"Wars and Reports of Wars"

Comment by Skye on 2015-05-07 08:49:21

If there is only one fulfilment of Matthew 24, ie the last days beginning in the first century, and the final stage of those last days coming to a close at the end of the age when Jesus returns, then there is no problem with Matt 24:34 "this generation".
Mark 8:38 "If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels."
Therefore "the generation" = the wicked society which will prevail during the present evil world system which will be ended when Jesus returns.
See also Luke 16:8

Comment by menrov on 2015-05-07 08:55:26

This whole reference to Pax Romana to suggest it helped or benefited the early Christians is "bad".The complete reference reads: “For some two hundred years following the accession of Augustus, the Mediterranean world was virtually at peace. War, when it was waged at all, was confined almost entirely to frontier areas. Never in human history had there been so long a span of general tranquility, and never again was peace maintained so steadily among so many people."
Augustus reigned from 31BC to 14AD. The peace mentioned during this period was not for Christians. Jesus was killed, all apostles killed, Paul tortured, many christians lost their lives in the arena's, the Jewish system was destroyed in 70, including loss of live of hundreds of thousands (Josephus claims that 1.1 million people were killed during the siege).
How can they (the writers / leaders of th WBTS) even suggest it benefited the early Christians........sorry,but they really have no idea what they are talking about.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-05-07 09:25:44

  Nice reasoning, Andere. Thanks!

• Reply by qspf on 2015-05-08 10:59:08

  In the Wikipedia article about Pax Romana, the story seems to be quite a bit more involved. There were various "Pax" periods in the region that comprised the Roman Empire, and each region's Pax varied in start/end dates and degree of peacefulness. Some region's Pax times were even much longer than 200 years. It depends on what part of the empire we are referring to. Could SOME of the empire have had times of relative peace that helped SOME Christians of that era? Yes, but the overall Pax didn't help everyone, everywhere all the time the general notion of Pax was in effect.
  Further, the Pax does not necessarily equate to "peace". A better description would be "more peaceful than usual" or "less war and conflict than usual". Not quite the same as completely peaceful.

Comment by Wild Olive on 2015-05-07 10:41:41

It seems that the prophecy was only a guide for first century Christians , as was pointed out this has come up dry for every would be/ wannabe prophet, clearly( I sound like a watchtower) no one knows as Jesus said.

Comment by rufus2015 on 2015-05-07 12:07:20

My Watchtower comment on Pax Romana, spoken loudly while standing up:
"What, are you kidding me? Do you really think the Greek language, Roman law or engineering and the Jewish diaspora were responsible for the success of 1st century kingdom preaching? Christians were routinely eaten or ripped apart by wild animals just for entertainment of the beneficiaries of Pax Romana. Persecution of Christians under Roman rule lasted 200 years. So why was 1st century preaching a success?
What about the spirit of our Lord, Jesus Christ, personally directing witness bearing to him? What about his direct commission to go and make disciples of him? Whether the road be easy or hard, whether with the gift of tongues or healings, whether under favorable seasons or days of persecution, Jesus was the one to whom every knee must bow, and the singular name upon which any and all persons must call to receive salvation and reconciliation to our heavenly father. Therefore, it was the spirit of Jesus that assured success. Phil 1:19 "

Comment by rufus2015 on 2015-05-07 12:28:52

Elder Goodcop came up to me and said:
"What? Jesus was responsible for the success of the preaching work?! That’s a radical thought, Brother Rufus. I think we should discuss this, because that is not what the article said. Do you think you are smarter than the Faithful and Discreet Slave?
"Wait, I’ll get a couple more elders and we can go have a nice little chat in the elders room.
"Why don’t you take a seat, Rufus. Elder Fang, fetch the comfy chair, and I'll go find Elder Badcop.”

• Reply by bobcat3 on 2015-05-09 03:12:59

  This is why I have basically stopped commenting at the meetings (I do comment to individuals before and after to encourage them). Commenting at the meetings is only for the purpose of ingraining into the commentor and the listeners what the WT is saying. This is why both disagreeing with the WT and/or not commenting at all are disapproved of.
  Kudos to you for speaking your mind.
  Bobcat

Comment by qspf on 2015-05-07 14:49:10

There is a passage in the movie "Planet of the Apes", where ancient evidence of a human settlement was found on the ape world in a cave. This ran contrary to what the orthodox ape beliefs were. So, it was decided that the cave would be blown up. The ape characters were not in agreement about this, one side saying that it provided proof that humans had existed first, and were superior to the apes - an unpopular view. The response? 'There IS no proof. There CAN'T BE. Blow it up, and you two will be tried for heresy.'
I find it ironic that the Watchtower acts like these apes. They do exactly the same thing.
According to them, they are God's chosen people, therefore anyone who opposes them must be an enemy of God, and anyone among their 'own kind' who disagrees is a traitor. When faced with proof that the Watchtower has failed to uphold Bible truth, and has acted in harmful ways, they have the same reply: 'There IS no proof. There CAN'T BE. Anyone who says there is, why, they are nothing but mentally-diseased minions of Satan, just evil, lying apostates. Disfellowship them! Take their families away from them!'

• Reply by anderestimme on 2015-05-07 14:57:56

  I agree with your point here, but let's try not to 'ape' the disrespectful tone taken by less civilized primates:)

  • Reply by qspf on 2015-05-07 15:21:19

    Sorry, I succumbed to a momentary lapse of reason. It was intended to be funny rather than disrespectful, per se. I have noted that in web sites and other forums where those opposed to the WT discuss these matters, there is remarkably little humor or happiness. Everyone is angry at everyone else. Were the WT still under the Law (instead of just interpreting doctrines as if they were) everyone else would have been stoned by now.
    It is regrettable that every participant in this battle, from the WT on down, only views others as opponents, and there is no happiness to be found. How regrettable it is that no one seems to be able to get beyond documenting what is wrong, and take the lead to do what is right.

    • Reply by anderestimme on 2015-05-07 16:50:25

      Surprisingly, discussing subjects like eternal salvation and the ills of organized religion isn't always a barrel of laughs. Even so, I hope you've noticed that this site is not devoid of humor. I think we can rightly pride ourselves on having the only analysis of the Watchtower that includes references to Star Wars and Planet of the Apes. However, in an effort to avoid the chimp-speak so often found on other sites, we sometimes succumb to our stodgy inner silverback. Separating good bananas from bad is, necessarily, a subjective process, so please don't be offended if the moderator seems to be a stick in the termite hill.

  • Reply by qspf on 2015-05-08 12:44:02

    anderestimme , I am not offended. You made the right call in snipping off the part you did. This forum is for grown ups, and we all need to behave, including me. I humbly stand corrected.

    • Reply by on 2015-05-11 01:23:47

      Good spirit!!

Comment by rufus2015 on 2015-05-07 15:40:53

qspf-
Thank you for your observations and providing a bit of humor, or irony.
As to "take the lead to do what is right," you lament that no one seems able to get beyond documenting what is wrong.
It is true that the WT comment series appearing in this space for the last year is closely tied to the WT publishing sequence. Part of the reason for sticking to this is to allow honest-hearting ones researching questions about individual articles to find the scriptural truth, free of WT dogma or doctrine.
By your comments there, it is clear you are also aware of www.discussthetruth.com, which allows for a much broader range of public discussion and permits forum member to introduce topics for discussion as they wish. Your contribution is a valuable one, sharing your insights and understanding of the history of the movement, its development as an organization, and now a full ecclesiastical hierarchy.
So the next step is to hold meetings. Does a Cedar Point, Ohio convention interest you? Or something like that? Or given the age we find ourselves in, shall we all Skype together at 10am on Sunday morning?
Just what is the next step forward?

• Reply by qspf on 2015-05-08 12:33:17

  Rufus,
  The general proposition of "what is the next step forward" or "where do we go from here" is an enormous question. Meleti is in possession of an essay I wrote on this topic, which spanned some 25 pages, but even that barely scratched the surface. And, I most certainly do NOT have all the answers.
  The enormity of this question obligates us to concede that it is too large for any one person to answer. So, take what I say below with a grain of salt, as they say. I can tell you what I personally think the general 'shape' of the answer might be. But, I am just one person.
  We know from many decades of observation and analysis, from individuals both inside and outside the organization, that the Watchtower is deeply flawed. On the basis of extensive, confirmed and provable evidence from many sources over a long period of time, we know it has failed to live up to its self-proclaimed description as "God's organization", and by extension, Jehovah's Witnesses are not the "true religion" or "God's people" in the broad sense. (That is not to disparage or detract from the goodness or faithfulness of any individual Christian, but we have to acknowledge that simply belonging to a religion does not confer God's approval on us as individuals before Him.) Contrary to the label of "apostate" that WT applies to opposers and dissenters, WT has in truth made itself the real apostate, by its false teachings and false prophecies in opposition to the truth of the Bible. What is worse, in all likelihood, they know they are in the wrong, but will not admit it, out of pride and in order to retain their positions of authority over others.
  For many JWs and even ex-JWs, this realization is hard to accept, and is disturbing. "I thought they had 'the truth'", they will say. But they don't. It is necessary to come to this point, and accept this, as painful and disappointing as it is. Otherwise, there won't be any next steps forward. We have to face it. There simply isn't any way around it.
  The facts about the WT have been discovered and made known many times, by many people. Some do so from a standpoint of anger, hostility and revenge. Others are motivated by sincere concern for "their organization", doing so out of worry, fear, uneasiness, disappointment and regret that something they truly loved and believed in is not what they thought it was. Yet others have documented these things as outsiders or researchers, who have no stake and are not personally impacted, but want to understand the issues as an academic matter. Some who point out flaws in the WT go on to propose their own brand of doctrines, which may be their own pet theories or fall back on orthodox Christian dogmas, which are not supported and proven by scriptural reasoning.
  This vast array of viewpoints has made the entire process extremely hard to follow. Add to that the many emotionally charged statements that get tossed one way or the other, and it is all but impossible to make any sense out of it. Further, some of the participants in this dialog have been very offensive, and have used so much anger, hostility and even profanity that they have discredited themselves in the eyes of ordinary JWs who see themselves as "innocent bystanders" in an "ideological war" which they never wanted to be a part of. All THEY wanted was to know what the real truth was, free of angry and hostile debates. This is a situation that has to change.
  I propose that there should be a document, which I have termed a "Declaration of Independence". Like the early Americans, this document would clearly define exactly why the "colonists" (that is, the rank and file of JWs) are dissatisfied with their "British overloads" (the GB in Brooklyn). The Declaration would be a series of "articles of dissent". Each "article" would state, as simply and in as few words as possible, (a) exactly what it is the WT or GB are doing that is wrong or objected to, (b) how the teaching, policy or practice in question has had a negative result or consequence, and (c) from the scriptures and sound reasoning, explain why the matter in question is Biblically flawed or unjustified.
  What would NOT be in the Declaration are arguments, attacks, disrespectful language, or any other distracting content that draws attention away from the matters at hand. The Declaration cannot be about any individual, but must be focused on facts, doctrines and principles, and not on any personal opinion or vendetta. It also cannot support positions where we ourselves do not know all the facts. (We cannot repeat the same mistakes that the WT has made.) Further, in answer to the charge that "apostates" make accusations and arguments that are "clever" (supposedly to confuse and deceive the unwary into wrongly believing unfounded or unscriptural claims), the language used in the Declaration must be simple, straight-forward, logical, reasonable, respectful, and above reproach. It also needs to be as brief as possible and get to the point.
  The Declaration would not be a static document (like the U.S. Declaration was), but would be a collaborative effort, and indeed should be produced online with multi-user (work group) collaboration software. (The current online forums are inadequate, since they don't allow for editing of contributions once made.)
  Once the Declaration was made, a second document is needed, which I would term the "Constitution". The Constitution would define what this "group" (whatever it ends up being called) stands for and intends to become. It would define a set of core beliefs. We are familiar with the book, What Does the Bible Really Teach, but in fact that book does not contain what the BIBLE really teaches, but rather what the WATCHTOWER really teaches. The Constitution would lay down a list of principles, founded on the Bible, which are provably true. Any doctrines we may have "grown up with" that are not actually founded on the Bible, but are the doctrines of men, must be identified and rejected.
  To develop this Constitution, every doctrine of the Bible must be reexamined from scratch. As an initial guide, you could start with the outline of the Reasoning book. Each topic would be re-researched, and the explanation of every such topic would be subjected to scrutiny from the group. Any challenge to the Biblical soundness of any explanation would have to be answered, or else a given principle would be rejected or placed in a "questionable" category for further review. Objections and scrutiny of core principles must be based solely on the scriptures, provable facts of science, history, etc. and sound reasoning. Over time, that outline of topics would be expanded and elaborated on.
  The Constitution, like the Declaration, would be developed online. Creation of these documents would take extensive time and work, but would be well worth the effort.
  When these two documents were essentially complete ('complete' being a relative term, mainly meaning that changes to them start to 'settle down'), the "group" would be in a position to answer questions and make decisions about meeting together and any other activities they might choose to engage in. On these matters, I am not as opinionated as I am about the matters above, so I don't have a lot more to add on that part.
  That's my "two cents worth".

  • Reply by Wild Olive on 2015-05-08 20:44:07

    This idea of a "chistian constitution" or a charter of some sort would be a great place to begin, outlining a basic set of doctrines that can be worked around as knowledge increases and revelations become evident,without marginalising anyone or taking away the right to question.
    I've been pondering it for some time, and now I realise what you need an organization for, it's to get the information into people's hands not dictate their beliefs or control their salvation.Things the GBcould easily do without spending the millions of dollars they are at this time.
    The Internet makes so much possible .

    • Reply by qspf on 2015-05-08 22:15:27

      What I termed a "constitution" could also be called a "declaration of principles". I didn't use that specific expression just to avoid confusing it with the declaration of independence I also talked about. But, having a list of principles is important for mature persons to form an adult relationship with God.
      For instance, parents will tell their children not to touch the stove. That is a rule. They say this because a child may not have experienced or understood the concept of burn injuries or the causes of house fires. All they know is they have to do what their parents say. The parents, though, do understand these things. They know principles such as "fire is hot" and "fire and hot things can cause a fire to spread", and so on. They can extend these principles to new situations as they arise. In doing so, intelligently applying principles makes them better prepared for the unknown and unexpected, since their mind and conscience have been trained to recognize when certain principles apply in a given situation. In turn, being better prepared means that we are resilient, not easily thrown off guard or deceived, and not at a loss when faced with a crisis. That is the difference between blind obedience and using our power of reason. It is demeaning to adult Christians to live out their spiritual lives as if children, with atrophied powers of spiritual discernment, conscience and reasoning. But slavish obedience to men, whether Pharisees or the GB, is just as childish and inappropriate. We have to do better than that.
      In Bible terms, one principle is "life is sacred". We can meditate on the principle and apply it. After all, consider that God provided mankind with many rules. But, how did HE decide on what rules and principles are important? And, why? Can we discern the "super-principles behind the principles"? "God is love" is likely such a super-principle, and there are surely others. If we are able to perceive the mind of God and the mind of Christ, we ought to be able to deduce the underlying principles that are the foundation of the entire Bible. In doing so, it will enable us to have a relationship with God and Christ as "full grown persons" in a spiritual sense, and no be reliant and dependent on an organization of men to interfere with that sacred relationship, and not dependent on men to override, supersede or second-guess our consciences and thus allow those men to be like Pharisees and turn us into weak children spiritually.
      For all the decades that the Watchtower encouraged us to live by Bible principles, they never attempted to actually sit down and categorize and write down all the major principles that the Bible sets forth. We can only wonder why not. It's not as though they didn't have thousands of people at Bethel and all over the world reading and studying the Bible year after year. But then, if they had done that and actually come out with a book or something with a list of Bible principles, I suspect much of their other publishing work would have been redundant.

  • Reply by BN on 2015-05-08 23:40:16

    Actually, here 8. may, 12.33 pm, you have written down the sign og the end ..spiritual signs to a spiritual nation..: war and rumours of war / truth vs lies; earthquakes / the ground under our belief system is shaking ; diseases / spiritual do to hunger / lack of sound spiritual food ...
    'The hearts of these people have grown tick, so they listen heavily with their ears, and their eyes are all closed, so they can't see with their eyes, hear with their ears,or understand with their hearts, then TURN BACK so I can send healing to them'

  • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-05-09 09:18:51

    Your 25-page article made many fine points, and our group is in agreement with a number of them. A few months back, we published an article called "Help Us Spread the Good News". It provided a link to a survey so that we could get a feel for how the holy spirit was guiding our little internet congregation. We will be publishing the results of that survey soon, but suffice it for now to say that there was overwhelming support for the idea of a site dedicated to publishing the positive message of the good news free from the doctrinal encumberments of any organized religion. In line with that leading, we've spent the past few months working to set up the infrastructure needed to support the development and release of those sites--we are talking a multilingual message here.
    Our ongoing concern is to avoid the mistakes of the past. Russell provided a magazine which independent groups of Bible students used when they congregated to study. They were not limited to his writings and were not beholden to his approval nor subject to his authority. When Rutherford came on the scene he tried to impose his authority and many disassociated themselves. Those that stayed, submitted, and became Jehovah's Witnesses as we know them today.
    This is our concern--the human tendency to set up a King. Like the Israelites of Samuel's day, most of us are not happy with only God or Christ as our king. We want a visible king. We are not happy with the Bible as our source of principles to live by, we want somebody to create rules based on those principles. We don't want to figure things out for ourselves using God's word as our guide, we want somebody to tell us what to do. In short, we want an organization with a visible head to tell us what is good and what is bad. Under the guise of Christianity, we want human government and that is exactly what we have in Jehovah's Organization, to a degree even greater than virtually every other Christian Church around today.
    Our principles are to be found in Scripture. Our constitution is the holy Bible. I fear that going beyond that, no matter how pure our motives may be now, will only lay the groundwork for us to become yet another organized religion.
    While I disagree with most of what Rutherford taught, there is one thing I wholeheartedly agree with him on, though I would add one word for clarification: "Organized religion is a snare and a racket".

    • Reply by qspf on 2015-05-09 13:05:31

      The matter of being, or not being, a religion is a difficult one. Organized religion is indeed a snare and a racket. On the other hand, we have the counsel in Hebrews not to forsake gathering. Once people "gather", would they not be definition become a religion? How could you avoid that happening? I don't have a good answer to that question.
      I find it interesting that Watchtower actively discourages two or more families from gathering as a group for a joint Family Worship night. I suspect they do this for the same reason they disbanded the book studies in peoples' homes, either to avoid the risk of situations that could expose them to lawsuits (child abuse etc.) or because larger groups might veer off and conduct individual bible study research and take it in directions they don't want them to go (trying to prevent "apostate" leanings). Yet, meeting in private homes was the first century example. But, we are supposed to ignore the bible's example and do what the GB tells us.
      What people need, more so than any religious organization of men, is guidance. Yes, we should read the Bible and discern its many principles. But that's not easy. The Bible is a large book, and it can take a year to read through it once without having a lot of additional time to research it.
      When religions are formed, it always ends up that people are put in positions of authority. But is that a Christian thing to do? Jesus said, "Man, who appointed me judge or apportioner over YOU persons?" He indeed has authority, but even his authority was limited. And Paul says, "Not that we are the masters over YOUR faith, but we are fellow workers for YOUR joy, for it is by [YOUR] faith that YOU are standing." So, we don't need, and it's not our job, to control other people. What we do need to do is have faith ourselves, and help other people understand what God and Christ expect of us, if they are willing to listen.
      I have noticed something about nearly all web sites run by "apostates", opposers and dissenters of the Watchtower: They never delve into controversial topics like abortion and gay rights. Presumably this is either because they assume everyone has their own opinions and they don't want to debate it, or because they are afraid if they take a moral stand they will offend their readers and thus lose them.
      By not being a "religion" per se, it gives us freedom of speech to speak out as to what the Bible says and teaches, without lording it over others. For instance, it is hard to picture the Bible's view of a gay lifestyle as being anything other than disapproval. The Bible says what it says.
      However, it is not my job or personal responsibility to judge or condemn persons that God disapproves of. He is more than qualified and capable to do that Himself, through Christ whom He appointed as Judge, and my help is neither needed nor was asked for. Thus, I don't feel compelled to condemn or shun people that might live in ways I believe are out of harmony with the Bible. By not presuming to personally take on a role for ourselves that God and Christ did not ask us to do, we avoid alienating people, whose hearts might eventually be reached to change their lives if need be, without having some "spiritual overlord" trying to tell them what to do. Such persons are not answerable to us. They are answerable to God. For us to try to set up yet another religion as if being a mediator between God and man, and thus interfering with the role given to Christ by God himself, we would be committing the same sort of blasphemy that the Watchtower is guilty of now. That is truly a mistake we must not repeat.
      Thus, if a group of people are not a "religion" and don't have authority over others, then what is the point of this group? My response would be, consider C.T. Russell. What did he call the early members of his group? Bible Students. What's wrong with that?
      Today, what people need is guidance, which is clear, concise and to the point. We have the means to make that available in ways Russell never did. Consider a web page with hyperlinks. Any given topic could have links to supporting material, related scriptures, etc. Someone could read the overall summary if they were in a hurry, or "drill down" to find all the reasoning that lead to it. This sort of presentation of information was not possible in Russell's era, but it is now. This kind of information provides indexes, summaries, auxiliary information and research, that would not be obvious in a simple reading of the Bible text.
      I see this group being a "research arm", whose sole function is to provide insight into the Bible's principles, and organize that information in way that us as busy persons in the 21st century need to have at our fingertips. They then make this information available to anyone that wishes to read it. It is up to each individual to then use that information according to the dictates of the their heart and conscience, knowing that we are all answerable to God and not to men.

      • Reply by menrov on 2015-05-09 13:24:06

        The WBTS is saying it is a must to become a member of organized religion (see here http://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/organized-religion/
        But as usual, the misapply the verses referring to the council of Paul to gather. Paul indeed recommends that people to encourage one another. He does not use the word WORSHIP. In other words, it is not really necessary to gather f or worship. But to gather with believers can be very motivating and encouraging. It is to incite to love and fine works. Not the WBTS works but he Christian works, shown in the love for your neighbour, your love for the meek, the poor, the widow, the orphan.
        I would be in favor if we can find a way to somehow meet in the spirit of Heb.Not to worship or teach but to incite to love and encourage.

  • Reply by anderestimme on 2015-05-11 12:07:38

    I think the idea of a Declaration is interesting, but would be of limited value unless the "colonists" were willing to sign their names to it. If it could (a) be worded carefully enough that brothers with concerns could sign it without fear of automatic disfellowshipping, it might provide both a gathering point and (b) a way for the GB to understand the magnitude of the problem.
    I am almost certain that (a) would be impossible and (b) would provoke, not piety but the inquisition. Still, it's an idea worth considering.

    • Reply by qspf on 2015-05-11 18:07:18

      Certainly, if/when people were willing to sign their names to it, that would add some weight and force behind the assertions that were contained within it. However, I see that as a separate issue. This document could be formulated over time, and made publicly available. The GB keeps close tabs on what is going on with the Internet. They would come to be aware of this, even if no one signed their names. And, persons who have already left the organization and agreed with this would have no reason not sign. Hopefully, these things would be sufficient for the GB to understand the magnitude of their erroneous teachings, policies and practices. At least in theory.
      That is the main reason why the document must totally stick to provable facts and be scrupulously accurate and above reproach, so that WT would not be able to refute what was said. WT would denounce anything that could not be proven or was disrespectful.
      I had an idea one day about this. Imagine if large numbers of JWs could be convinced to sign this document online. It could be called the JW Independence Day. Something to ponder, isn't it ...

      • Reply by anderestimme on 2015-05-11 23:34:16

        Well, it certainly would be interesting to post the document with a proposed, future "JW Independence Day" and see how HQ would handle it. I'm guessing the direction from on high would be to deal summarily with the first dissenters in order to dissuade the masses.
        I would propose, not a "JW Independence Day" exactly, but a declaration of things that worry us about the organization. No direct contradiction and no denunciation, just a list of things that bother thinking JWs. Something that an active JW could sign with the intent of letting HQ know he/she is dissatisfied with the status quo, but without being taken as effectively disassociating him/herself. That would at least give dissenters a way to register their dissatisfaction without giving a judicial committee a slam-dunk disfellowshipping case. I'm probably dreaming but it's an intriguing idea.

    • Reply by qspf on 2015-05-12 13:06:19

      I am afraid there is no easy way out for those wanting independence. The GB directs the elders in judicial hearings to make a point blank loyalty test of anyone they deem as potential "apostate". The sort of question they pose is, "Do you or do you not agree one hundred percent with all teachings, policies and practices of the WT? Yes or No?" Unless you say Yes, you're out. They will not debate or even discuss questions of doctrine or Bible truth, or consider any proof you may have to offer. You are not allowed to question those things, and your proof means nothing to them.
      I had this experience myself years ago. When the new policy was issued about blood fractions being a conscience matter, I asked an elder what was the justification and rationale for saying, for instance, "plasma" is component but not a fraction, whereas some other part, say, "albumin", was a fraction and not a component. Was there an underlying principle that made some part of blood "bad" in a scriptural sense that I could understand? I explored the idea that if some parts of blood contained DNA, then that might represent life, and so there would be a rationale for it. But consider this from Wikipedia: "Because of the lack of nuclei and organelles, mature red blood cells do not contain DNA and cannot synthesize any RNA, and consequently cannot divide and have limited repair capabilities." Thus, there is no scientific rational for the division of so-called components and fractions, at least not using the presence of DNA as the deciding factor. When I asked the elder about this, they literally cringed, said that WT guidelines say what they say, and he could not add to it. I could sense that even he knew this wasn't right, but because of his role as an elder, he was forbidden from going beyond the written policy. They are not going to debate anything, or consider anything you say. Either you obey, or you're out. That's it.
      Those that wish to dance around their concerns about the organization by meekly saying to them, "we have some concerns we'd like you to answer" and trying to use vague, innocuous words that are diplomatically phrased to avoid getting into trouble, will likely be disappointed. There have been many who tried variations on this theme in the past, by writing letters to WT, by asking elders and asking higher-up people (circuit/district overseers). Usually, there is no response, or they say Wait on Jehovah, or they tell you to do more research in the publications and pray for God's guidance, etc. If you keep asking, you will get into trouble, and further asking could get you kicked out.
      There is a quote by Benjamin Franklin during the revolutionary war years: "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."
      It is fair to say that most of the American colonists did not really want to fight in a war with Britain. All they wanted was to live their lives in freedom.
      Anyone who finds themselves in a struggle for freedom will reach a point when they are forced to ask themselves what their freedom is worth to them. I read a saying once (forgot its source) that went, "A religion that has no cost has no value."
      I fear that many who visit this forum are doing just that - meekly pointing out flaws in WT doctrine, doing so from the safe, cost-free vantage point of anonymity, but unless we jointly take a stand and "hang together" it is not likely much else will get done. In that sense it is not unlike the quote from Macbeth, "it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." Is that what we want all these words herein to signify? Nothing?
      Many persons have contributed thoughtful, insightful articles to this forum, and raised many pertinent questions that cry out for answers. But unless there is a plan of action, what is the point? What do you all hope to accomplish? Is it just to secretly vent your frustration and disappointment, without risk of being discovered by the elders? To listen to each other exclaim things like "I understand your pain" and "How well you have explained this or that fault of the WT" is all well and good. But, THEN WHAT? What follows all these good words? Unless you are prepared to act on what you have learned, all this if for nothing. You might as well just fade away or DA yourself, sit in your rooms with your mouth taped shut, for all the good it will do you.
      I apologize for saying this in a kind of blunt way, but you need to face reality. (And by "you" I mean everyone on this forum.)
      Do you want to accomplish something, or not? Do you want true Christian freedom, or not? What is it worth to you?
      When someone goes before a judicial committee, it is a time consuming process for the elders, and that is for just one person. Just handling that one person has an impact; there is communication with the circuit overseer and the branch office. Imagine the impact if, on one single day, tens of thousands of people publicly rejected the WT organization all at the same time. It would be something that would get national, even global, attention. They couldn't dismiss out of hand that many people rejecting them, without having to answer for what they have done.
      I do not mean to write these things to criticize anyone, especially those living in fear of being accused of apostasy by the elders. I say this to get you to ponder these things carefully.

• Reply by qspf on 2015-05-08 12:59:11

  FYI, did you know there is actually no such town or city called Cedar Point, Ohio? There is an AMUSEMENT PARK with that name, but not a town. The park is in Sandusky, Ohio, and it has always been within the city limits of Sandusky. Yet, every single WT publication that mentions this place refers to it by the name of the PARK, not the name of the CITY. Isn't that weird?

  • Reply by rufus2015 on 2015-05-08 14:48:49

    Cedar Point is an established place name, park area and resort quite separate across the waters of Lake Erie from Sandusky, Ohio. On the other hand, to Google images of Cedar Point gives a fair idea of what the place is about today. Here is a more dignified historical marker:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cedar_Point#/media/File:Cedar_Point_Ohio_037_Historic_Marker.JPG

    • Reply by menrov on 2015-05-09 13:28:18

      https://www.google.nl/maps/place/Cedar+Point/@41.4822633,-82.6836838,17z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x883a44453409f6b7:0xae0d3d15735875a7?hl=en

Comment by katrina on 2015-05-07 22:05:22

WT prophecies not bible prophecies.

Comment by kev on 2015-05-08 03:03:51

Interestingly the verse says you are going to hear of wars and reports of wars . From whom though the preceding verse contains a warning about being misled by false christs and all this in relation to the timing of the conclusion of the age . It is very possible that these common occurances such as wars and the rest of the so called signs earthquakes famines ect . Would be proclaimed by false prophets as proof that the end is upon us. This is not the case as a careful review of the text shows that the real sign jesus mentioned was (when you see the disgusting thing standing in a holy place ) . Then it was time to take action and quickly .. As for your point about the inconsistancies of the watchtower Ive been confused about alot of things for many years i agree . .While it is true that the generation of jews living at the time saw the end 37 years later Jesus in the context of matthew 23 described the generation as wicked and also said that they had spilled the blood of zechariah and even the blood of abel . A thing impossible for the generation living at that time . Thanks for the article and the reasoning anderstimme well done mate . Kev

Comment by Skye on 2015-05-08 06:48:36

Peter compares prophecy to "a lamp shining in a dark place" (2 Pet 1:19). It allows us to see what the future holds. Without prophecy we would be in the dark, not knowing what is going to happen. The prophet Hosea warned us not to be "destroyed for lack of knowledge" (Hos 4:6)

• Reply by menrov on 2015-05-09 13:31:33

  True but prophecies are not merely visions of the future but actually announcements of future acts of God, in order that believers act and be saved. Hence a prophecy is only of value if the believer has a clear and crystal understanding of the prophecy, and what he/she should do.

  • Reply by Skye on 2015-05-09 19:23:24

    And so it's important that we understand prophecy then. Jesus Christ knew what he wished to say, and how to say it in such a way that we would understand what he meant. The Bible is a book for everybody, and it is written to convey plain information of God's intentions for the whole world. Sadly many view it as a book of unsearchable wisdom, and thus making it impossible to know the Truth.

Comment by Mark-O on 2015-09-10 23:36:35

Good points.
In a way 70 CE "the end" did not come under a period marked by "wars and reports of wars". Rather the end of the Jerusalem "a system of things" (Matt13:36-42) came in 70 CE, during the Roman parallel of regional Roman "peace and security" of the Pax Romana just getting fully founded.
The future parallel seems to imply 8th King world government will assume a similar "Pax World Government" (1Thess5:1-3), well after this upcoming phase of final "wars and reports of wars" (Matt24:6; Rev13:3 "sword stroke") and "disorders" (Luke21:9) phase "heals" into world government. (Rev13:3; Rev17:8-13)
Thus at a UN "world peace" period, for real, under full World Government, is a "day" one "does not expect" principle. And likewise, as long as global wars and disorders persist prior to that time, "the end" will not arrive at that time as per Matthew 24:6, Luke 21:9. A great hint, which criteria must be met [in the future] period, guaranteed, and it seems instead to actually have a first century valid parallel in the Pax Romana period of that time.

Comment by Our Christian Life and Ministry Review – Oct. 10-16 | Beroean Pickets - JW.org Reviewer on 2016-10-10 13:17:10

[…] last days began in […]

Comment by Do Not Let Your Love Grow Cold | Beroean Pickets - JW.org Reviewer on 2017-07-16 18:06:11

[…] See Wars and Reports of Wars as well as Wars and Reports of Wars—A Red […]