A discussion about Jehovah's Witnesses

[Ross]

I recently explained in a thread, that I once belonged to this movement, and from that point on I was abruptly ignored by the Witness I was debating; so the remainder of the members of their faith may not participate with me personally due to their shunning policy. However I welcome others to talk to me and ask anything at all about the religion, as I can introduce some interesting first hand information. I am now 65 years old, and was there for nine very intensive years through the massive growth period of 1974 and 1975, the later internal power struggles of the leadership, and the awakening and dropping of membership in the early 1980's. I did not leave for any scriptural or doctrinal reasons, nor was I 'booted out'. I simply walked away.

My introductory question is: Why do you think that members of this order are so ultimately convinced of the validity of their beliefs, and will defend to the bitter end the slightest doctrinal adjustment to their conception of the scriptures?

[Ross]

[Replying to Ross in post #38]
A very interesting thread! Thanks for sharing, Ross. I am curious if you have been able to affiliate with any Christian group after your experience with the Jehovah’sWitnesses?

Hi MissKate,

The brief answer is no. Ex Jehovah's Witnesses who spent many years in that movement are somewhat 'once bitten, twice shy.' I didn't look at a Bible once I left for some 28 years, but then after reading the two books by Raymond Franz, began visiting an excellent Bible discussion forum that does not exist now, and started to study again and investigate conventional Christian theology. That was around 2011. The behaviour of Jehovah's Witnesses now when fronted with their falsehoods leaves me despaired. Like they have forsaken their personal integrity.

[JehovahsWitness]

.. not all religious people will actually tell people to submit to thieves and give them anything they didn't take along with what they did.

Jesus said what use us it if we gain the whole world but lose our lives. The Christian position is not to risk ones life to protect material possessions.

That's a logical position. It remains logical until the thieves are taking so much, so often, that the greater risk is not to do anything about it.

Well I was born and raised in one of the rougest areas in London, and we managed just fine with locking our doors and taking basic security measures. I've been robbed but as yet I've never been robbed daily.



JW

[Ross]

.. not all religious people will actually tell people to submit to thieves and give them anything they didn't take along with what they did.

Jesus said what use us it if we gain the whole world but lose our lives. The Christian position is not to risk ones life to protect material possessions.

That's a logical position. It remains logical until the thieves are taking so much, so often, that the greater risk is not to do anything about it.

Well I was born and raised in one of the rougest areas in London, and we managed just fine with locking our doors and taking basic security measures. I've been robbed but as yet I've never been robbed daily.



JW

That's an awful lot of curly haired Americans in your depiction of a special time with Jesus.

[Ross]

Here is some more bizarre Jehovah's Witness history, which they would ideally wish to be buried, if it were not for folks like me who they shun and treat as 'dead men':

Charles Taze Russell died in 1916 realising that the expected end in 1914 had failed to occur. The next president Joseph Franklyn Rutherford made additional specific end time year predictions of 1918, 1920, and 1925, all of which failed. He later believed that Abraham, Isaac, and other Bible patriarchs would be soon resurrected on earth to lead Jehovah’s Witnesses through the end, and into a new system or kingdom. In San Diego California in 1930, he had a large house built for these soon to be brought to life Princes to reside in within the Kensington Heights section, over an area of about 100 acres, landscaped with olive, date, and palm trees, and he called it Beth Sarim which means ' House of the Princes.' While awaiting their arrival, Rutherford lived there.

They never were resurrected, and the teaching was embarrassingly abandoned.

[Ross]

In 1935 as the numbers of Jehovah's Witnesses multiplied, Rutherford arrived at the decision that two of the groups mentioned in the last book of the Bible, namely the 144,000 and the Great Crowd, were references to two distinct classes of Christians. He claimed that only 144,000 Christians dating back from the time of Christ will go to heaven, and that the remainder, a ‘great crowd’ will pass through the great coming apocalypse to live on earth. This new teaching had stirred up considerable scriptural problems, and conflicted with many other texts but had been nonetheless embraced until this time of 1975 - 1980 when there was more analytical thinking among individuals at Brooklyn.
On deep reflection, the teaching had seemed to close the doors to heaven, a concept not found elsewhere in the New Testament, but also had introduced a new or second gospel or good news of the Kingdom. The Bible did not promote or foretell the later establishment of a second and inferior class of Christians or followers of Jesus Christ who would serve the former. Before the year 1935, the ‘great crowd’ of Revelation had been interpreted as a heavenly group.

Their New World Translation Bible warns very seriously against any new age or latter day gospel in the following words at Galatians chapter one and verse eight:

“even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond the good news we declared to you, let him be accursed”

There was indeed no paradise earth gospel or aspiration among first century Christians, and so it is impossible to conclude otherwise than the fact that this doctrine is being condemned by the above scripture.

And toward any forwarding or pronouncement of prophesy that the passing of time later reveals to be false, especially in the name of YHWH, the Bible is just as specific: Deuteronomy 20: 20-22:

“If any prophet presumptuously speaks a word in my name that I did not command him to speak ...that prophet must die. However, you may say in your heart: “How will we know that Jehovah has not spoken the word?” When the prophet speaks in the name of Jehovah and the word is not fulfilled or does not come true, then Jehovah did not speak that word.”

How can it be possible to conclude anything other from those verses than the fact that God was not behind or with the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society when it pronounced categorically that the end of the age would come in 1914, 1918, 1920 and 1925?

[MissKate13]

[Replying to Ross in post #45]

That is an excellent question!

I’ve often wondered how anyone could have faith in an organization that has so many false prophesies? The “new light” doesn’t fly in the face of the Deuteronomy passage you posted.

How do Jehovah’s Witnesses explain their history away? How can their group be considered Jehovah’s organization on earth?

[JumpingJackFlash]

My introductory question is: Why do you think that members of this order are so ultimately convinced of the validity of their beliefs, and will defend to the bitter end the slightest doctrinal adjustment to their conception of the scriptures?

The very same reason all the rest of them(Christian organizations and sects) are the same way.
The blind to lead the blind.

[MissKate13]

Deuteronomy 18:21
You may ask in your heart, “How can we recognize a message that the LORD has not spoken?” 22 When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD and the message does not come to pass or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. The prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.

The “new light” explanation falls apart when we hear the LORD.