReplyDeleteYou said that the brothers being charged with sedition was different than Jesus' situation. I disagree. The Gov. Body members weren't claiming to be God and neither was Jesus. They were in exactly the same situation--accused of saying something they really didn't say or of presenting themselves as something they really didn't present themselves as.
You asked, "Was there a trial where they were found 'not guilty'? "The case went to trial on June 5 (1918), with Isaac R. Oeland and Charles J. Buchner, a Roman Catholic, as prosecutors. During the trial, as Bro. Rutherford observed, Catholic priests frequently conferred with Buchner and Oeland. As the case proceeded, it was shown that the officers of the Society and the compilers of the book had no intent to interfere with the country's war effort. Evidence presented during the trial showed that plans for the writing of the book--indeed, the writing of most of the manuscript--had occurred before the U.S. declared war (on April 6, 1917) and that the original contract for publication had been signed before the U.S. had passed the law (on June 15) that they were said to have violated. The prosecution highlighted additions to the book made during April and June of 1917, in the course of processing the copy and reading the proofs. These included a quotation from John Haynes Holmes, a clergyman who had forcefully declared that the war was a violation of Christianity. As indicated by one of the defense attorneys, that clergyman's comments, published under the title 'A Statement to My People on the Eve of War,' was still on sale in the U.S. at the time of the trial. Neither the clergyman nor the publisher was on trial for it. But it was the Bible Students who referred to his sermon who were held liable for the sentiments expressed in it. The book did not tell men of the world that they had no right to engage in war. But, in explanation of prophecy, it did quote excerpts from issues of 'The Watch Tower' of 1915 to show the inconsistency of clergymen who professed to be ministers of Christ but who were acting as recruiting agents for nations at war. When it had been learned that the gov't objected to the book, Bro. Rutherford had immediately sent a telegram to the printer to stop producing it...[and] the Society directed that all public distribution of the book be suspended.
"Regardless of all of this, on June 20, 1918, the jury returned a verdict finding each of the defendants guilty on each count of the indictment....The decision was immediately appealed to the U.S. circuit court of appeals...and on July 4...the first seven brothers were hastily moved to the federal penitentiary in Atlanta, Ga....Nine months after Rutherford and his associates were sentenced--and with the war past--on March 21, 1919, the appeals court ordered bail for all 8 defendants....On may 14 the U.S. circuit court of appeals in New York ruled: 'The defendants in this case did not have the temperate and impartial trial to which they were entitled, and for that reason the judgment is reversed.' The case was remanded for a new trial. However, on May 5, 1920, after the defendants had appeared in court, on call, five times, the gov't's attorney, in open court in Brooklyn, announced withdrawal of the prosecution." ("Jehovah's Witnesses Proclaimers of God's Kingdom," pages 652-654.)
My comments on the flag were in response, I think, to your definition of sedition (or maybe I looked up the definition). Disrespect for the flag was mentioned in the definition.
I read Rutherford's letter to Hitler. In fact, I think I have it amongst my things here somewhere. I look at his words as having a very different goal than what you see.
You talk of "complete and pure speculation" and I respect your point. I personally strongly feel that the brothers, looking back on history, have undoubtedly correctly interpreted what happened in association with the locusts of Revelation. It is your prerogative to feel otherwise. :)
You said, "You still are commanded to render unto Caesar." And we do, as long as it doesn't conflict with what God wants.
Watchtower publication references for the tarring and feathering of JWs might be in the 1975 Yearbook. When I get done here I'll see if I can access it on my CD-Rom.
Have a pleasant day.
Pam
Hello Pam,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote: "High Sign....I mean, Hi, Sign! I keep wanting to write High Five....
I don't know why. :)"
My response: Sometimes people have strange little things that they do without knowing exactly why they do them. Maybe its some sort of Freudian thing.
You wrote: "I printed out your post, and I'll address one point before I have to go in for work."
My response: Work?......hehehe.
You wrote: "You aren't happy with the NWT, so I'll examine solely the King James and the New International Version."
My response: Somehow I didn't think you would be examining the Nowy Testament, Pana Naszego Jezusa Chrystusa, Na Polski, from the Amerykanskie Towarzystwo Bible 1912......hehehe.
You wrote: "With regard to Alpha & Omega.......The King James (Red Letter Edition)at Revelation 1:8 has the verse in black type--not the words of Jesus. Therefore we can safely say that this verse refers to God, the Father. The same can also be said of Rev. 21:6."
My response: I find it interesting that a Jehovah's Witness would trust at all the translators of the Red Letter Edition.
You wrote: "At Rev. 22:13 the KJV becomes inconsistent. Why they attribute this to Jesus is probably because verse 12 says, "Behold, I come quickly." But these words had applied to Jehovah in other Scriptures (see Isaiah 26:21 and also Malachi 3:1-6)."
My response: Ahhhhhh, now those folks who put out that Red Letter Edition are "inconsistent"....hmmmmm.....well, if you believed as they do about Jesus you would have no problem understanding that Jesus spoke what he spoke and He did say "Behold, I come quickly". Was He lying? You do agree that it was Jesus who said that, correct?
You wrote: "The number of persons speaking in this chapter is multiple, and sometimes it's tricky to actually discern who is speaking, particularly in verse 13. It could be someone other than Jesus, and I believe it is."
My response: Once again I must point out to you that you used that "could be" term again regarding your beliefs. This suggests that something else "could be" the truth, too. When in doubt, you cannot make the call.......it would be better to simply not use the specific thing for support. "Could be" is way to nebulous.
You wrote: "In verses 8 & 9 it is the angel that spoke to John. In verse 16 it is obviously Jesus. The first part of 17 is the Spirit and the bride, and in verse 20 it is John (latter part of verse). So, to be consistent, and use reasonable deduction, verse 13 alludes to the Father, Almighty God, Jehovah.
My response: Hmmmm.....process of elimination?.....that isn't the best logic now is it?
You wrote: "I will peruse your post at work and try to answer tonight when I get home, if I have any energy left. ;)
My response: Take your time and think things through, I have all of the time in the world :)
Hello Pam,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote: "What part of Florida are you visiting? I used to live in Tallahassee, then Melbourne, then Miami. My ex-husband had a nice place in Largo."
My response: The week in Florida is over now. We spent a week in Kissimmee for Thanksgiving. This was not the first visit to Florida for us.....I resided in Fort Lauderdale......and Merritt Island.....and Titusville.......and Leesburg........and Daytona Beach........many moons ago.
You wrote: "I'll address a point or two before I go down and put some spaghetti in the water that I'm waiting to boil."
My response: Okay.........hopefully you have some sauce for those noodles.....heheheh.
You wrote: "I call an angel a "person" as I do God and Jesus. It probably would be more accurate to say "personage" but I usually say "person" to denote an individual with feelings & SOME kind of body."
My response: Interesting.......personally I prefer to use the term "entity". An entity can be anything. A "person". for me, is human.
You wrote: "I'm still looking into the fallen angel thing."
My response: That is a good thing.....keep looking at that.
You wrote: "I'm not well & I haven't been to meetings in a while."
My response: Sorry to hear that you are not well. Let me ask you this.....if you haven't been to the meetings in a while, how is it that you still "go to work" as you very recently have mentioned?
You wrote: "I usually tie in on the phone line. I haven't forgotten the question."
My response: Interesting that you mention the phone line access to those meetings. It sure seems as though those meetings are a required thing........I mean.....as if you will have to take a test at some point. I really do doubt that the issue of Abaddon would be one that elders at the Kingdom Hall would delight at discussing to everyone in attendance. As I stated before, the issue of Abaddon is something that at least 99% of all Witnesses do not appear to know about. And certainly, without question, I have yet to encounter a Witness at my door who has any knowledge about this "minor detail", as it has been called.
You wrote" You yourself presented good reasons for thinking of Jesus as being Michael also."
My response: Somehow, I do not think that I have.
You wrote: ""Michael" means "Who is like God?" An apt name for God's Son who always looked for his Father's glory and elevation."
My response: I only mentioned that Witnesses believe that Jesus is also Michael, along with being Abaddon. Some might even call that an "unholy trinity of a sort". Now regarding the view that the meaning of the name Michael somehow implies that Michael is Jesus.......Firstly, the words "Who is like God?", is in the form of a question and should not be seen as otherwise. It is a question that does not give an answer. Secondly, anything beyond that is again, speculation. That question asks WHO.....is "like" God? It doesn't say "the one who is like God".....it doesn't even say "the one who is Jesus". I have no idea how people could use this question to support the notion that Jesus is somehow Michael. But let's say for the sake of argument, that you were correct in your form of logic for believing such a thing. Using that same logic, you should be believing exactly as the Jews did.......that Jesus said things that definately implied that He and God are the same entity. When Jesus said "Behold, I AM coming quickly", the Jews knew what He was saying.......they also knew full well, that God said that God was coming quickly. It all boils down to one thing.......did Jesus lie?
You wrote: "I'll be back after I eat dinner & watch a couple episodes of Gunsmoke."
My response: Okay....take your time.........isn't it ironic that you watch people with guns on tv.....hehehe.
Hi Pam,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote: "You asked, "Is there a Watchtower publication that mentioned the charge of sedition?"
Yes. "Revelation/Its Grand Climax At Hand," pages 167 & 168. The charges are discussed in some detail in the book "Jehovah's Witnesses Proclaimers of God's Kingdom," also. It says: "The first indictment...included 4 counts: Two charged them with conspiring to violate the Espionage Act of June 15, 1917; and two counts charged them with attempting to carry out their illegal plans or actually doing so. It was alleged that they were conspiring to cause insubordination and refusal of duty in the armed forces of the United States and that they were conspiring to obstruct the recruiting and enlisting of men for such service when the nation was at war, also that they had attempted to do so or had actually done both of these things. The indictment made particular mention of publication and distribution of the book 'The Finished Mystery.' The second indictment construed the sending of a check to Europe (which was to be used in the work of Bible education in Germany) to be inimical to the interests of the United States. When the defendants were taken to court, it was the first indictment, the one with 4 counts, that was pursued.""
My response: Very good, Pam......you have done some homework.....hehehe. I notice that your references do not mention a few other things regarding the issue. One of those things is regarding the clergy conspiring with the Feds to get the Watchtower leadership thrown in jail.......unless, of course, they had no outside neutral sources to cite in support of that belief. Also, there doesn't seem to be any mention of how the governing body members proceeded during this time. What were their actions? Did they have a plan of defense? Did they have any friends in government? Did they cease distribution and publishing of any particular stuff to appease the government?
You wrote: "You surmised that my experience with Catholicism would be minimal. Not really. I was married to two baptized Catholics. The middle one (the one who lived in Largo) had a big family, and his parents were devout Catholics. I was intimately exposed to Catholicism for almost 10 years. When I got serious about Jehovah's Witnesses, his family expressed a variety of feelings, from finding it ridiculous to not speaking to me for years."
My response: I cannot really comment on your personal experiences, except by countering with my own personal experiences. Having had Witnesses as part of the family for over thirty years, it has been my experience that they always showed up during holidays such as Christmas even though they claimed to not celebrate the event. They were more than happy to reap the benefits of the holidays. Sure, they accepted and opened gifts given to them. They enjoyed the various decorations, etc. It is also my experience that they would conveniently "associate" with non-witness members of the family when it was most beneficial for them........the rest of the time it was like we did not exist. They never got help, if needed, from their so-called "brothers and sisters in the truth" but they got whatever help from the Christians in the family. My moron-in-law told me he could not attend my wedding because of his beliefs. My wedding was at City Hall.....imagine that. That same moron-in-law had the gall to proselytize to a cousin of mine while standing in front of my father's casket! He knew full well what my father thought about the Watchtower.........I have never experienced anything more disrespectful than that one act. Our family has seen the shunning......has seen the abuse of a JW father and husband towards his own family.......we have seen how a witness would not have anything to do with his own mother because she is no longer a Witness........she is a grandmother who will never know her grandchildren because she chose to leave the Watchtower fold and become a Christian. I would be foolish to judge all Witnesses based upon those that have been in my family......but when I hear thousands of such reports from other people.....well.....you have to figure that this behavior is the norm. As to the Catholic people in your own personal experience......should I use the Witness line of "they are imperfect humans"? As a Catholic, I would say that probably a large portion of Catholics are morons. I never once ever believed that just being a Catholic made you better than anyone else. Consider that John Kerry and Ted Kennedy are both alleged to be devout Catholics and yet I view them as despicable people. The difference between your interaction with Catholic family members and my interaction with Witness family members may be that the Witness behavior is encouraged and taught to them. I have never been taught to do as they have done. Perhaps those Catholics in your family behaved the way they did is because they were simply not good people and it had nothing really to do with the religion. I am sure, though, that you can respond that you have heard from others as well that were mistreated or ill-treated by Catholics. That would not surprise me one bit given the huge numbers of Catholics on the planet.
You wrote: "I'm sorry about the mail thing. We aren't supposed to read mail, but sometimes the magazines are just so interesting, and they're already open (not sealed)! I try not to open them up. But as I said, when there's an article on JWs I can't help myself. I really wouldn't mind if someone read my magazines, as long as they were careful. But anyway, I know I'm still wrong for doing that. I'll try harder to do what our boss said....get the address and send for the magazine. (That also involves opening up to the first one or two pages!)
My response: You never know what you might be reading :)
You wrote: "The article I mentioned was not written by the Vatican. It was a local church in whatever city it was in."
My response: I figured that. Unless it is written from the Vatican, you cannot qualify it as official policy or instruction. Same as you would view articles not produced by the Watchtower.
You wrote: "I can't imagine any brother turning away anyone who was looking for help. I'm sorry, I just can't see that."
My response: I actually have recordings of the phone calls. EVERY Kingdom Hall that I called basically had the same response.
You wrote: "You said the brothers would send them to "gov't programs" or "Catholic Charities"? Not the brothers I know."
My response: I have heard other Witnesses say that. Oh, I have heard all sorts of excuses.....from "that one that answered the phone at the Hall must be inactive".....or "disfellowshipped"......or "new to the truth".......and that would beg the question WHY such people would be permitted to answer the phones at a Kingdom Hall? I must tell you that often I found that those who answered the phones would sometimes say "hold on" and proceed to fetch someone "more knowledgeable". My guess would be that someone "more knowledgeable" would be an elder or someone in authority at the Hall. Give it a try yourself......go incognito, make a few calls to some Kingdom Halls and ask them to help you out with a survey and that you want to know where they would send a needy person for assistance.....better yet.....ask them if there are any specific efforts from the organization to assist homeless or needy people during the cold winter days and nights..........don't take my word on this, I recommend making the calls and hear it for yourself.
You wrote: "You referred to the "silent lambs" web site. That literally turns my stomache. I went there before that former JW was disfellowshipped, after I saw him on Dateline or one of those shows. Some of the things he said I knew from personal experience were not true. He was telling the guy on Dateline that JWs are taught that people like him were the devil! I know this is not so!"
My response: How anyone can view the website www.silentlambs.org and not feel the pain of those who have suffered.....well...it is beyond me. I was fully expecting you, as a Jehovah's Witness, to write something against the founder of that website...........you write that he is a "former" member and that he was "disfellowshipped", as if that might actually be significant to discredit the hundreds of people who have told their own stories of being abused in your organization. I am sure you have heard that you should not shoot the messenger because you do no like the message. Whatever you might think personally about the founder of the website, does it negate everything contained on the website? Of course not. If you used the same reasoning and applied it to the Watchtower, you might have to reject everything on their own website because of what some in your organization have written or done years ago......remember the great apostacy? I would rather read your comments about the abused people instead of about the guy who created the website. As to him saying that JWs are taught to view him as the devil.....well.....what exactly are they taught as to how to view or treat him? Furthermore, let's use a common sense approach to this and let's say that there is a man who lies about everything......he lies about this....he lies about that.......it is a way of life to him.........then one day, you are crossing the street and he shouts out to you "Look Out! A bus is coming!"........you look at him, notice that it is the guy you have pegged as always lying, and you continue crossing the street into the path of an oncoming bus. Did you know that Charles Taze Russell, the founder of the organization that became the Watchtower, believed that "A truth presented by Satan himself is just as true as a truth stated by God. Accept truth wherever you find it, no matter what it contradicts." (Zion's Watch Tower 1879 July pp. 8-9)
You wrote: "He said something else too that I knew was a lie, but I can't recall what it was. He's a typical apostate....lying through his teeth. I don't believe a word he says on that website. You can believe what you want. I will not believe this guy."
My response: Should I believe the words of Charles Russell? Should I believe the words of the testimonials of the abused, even though the founder of the website is a "typical apostate"? Should we all just say that all of those that claim abuse are "typical apostates".........huh? Sorry, I cannot agree with your viewpoint here.
You wrote: "Yes, you are right. We call only people who have left the organization "apostates." They have known the Truth, they have vowed to Jehovah that they would serve Him and support His earthly organization, and then they go back on their vow. Not very admirable, wouldn't you say?
My response: I suppose it would depend on why they chose to leave. If you were being abused and the organization knew about it and did nothing to help you, then I could understand you leaving. I certainly would not hold it against you. The Watchtower organization seems to have a strong hold on its membership, even to the extent that they would expect you to shun someone even if they had done nothing wrong.
You wrote: Why take the vow in the first place? No one forced them to.
My response: Hmmmmmm.....that vow.......is that the one where you are baptized INTO the organization?
You wrote: "And no, we don't "shun" even "bad association." Shunning refers to not even giving a greeting to a person (2 John 10,11). That involves disfellowshipped people. We speak to someone we might consider bad association, but we just wouldn't want to hang out with them, you know, be close buddies."
My response: And disfellowshipped people are bad association, correct? There must be different levels of bad then, eh?
You wrote: "The reason I wouldn't be caught dead in a bingo hall is that I wouldn't WANT to go there myself! I can't stand bingo & never have."
My response: Okay.
You wrote: "And I look at what is "good" and "bad" based on what the Bible says is good or bad."
My response: And you do recall the words of God Himself that we should never call evil good nor good evil.?
You wrote: "You mentioned the JWs who are online. Probably on Beliefnet, on the JW boards?"
My response: Throughout the years I have encountered JWs online various places. I have never participated on BeliefNet nor have I on the "JW boards".
You wrote: "I don't go on those boards. I find JWs there are like kids...they're largely immature and naive."
My response: You don't go on those boards anymore? Is that what you meant? You must have in the past in order to come to an impression about the JWs there.
You wrote: "And there are so many apostates on those boards that it's ridiculous. I tried to warn other JWs about them, but really to no avail. I just don't go there anymore."
My response: Ahhhh okay, then you HAVE been there before. There's that "Apostates" word again. I am trying to figure out exactly how you would be really sure that a person is an "apostate" online.......other than guessing or assuming such.
You wrote: "I haven't heard the one about God living on Alcyone in the Plaeides star system!"
My response: Well Pam, you might find the history of your own organization rather interesting. Lord knows that there must be some sort of library at the Halls. For 62 years (1891-1953) the Watchtower taught that God resided on star Alcyone, which was the eternal throne of God, and from there he governed the universe. Also the Great Pyramid, of Egypt, which was also considered by the Watchtower as God's Stone Witness, provided additional proof of the location God's throne on the star Alcyone. (Studies in the Scriptures Volume 3 1891 pp. 313-369; Reconciliation 1928 p. 14). Amazing stuff isn't it? Joseph Rutherford the second president of the WTS believed his spiritual enlightenment came from angels because the Holy Spirit had ceased functioning since 1918. The angels channeled information into his mind from God residing on the star Alcyone. (Preservation 1932 pp.51; 201-203; Watchtower 1931 November 1 p. 327; The Watchtower 1934 April 1 p. 105) Yes indeedy.........I am surprised that you had not heard of that.
You wrote: "Yes, SOME clergy have tried to get JWs banned, in many countries. The Orthodox are particularly vigorous at this. In Greece they are very influential, as they are in the Balkan countries and other places. The Orthodox church is the state religion in Greece and some other countries, is it not?
My response: Probably so. I found it interesting that JWs are not very prominent in the Holy Land, of all places.
You wrote: "Well, I'm tired and I think I'll hit the hay. I'll finish answering your post, hopefully, tomorrow (Sunday)."
My response: I look forward to it :)
Hi again Pam,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote: "You said that the brothers being charged with sedition was different than Jesus' situation. I disagree. The Gov. Body members weren't claiming to be God and neither was Jesus. They were in exactly the same situation--accused of saying something they really didn't say or of presenting themselves as something they really didn't present themselves as."
My response: It's apples and oranges, Pam. Jesus was found guilty for a vastly different reason than the governing body members were.
You asked, "Was there a trial where they were found 'not guilty'? "The case went to trial on June 5 (1918), with Isaac R. Oeland and Charles J. Buchner, a Roman Catholic, as prosecutors.
My response: Okay, right here I must point out that whatever you are citing here is obviously biased. Why is it biased?....well....for the simple reason that Buchner is said to be a Catholic while Oeland's religious persuasion is not mentioned. Why not mention Oeland's denomination? Obviously because of a certain hatred, by Rutherford, for Catholics. This is obvious to me here and at the very least it is an incomplete and poor report of the story.
You wrote: "During the trial, as Bro. Rutherford observed, Catholic priests frequently conferred with Buchner and Oeland."
My response: Again, this is a report as told by Rutherford. I seriously question this.
You wrote: "As the case proceeded, it was shown that the officers of the Society and the compilers of the book had no intent to interfere with the country's war effort. Evidence presented during the trial showed that plans for the writing of the book--indeed, the writing of most of the manuscript--had occurred before the U.S. declared war (on April 6, 1917) and that the original contract for publication had been signed before the U.S. had passed the law (on June 15) that they were said to have violated. The prosecution highlighted additions to the book made during April and June of 1917, in the course of processing the copy and reading the proofs. These included a quotation from John Haynes Holmes, a clergyman who had forcefully declared that the war was a violation of Christianity. As indicated by one of the defense attorneys, that clergyman's comments, published under the title 'A Statement to My People on the Eve of War,' was still on sale in the U.S. at the time of the trial. Neither the clergyman nor the publisher was on trial for it. But it was the Bible Students who referred to his sermon who were held liable for the sentiments expressed in it. The book did not tell men of the world that they had no right to engage in war. But, in explanation of prophecy, it did quote excerpts from issues of 'The Watch Tower' of 1915 to show the inconsistency of clergymen who professed to be ministers of Christ but who were acting as recruiting agents for nations at war. When it had been learned that the gov't objected to the book, Bro. Rutherford had immediately sent a telegram to the printer to stop producing it...[and] the Society directed that all public distribution of the book be suspended."
My response: Ahhhh so Rutherford did try to appease the government by ceasing the publishing of the book.
You wrote: "Regardless of all of this, on June 20, 1918, the jury returned a verdict finding each of the defendants guilty on each count of the indictment....The decision was immediately appealed to the U.S. circuit court of appeals...and on July 4...the first seven brothers were hastily moved to the federal penitentiary in Atlanta, Ga....Nine months after Rutherford and his associates were sentenced--and with the war past--on March 21, 1919, the appeals court ordered bail for all 8 defendants....On may 14 the U.S. circuit court of appeals in New York ruled: 'The defendants in this case did not have the temperate and impartial trial to which they were entitled, and for that reason the judgment is reversed.' The case was remanded for a new trial. However, on May 5, 1920, after the defendants had appeared in court, on call, five times, the gov't's attorney, in open court in Brooklyn, announced withdrawal of the prosecution." ("Jehovah's Witnesses Proclaimers of God's Kingdom," pages 652-654.)"
My response: The Proclaimers book.........that's where you can find the Alcyone stuff too. Now about the case of 1918, I appreciate you quoting the Proclaimers book here, however, there is nothing there that says that they were found "innocent" specifically. The matter was simply reversed and no further prosecution was pursued. As to the clergy being involved......as I pointed out, Rutherford definately had a hatred for Catholics, and the "clergy" man that was quoted in the publication was only ONE man, and not some huge consortium of clergy against the Society.
You wrote: My comments on the flag were in response, I think, to your definition of sedition (or maybe I looked up the definition). Disrespect for the flag was mentioned in the definition."
My response: Yes, obviously those charges of sedition had alot more to do with than just an article quoting somebody.
You wrote: "I read Rutherford's letter to Hitler. In fact, I think I have it amongst my things here somewhere. I look at his words as having a very different goal than what you see."
My response: Now just who was that "common enemy" that Rutherford shared with Hitler?
You wrote: "You talk of "complete and pure speculation" and I respect your point. I personally strongly feel that the brothers, looking back on history, have undoubtedly correctly interpreted what happened in association with the locusts of Revelation. It is your prerogative to feel otherwise. :)
My response: Of course.......but can you look back on history and their interpretations about other things and still say the same thing? Can they only ever be in error when they themselves decide they are?
You wrote: "You said, "You still are commanded to render unto Caesar." And we do, as long as it doesn't conflict with what God wants."
My response: Conflict based on what the Watchtower would say is conflict, correct? I mean, Rutherford could say stuff that could conflict with what he told the rank and file. The Williams sisters can do things that conflict..........why is that acceptable?
You wrote: "Watchtower publication references for the tarring and feathering of JWs might be in the 1975 Yearbook. When I get done here I'll see if I can access it on my CD-Rom."
My response: 1975?.....tar and feathering? hmmmm.....I do not see the connection there.
You wrote: "Have a pleasant day."
My response: Thank you and you do the same. I hope you are feeling much better. I had to respond to all four of your most recent comments all in one night. Sorry if I have overlooked anything. Now I am all caught up. :)