Wonder??? Why my J.W. friends left this site?

[savagewind]

I know this if off topic, but I'm curious. It is my understanding that "the comforter" is the Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit was as you say "taken away" in 1918, how in the world does the JW church organization recommend and appoint it's elders by any means led by the Holy Spirit if the Holy Spirit is no longer present?

How can they be led by The Holy Spirit if it had been taken away?

 

[savagewind]

Maybe we can get a defender of the "truth" to help us understand.

She will just say that the first instance is "Old Light". The Holy Spirit was never taken away. But that leads us to question how in 1932 was it God's organization if they were denying The Holy Spirit. Matthew 12:31

Which reminds me of another question........

 

[djhwoodwerks]

She will just say that the first instance is "Old Light". The Holy Spirit was never taken away. But that leads us to question how in 1932 was it God's organization if they were denying The Holy Spirit. Matthew 12:31

Which reminds me of another question........

That also means, that in 1919, when the 'slave' was appointed, it was appointed by Jesus and Jehovah personally or it was made known by angels.

What the rank and file fail to accept about their "old light" is that it is the "foundation" of who they are.

I feel as if Jehovah has given me the same kind of protection. I won't let the opposers get away with their hatchet job. My house is firm and unmovable....built on a solid foundation. I will defend the truth and expose the lies.

 

[savagewind]

That also means, that in 1919, when the 'slave' was appointed, it was appointed by Jesus and Jehovah personally or it was made known by angels.

They teach that the master Jesus Christ personally selects those who will govern in his place and because Jesus only does what The Father wills it follows that Jehovah chooses who will decide what the truth is.

What the rank and file fail to accept about their "old light" is that it is the "foundation" of who they are.

They fail to admit that the past is what they stand on. They fail to see that something which they now stand on might be changed. Their foundation is shaky.

 

[Sonofason]

Maybe we can get a defender of the "truth" to help us understand.

And to clarify, it wasn't me who said it, it was the spirit directed gb that said it. I'm just quoting them.

Okay, thanks for the clarification. I'll try to pay better attention to who is saying what.

 

[Sonofason]

How can they be led by The Holy Spirit if it had been taken away?

Yeah, that would be the question. I see you've already given your response to this.

 

[Burl]

By letting the antics of 'people with guns' go by without 'letting it into our hearts' and arming ourselves, we've let it go.

I do not agree with you. I might have a gun, but God knows I don't know how to shoot it, and I would worry about who I might shoot.
I have not let into my heart that someone might shoot me. Why would anyone let into their heart that they might get shot someday?

It may appear to someone reading your thread and this that you agree with the egocentricity of governing bodies and their resolutions of excommunication.

 

[savagewind]

It may appear to someone reading your thread

This thread?

and this that you agree with the egocentricity of governing bodies

Do you mean Jehovah's Witness governing body members?

and their resolutions of excommunication.

I do not remember ever agreeing with anyone's excommunication.

The Jehovah's Witnesses are convinced that people should be excommunicated or excluded because they believe and teach that 1 Corinthians 15:33 means people.

I have stated that bad associations which are said to spoil useful habits are not people, but are bad ideas being taught.

Does anyone else see how funny Christ's circumstance is turning out?

 

[Burl]

LOL You read my post? I hope my writing has got better since then...

That indicates, I guess, that English is not your native language and that may account for our misunderstanding, rather than a deliberate attempt to obfuscate. As it is I think I'll just agree that we disagree.

 

[savagewind]

That indicates, I guess, that English is not your native language and that may account for our misunderstanding, rather than a deliberate attempt to obfuscate. As it is I think I'll just agree that we disagree.

I least I try to be clear. I have no idea what you are referring to. What do we disagree on?

I don't even know if you are for, against, or neutral regarding what is being taught in the Watchtower.

And I don't know if agreeing with oneself is a real thing.

 

[Burl]

By letting it go "out in the draught" we can continue to be open to the possibility that God is communing with us without closing off.

...Interesting. I think I might like to hear more about that as I do not know what you are saying...
QUOTE]

By letting the antics of 'people with guns' go by without 'letting it into our hearts' and arming ourselves, we've let it go.

I do not agree with you. I might have a gun, but God knows I don't know how to shoot it, and I would worry about who I might shoot.
I have not let into my heart that someone might shoot me. Why would anyone let into their heart that they might get shot someday?

The original misunderstanding as I see it is the confusion over letting people play out their dramas without becoming caught up in it and arming ourselves with guns and nukes etc.

 

[savagewind]

I agree that guns and bombs do not harmonize with the will of Jehovah @Burl Do we agree or disagree? I don't know.

Psalms 46:9

The poor chap who is said to have been shot even though he asked in Jesus name for the gun to fail was probably trusting this;

Isaiah 54:17

 

[Burl]

lol synchroneously by YmirGF:

The four imponderables are identified in the Acintita Sutta, Anguttara Nikaya 4.77, as follows:[5]

1. The Buddha-range of the Buddhas [i.e., the range of powers a Buddha develops as a result of becoming a Buddha];
2. The jhana-range of one absorbed in jhana [i.e., the range of powers that one may obtain while absorbed in jhana];
3. The [precise working out of the] results of kamma; (karma)
4. Speculation about [the origin, etc., of] the cosmos is an imponderable that is not to be speculated about.

 

[savagewind]

lol synchroneously by YmirGF:

The four imponderables are identified in the Acintita Sutta, Anguttara Nikaya 4.77, as follows:[5]

1. The Buddha-range of the Buddhas [i.e., the range of powers a Buddha develops as a result of becoming a Buddha];
2. The jhana-range of one absorbed in jhana [i.e., the range of powers that one may obtain while absorbed in jhana];
3. The [precise working out of the] results of kamma; (karma)
4. Speculation about [the origin, etc., of] the cosmos is an imponderable that is not to be speculated about.

Sigh

 

[djhwoodwerks]

They fail to admit that the past is what they stand on. They fail to see that something which they now stand on might be changed. Their foundation is shaky.

Like the man who built his house on the sand!

Mat 7:24-27 (ESVST) 24 "Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. 26 And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it."

If the foundation of the founding fathers teachings of JW's is "old light", that foundation is sand, not "Rock"! I hope JW's will take into consideration that that verse says, "founded on "the" rock", not just "A" rock.

 

[savagewind]

@Burl What I believe to be imponderable is whether anyone is serving God or serving something else or nothing.

THEY say I speak against what they do. I do not. I speak against their inconsistencies. They say I am an enemy to do so. But what do THEY do?
Do you know?

 

[savagewind]

They speak out against false religion's inconsistencies. I learned from them to do it and now that I do it to them it is wrong. According to them, it is right when they do it, but wrong when I do it. I am called a liar for doing what they do.

 

[Burl]

OK I get it, you can't contradict the LDS position on gun ownership.

 

[savagewind]

OK I get it, you can't contradict the LDS position on gun ownership.

You make me laugh. You are all over the board. Now do you know English is my language, but badly? LOL

You must know that the Latter Day Saints are different than the Jehovah's Witnesses.
Religion 101.

 

[Burl]

Although looked down upon, a Jehovah Witness can own guns as long as they are not used for killing

http://thejehovahswitnesses.org/beliefs.php