Disqus - Latest Comments for mjhunter

Re: (It Seems) Mark Driscoll Thinks Wives Are Only Good for Sex

Mark — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 14:27:01 -0000

Are you actually being serious?

Re: (It Seems) Mark Driscoll Thinks Wives Are Only Good for Sex

Mark — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 14:11:25 -0000

Much respect on the black coffee drinking!

Re: (It Seems) Mark Driscoll Thinks Wives Are Only Good for Sex

Mark — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 14:10:29 -0000

"So you're rid of the bathwater. Where's the baby?"

Probably not an entirely helpful comment.

Since when is going to a church building and hanging around with people you've got little in common with, listening to some wannabe author tell you what he thinks an ancient book means about a God who's actually there to be experienced by every person without any human mediator a useful experience?

NOT choosing that experience isn't the same thing as throwing out God.

Re: (It Seems) Mark Driscoll Thinks Wives Are Only Good for Sex

Mark — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 14:06:20 -0000

I'm sure the big fat royalty cheques will soften the blows.

Re: (It Seems) Mark Driscoll Thinks Wives Are Only Good for Sex

Mark — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 14:01:31 -0000

No. He contradicted what you think it says. Blatantly.

Re: War of words breaks out among Jehovah's Witnesses

Mark — Sat, 01 Oct 2011 09:33:18 -0000

Hi Braziliano.

You said:
"But if they start bitterly attacking their formers fellows believer, they became APOSTATES."

No, that's not true, as has been ably pointed out by others. You're not quoting any definition of the world "apostate", or "apostasy", found in the English language.

Rather your opinion - and your definition of an English word - has been influenced by the Governing Body.

Here's how I know.

The publication, produced by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, the multi-million dollar publishing corporation used by the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, "Reasoning from the Scriptures", under the heading "Apostasy" states:

"Defnition: Apostasy is abandoning or deserting the worship
and service of God, actually a rebellion against Jehovah God.
Some apostates profess to know and serve God but reject teachings or requirements set out in his Word. Others claim to believe the Bible but reject Jehovah's organisation." Page 34

You'll notice that the Governing Body's definition of "apostasy" is very narrow and niche, and - bizarrely - includes direction reference to "Jehovah's organisation", which readers are assumed to understand is the Watch Tower Society and/or the religious order of Jehovah's Witnesses.

So, someone who leaves the Watch Tower Society is, by definition, an apostate.

In other words, they've abandoned their religious beliefs.

But so is a person who abandoned the religious beliefs of Catholicism or Islam.The subject of "Jehovah's organisation" is completely irrelevant, as is any notion of "attacking" anything or anyone...

Therefore, how many *current* Jehovah's Witnesses are, by proper definition, apostates?

And how many current Jehovah's Witnesses go from door-to-door trying to convince, via the Watch Tower Society's publications, that people who hold the religious beliefs *they once held themselves* are in fact wrong?

In other words, how many Jehovah's Witnesses act as sowers of seeds of doubt as they venture from door-to-door, living and breathing apostates, trying to lead people after themselves?

Re: War of words breaks out among Jehovah's Witnesses

Mark — Thu, 29 Sep 2011 06:14:48 -0000

Excellent points, Jane, especially:

"When weddings and funerals become opportunities to arrogantly shun and exclude family members who no longer share your views then something is seriously wrong. "

Very, very true.

Jehovah's Witnesses end up acting in complete disharmony with all natural, normal feelings of family love, all because the Governing Body vilifies and demonises - via Watchtower articles like the one in question - those who have left off obeying them.

Re: War of words breaks out among Jehovah's Witnesses

Mark — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 13:13:06 -0000

You feel you're in the right boat why?

Re: War of words breaks out among Jehovah's Witnesses

Mark — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 12:43:22 -0000

Where does the Governing Body's authority to dictate what Jehovah's Witnesses can or cannot do, can or cannot think come from?

Where does the authority to decide how a Jehovah's Witness views someone who is disassociated from the religion?

Where does the authority to call people "mentally diseased", and have 7 million heads nod in agreement come from?

Where does the authority to state that an approved relationship with God is dependent upon "recognising the faithful and discreet slave" come from?

Any JWs care to help out?

Re: War of words breaks out among Jehovah's Witnesses

Mark — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 12:33:02 -0000

Fantastic comment.

Re: War of words breaks out among Jehovah's Witnesses

Mark — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 12:10:19 -0000

To be clear, Russell *isn't* buried under a pyramid. However, there is a masonic pyramid near his grave stone. This pyramid is marked with his name and details of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society.

It is true that Russell, and latterly "Judge" Rutherford, was heavily invested in pyramidology, which is a "pagan" discipline. He visited the pyramids frequently and based on certain measurements from within the pyramids reached certain "end-times" conclusions, such as 1914.

All of these teachings were heavily promoted in his "Studies in the Scripture" series which Russell himself, rather humbly, described as "the Bible in topical form". He suggested that a person who merely read the Bible would not find truth, but could only do so by reading his books.

Fast-forward over 120 years and we have a publishing corporation that maintains the same name Russell gave it, but very little else.

It's worth pointing out, though, that Witnesses in 21st Century believe that the Watch Tower Society/religious order of Jehovah's Witnesses was chosen by Christ in 1919 based upon the "biblical truths" being taught at the time.

Bizarrely, all of these "biblical truths" that were apparently deemed satisfactory by Christ in 1919 have been jettisoned slowly ever since.

Re: War of words breaks out among Jehovah's Witnesses

Mark — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 09:45:54 -0000

Your experience is similar to what Jesus described when he "returned from the dead"; nothing.

Jesus's message was all about the here and now, the life we live here and now, and not some mythical after-life ("the kingdom of heavens is near").

Don't live a certain way in the hope of some sort of eternal reward, live a certain way for what it brings to the world around you right now.

Re: War of words breaks out among Jehovah's Witnesses

Mark — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 08:59:38 -0000

Subjective experience, however, always wins out, no matter how much research someone has put into their e-book.

Re: War of words breaks out among Jehovah's Witnesses

Mark — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 08:36:46 -0000

Data storage depends upon local data protection laws.

In the UK a file is kept on all who are - or indeed were - baptised members. Even after they are disfellowshipped or have voluntarily disassociated. For example, if a disassociated person moves home, the elders of his former congregation are instructed to endeavour to find out where he has moved to and, in turn, alert the congregation local to his new address.

Paul Grundy in Australia sued the Watch Tower Society to have access to all of the files they had on him. They fought him through the courts until, eventually, he was "allowed" to see what the Watch Tower Society had on file about him. Search for him and this case online.

Re: War of words breaks out among Jehovah's Witnesses

Mark — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 05:09:01 -0000

Mike, do you know the exact contents of her letter? You seem to be jumping to some conclusions pertaining to its contents.

Does she now deserve to be called "mentally diseased"?

Re: War of words breaks out among Jehovah's Witnesses

Mark — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 04:32:51 -0000

Brazilian,

Can I ask, do you personally know each and every individual that's airing the hurt they've experienced due to the Governing Body's policies on shunning and hate-speech?

Can you honestly make that declaration that we've all been "red carded" because we've "disregarded some serious law/s"?

It's interesting that you say Jehovah's Witnesses need to swear loyalty to an organisation.

Is that a biblical command, that a person must swear loyalty to a publishing organisation in order to be made right with God?

Re: http://newyork.ibtimes.com/articles/220407/20110927/the-independet-jehovah-jehovahs-witnesses-jehovah-s-witnesses-god-church-the-watchtower-lible-mental.htm

Mark — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 04:19:55 -0000

Why do the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses need to hide behind name-calling propaganda?

If it genuinely has "the truth", it shouldn't fear those who leave and speak against it.

Re: War of words breaks out among Jehovah's Witnesses

Mark — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 04:03:27 -0000

Shouldn't all Jehovah's Witnesses, while taking part in their door-to-door evangelism work, point out to interested persons (with FULL transparency) that:

1. the Watch Tower Society publishes doctrines from the Governing Body that are subject to change, such as 1874, 1878, 1914, 1925, 1975, organ transplants, the "generation", blood fractions, etc

2. acceptance of all current doctrines, aka "the truth", is a pre-requisite to membership of the religious order

3. failure to completely change what you currently believe per the changing doctrines of the Governing Body may class you as an apostate (even holding differing *thoughts* is an apostate act per Watch Tower policy)

4. the decision to vocalise your lack of belief in new doctrines will be subject to investigation by the local elders

5. if the elders decide that you are unrepentant in your decision to not completely change what you believe per the Governing Body's direction, you will be excommunicated from the religious order and face social and familial punishment in the form of shunning

6. you will be at risk of being described as "mentally diseased" at public meetings of Jehovah's Witnesses

At least that way no one will be in any doubt what's at stake should they decide to join the religion. That way there will be no more self-absorbed, complaining, spoilt brats should they decide to leave said religion.

At least that way people will have the freedom to choose what to do based on having all the facts about the Watch Tower Society.

Re: War of words breaks out among Jehovah's Witnesses

Mark — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 03:51:31 -0000

Hi Mike.

Well, let's try and keep the discussion on topic; I'm not here to take apart strawman arguments levied against me as an individual. If you'd like to discuss my private life, then please send me your email address.

The point is, why does the Governing Body, in it's role as "mouthpiece" of "the slave" brand those who have left off obeying them as "mentally diseased"?

Why call names?

Isn't that a hallmark of propaganda?

For example, the Awake! article in the June 22nd 2000 edition states:

"First, examine whether there is bias. What is the motive for the message? If the message is rife with name-calling and loaded words, why is that?
Loaded language aside, what are the merits of the message itself? Also, if possible, try to check the track record of those speaking. Are they known to speak the truth? If “authorities” are used, who or what are they? Why should you regard this person—or organization or publication—as having expert knowledge or trustworthy information on the subject in question? If you sense some appeal to emotions, ask yourself, ‘When viewed dispassionately, what are the merits of the message?’"

Re: War of words breaks out among Jehovah's Witnesses

Mark — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 03:02:07 -0000

That's an interesting analogy you use there, Mike.

Let's flip it on it's head for a minute.

The Governing Body claims to represent the "faithful and discreet slave" "class" (a idea found nowhere in the Bible, by the way).

This "slave" demands unquestioning loyalty and obedience. Now, bear in mind that a slave is merely a lowly servant.

Yet this "slave" demands that it sets the rules, agenda and way of worship for 7 million + Jehovah's Witnesses.

This "slave" demands that you do not disobey what it says.

This "slave" has put itself in the same position as Jesus Christ by stating that when you follow the "slave", you're - in effect - following Jesus.

So, who is self-absorbed? Who is attention seeking?

Who is name calling?

I "just left" the Watch Tower Society. Yet I'm described as being "mentally diseased". I was classed as "disassociated" because I went to a church service.

How does that make me brash, self-absorbed or mentally diseased?

The reality is, I'm only those things in the mind of this "slave", the "slave" that demands unquestioning obedience...

Re: War of words breaks out among Jehovah's Witnesses

Mark — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 02:54:50 -0000

Mike,

What about those who are disfellowshipped for not agreeing with all of the teachings of the Governing Body? Teachings like, for instance, the "overlapping generation", where Jesus "evidently meant" the generation who saw 1914 is the same generation that'll see Armageddon?

Let's say, for example, that a sincere lover of God simply could not align himself with this teaching. Let's say, for example, that the elders tried to "readjust" his thinking so that he unquestioningly agreed with the Governing Body's interpretation. Let's say that the readjustment didn't work and that this person continued to hold the position that the Governing Body had "gone beyond what is written"?

Would he be disfellowshipped for apostasy?

If so, what "sin" had he committed?

Would he be viewed as "mentally diseased"?

Or would he just be a "spoilt brat" for choosing to make up his own mind?

Re: War of words breaks out among Jehovah's Witnesses

Mark — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 02:51:09 -0000

Hi Mike, how's it going?

What's with the name calling ("spoilt brats")?

I'm curious, where would you that learn such behaviour against former Jehovah's Witnesses is acceptable?

I've got another question.

Who really are the spoilt brats? Former Jehovah's Witnesses who have left the religion due to being unwilling to unquestioningly follow the edicts and doctrines of the self-appointed mouth-piece of Jehovah, the Governing Body?

The men who demand the unquestioning obedience of the entire religious order of Jehovah's Witnesses, while at the same time demonising and vilifying those who dare to leave?

Re: War of words breaks out among Jehovah's Witnesses

Mark — Tue, 27 Sep 2011 14:41:42 -0000

To be honest, faith in science/scientists is also a bit odd, isn't it, what with particles going faster than the speed of light and all that.

Re: War of words breaks out among Jehovah's Witnesses

Mark — Tue, 27 Sep 2011 13:59:14 -0000

You also need to consider what a Jehovah's Witnesses faith is in. It would appear that the "organisation", the Watch Tower Society, is the object in which a Witness places his faith.

For a Christian religion, this is strange.

Re: War of words breaks out among Jehovah's Witnesses

Mark — Tue, 27 Sep 2011 10:46:53 -0000

I don't think anyone behind the newspaper article wants to "stop their work". Stop the Governing Body teaching slanderous lies about those who leave, perhaps...