@Myjoe,
i have been following the tread,but then

permit me to delve into this issue,im interested pls,in your response directed to another person on the tread,i lifted the quote below, because you seemed to muddle things up,and i want to be clear on that, below;(in blue)

No. I neither said nor meant any such thing. I mean that due to the psychological methods used and the fact individuals are not permitted to think for themselves or disagree on anything, certain problems are created.

so,how do you mean that 'individuals are not permitted to think for themselves'
lets start with this one first.

i see this accusation above in quote as false. i will appreciate if we can deal with issues one-by-one.

Thank you and welcome, Barristers. Yes, it's good to take on isues one by one. But the one you have raised is one I already addressed. I had no interest in talking about politics or blood transfusion or war and the like on this thread. I only mentioned them because Mr truthislight said Witnesses are not prevented from thinking freely and following their consciences - or something like that.

Statements have to be read in context. Sufficient context is provided by the issues listed above. In legislating on political participation, blood transfusion, vaccination, organ transplant and other sundry issues, was the Watchtower simply following the Bible or overreaching itself, that is failing to allow members to think for themselves and following their consciences based on their personal enlightenment or understanding of the Bible? It was to show that the Bible is not clear on some issues that I mentioned the matter of doctrinal changes since the former is the only explanation for the latter. I have already addressed these. But I suspect there is a tangent you want to explore. Please go right into it. Thank you.

On the use of psychological methods, that has also been addressed, particulalry where I talked about hot button phrases and loaded language. Mr truthlislight, in this thread, provides a textbook example of this. I question the policy of not allowing members to vote or hold public office and he accuses me of craving "religion in politics". I explain that is not what I meant, but he goes on and on about with the phrase. I talk about people being free to decide on a case by case basis whether to fight in a war or not and he accuses me of encouraging "religious war" and "religious conflicts". Why? Because these phrases have been absorbed into the bloodstream. Once any of his five senses pick up the words or politics or war he kicks in with them. If I am a member of the Egbesu cult and I get elected as a local government chairman, to truthislight that is Egbesu in politics. If an Olumba Olumba member votes, that is Olumba Olumba in politics.

You say I seem to have muddled things up. Well, that is possible. Please show exactly what I have muddled up in your view so I can look at it and clear it up.

@truthislight
In a discussion there is only one way to show that you have a good argument or that the other person's argument is bad. You address the issue. You do that by refuting the points, point by point, and advancing your own argument. When you want to show that someone is lying, you present the facts and that would shut him up. Show that your blood policy makes sense or is based on the Bible. Show that I lied about vaccination, blood fractions and organ transplants. Throwing tantrums, attacking the other person, turning his statements upside, lying, do not help you.

For example, when you say I must have been a former member kicked out for an offence, how does that help your argument? I mean, even if it were true, how does that prove you are right and I am wrong? It does not. All it does is to win you sympathy among your fellow Witnesses.

Back in the day when the Communist Party of the USSR wanted to investigate your church the KGB sent an agent to become a member. That one rose to a very high position - district overseer, I think. Nowadays, you don't need all that. Information is freely available for anyone who knows where to look and how to go about sifting facts from fiction. All it takes for anyone to get facts about your church is the interest. Once that is present all that remains is a good head for research and ability to recognise facts. If you have Witnesses around you in your family, workplace, or neighbourhood, the rest is buscuit. It might not even be too difficult to get the library on CD-ROM. Great stuff.

Now, I can think of six possible reasons this interest would arise:

(1) You look at the Witnesses and you wonder why they go preaching from house to house in the sun and rain.

(2) You wonder why the Witnesses insist only they have "the true religion".

(3) You are in the process of being recruited and you tell yourself "hey, truthislight, better pause and take a good look at everything first".

(4) You are born of Witness parents and feel you should get baptised since, well, everyone is getting baptised. But just before you take the decision, you decide to pause and take a good look at the church.

(5) You are engaged to a wonderful lady but she insists she can't marry you since you are not a Witness. You wonder what it is that would make your angel want to throw the special thing you have going between you two away. You decide to investigate that thing so as to either (i) join, or (ii) show her that what she is clasping is an empty shell. (If you have ever lost a lady you love you will agree with me that few pains compare to it.)

(6) You are a member of the JW but one day it occurs to you that a lot of things don't add up, so you decide to do a bit of digging.

truthislight:
@myjoe
hmmm!
Men, it is very interesting, i mean the passion in you to show that "the governing elders" of theJW are not following the scriptures when you youself did not not quote any scriptures to show ur facts
. Because i notice that u deliberately seperated them from the other witnesses.

I'm not sure what you mean by the seperation above, but you were the one who introduced the word "elder" in this discussion. I only started using it after that. As for quoting any scriptures, I will deal with that presently. And, no, there is no passion here. Even when one tries to avoid them, sometimes one gets caught up in things like this and you have to follow it to a sensible conclusion.

One thing that struct me though is this, its like u may have been one of them that was kicked out and you took offence or something of that sort.
Or, are you saying that all your info about them however it is, is as a result of your being a passive observer?

This is another computer-generated response. See what I wrote above. It is presumptious of you to assume that (i) I am a former member (ii) I committed an offence. It does not help your argument.

Am aware that war report are best told by former soldiers.

If that is the case i may have reasons to understand why u are going round on all info that you have and twisting things.

You are yet to show anything I have twisted. Whereas any reader of the thread can see how you are twisting my words. For example, where did I "justify the dead of all innocent people as a result of religious conflicts in war"?

Meanwhile, am wandering what the spiritual benefit of my discussion with you will be?

I am not trying to benefit you spiritually. I am just trying to clear up things that needed clearing up. I am not looking for spiritual benefit from you, either. I actually do not like debating with someone like you and would not have knowingly undertaken the task. I mean, with the way you put words into my mouth, turn what I say upside down and fail to respond to any issues but seek to muddle them up. You are the second of your church I have had an extensive exchange with on this forum. The other was smart and actually did address some issues. He was to a certain extent above the computer-generated response style. It was quite good to chat with him.

U hadly quote any scriptures to prove ur point as we had agreed that we will(basing all our discuss on the bible)
is it that u dont like, trust/read the bible anymore, or u want me to tag with u on words without using the bible?

How spiritual will this our friendship becomes, (note bad friends spoils useful harbits)

note; the litle bible i know now is as a result of there "bad" effort (the witness) according to you

You are trying to put words into my mouth, again. Remember you said lying is bad. Anyway, I may even know more Bible than you do. When it was necessary, I quoted a few in the other thread opened by your brother. Ask him.
You quoted a scripture to show why you don't do politics. And I showed you that your application of the scritpure is wrong. There was no need to for me to cite a scripture so I did not. But to your mind, all discussions are about "quoting" scripture after scritpure and seeing, not what those scriptures actually say, but what you have been told they say. That is why you are comfortable with discussions about the Trinity which you have had constant practice on but when you find yourself in the middle of serious issues you scream "branch office, branch office!"
No, not so. In a discussion, you "quote" scriptures when necessary and you don't let the other person get away with explanations that stand logic on its head.
And I am not trying to make you my friend. Thank you.

i agree with u that religion in politics will make the world a better place as we can see in Nigeria, or is it the involvement of the JW that will fixe the world? Irrespective of the effort of all the well meaning people?

Nobody is asking you to fix the world. I only asked why people are not allowed to make their choices. Nobody is asking you to bring religion into politics. I believe in the separation of church and state so there is no way I would support "religion in politics". But this will fly over your head like all I have already said on this matter. And I doubt a Witness candidate will be my first choice to vote for due to your black and white view of the things. Who'd want a Sarah Pallin on steroids running things?

It is possible that all witnesses all over the world are suffering from brain drain or brain wash according to u, and none of them can see what u are saying, is it that u could not see what they are seeing?

When you ask whether all the Witnesses could be wrong, while I am right, do you expect to be taken seriously? If you want to appeal to numbers, how many Witnesses are there? Ok, Is it possible that all Catholics all over the world are suffeirng from brain drain or brain wash according to you and none of them can see what you saying, is it that you could not see what they are seeing? Remember there are only six or seven million Witnesses while there are over 1.2 billion Catholics. And, by the way, I have not used the expresssion "brain wash".

Whatever the case, ur effort since the 1950's in politics (after leaving or refusing to join them) have fixed the world of its problems, is it that u need only the remaining witnesses to join you in politics to succeed?

You mean my efforts since 1920's in politics since I also quoted from 1929. So because I mentioned something that happened in the 50's that means I was around then? That explains why you think only former Witnesses would know much about the church.

Is it a grudge for their governing elders that are not interested in the good life that politics offer that you hate?
So u want them to mix religion and politics?

*Sigh*

I know that all the war that have been fouth in the 20century is all about someone entering someone childrens room with a dagger, but if it is not, may this show to what level and capacity you have in bending and twisting issues, and expecially in showing the real person you are.

So this is the "twisting" you have been talking about. It is really hard to continue with you without resorting to some of these words they use on NL. Ok. Lemme try again. You know what they call an "illustration"? Jesus used several. Now go and read the portion where I talked about the dagger man again. I wanted you to see that there are two sides to a war and wars are often not as simple as "Catholics killing Catholics". The dagger man and his victim. It is wrong to be the dagger man. But when you are the dagger man's victim, it is wrong not to defend yourself. It is even more shocking if you refuse to defend yourself because someone who claims spiritual authority over you told you not to. This is the position you are as a Witness. In WWII some people were minding their own business jeje when Hitler happened upon them. They saw him entering their children's bedroom and had to defend themselves - metaphor, please. But your church would have them not perform this duty but go out preaching instead. My point is that your church should allow the freedom to decide whether a certain war being fought is about nationalistic aggression or defending yourself against a dagger man. Only you, sir, can make that decision for yourself.

Thank you for justifying all the religious wars.
Thanks for justifying the dead of all innocent people as a result of religious conflicts.

How did "religious war" and "religious conflict" (more hot button phrases) enter this matter? As for justifying war, did you read this or did it fly over your head?

MyJoe:
Yes, it’s bad for Catholics to kill to Catholics. And wars are bad. In fact, it is hard to think of anything that is worse than war.

I said war is a complicated subject and you should not simplify it. How is that saying war is good or that Witnesses must go to war? Remember that "lying is bad".

To you it is the group that has always remain neutral that is the problem here.

To u there none involvement in war is bad for not killing innocent people that die as a result of war.

There obedience to the bible injunction "that they will not learn war anymore" is the instruction from there governing elders that is not base on the scriptures.

Why wont you say such? Afterall you dont read the bible it seems, so, how would you know?
that explain the reason for ur unjustified accusations here.
If you do read and cant quote the bible on a religious thread where then will you do it? That is if you are religious.

May be, ur thrust is not the bible, if so, why do you think u stand a chance of knowing the sense of an issue in the bible Genesis to Revelation to make an inform decission?

The stand of JW is the bible, so, if u wish to fouther this issue, come forward with the scriptures u think they are defaulting, then you will get a reply.

I have already shown you the scriptures they are defaulting as far as this discussion is concerned. You quoted them yourself. No need to repeat them.

Meanwhile, i have a coppy of the 1975 issue of the magazine in question and i did not get the sense u got.
People like you made me to look for it.
Peace

I'm sure you mean the magazine issue that dealth with the matter, since were're not talking about "the 1975 issue of the magazine" in any question. Well, you must be a very lazy researcher. That or you are being duplicitous. There where convention talks, Watchtower and Awake issues as well as other journals. You haven't even started. When you are through, if you are still misinformed on the issue, come here and ask for the real references.

But these things just fly over your head. Anyway, there are others reading.

@Myjoe

In legislating on political participation, blood transfusion, vaccination, organ transplant and other sundry issues, was the Watchtower simply following the Bible or overreaching itself, that is failing to allow members to think for themselves and following their consciences based on their personal enlightenment or understanding of the Bible? It was to show that the Bible is not clear on some issues that I mentioned the matter of doctrinal changes since the former is the only explanation for the latter.

Apart from the other contexts, i want to limit or start with the ones that you directed at my post,if possible.

Now you have just accused the watchtower of;

#failing to allow members to think for themselves and following their consciences based on their personal enlightenment or understanding of the Bible?


But from my own experience, i knew someone that they (jws) studied with for years and the person participate in giving comments at their sessions, he receives handshake and warm affection while the same person still living with a woman whom he is not married to.

but years later as his study progressed, the man decided to engage the woman in court registry,and some witnesess attended,and since they(the couple) already have one issue;a child before, then the man made up his mind to get baptised after what he described as a willing acceptance of principles and doctrines he was presented with and he did not stop at that, he searched for evidences on his own to get convinced and later declared himself convinced and willingly signify his intention 'to make a dedication' in water baptism, and he was duly baptised and later the wife too got baptised a year later after she decided to wait and be sure if the religion doctrines really answers her questions,she declared that she is personally convinced not because of her husband or under pressure from anybody,but because she wanted to have answers to some basic questions, which according to her the answers that she actually receives progressively was convincing,and that she actually did the search and compare with what she believed before on her own.


another one,

i engaged a young boy in his fourteen who claim to be a jehovah's witnesses in a conversation several years back,and he was able to answer three out of my four questions convincingly with sound proofs, quoting several bible verses to back up his claim.(trinity concept among others),
he gave no interpretations from other source because the whole answers were supplied inside the bible itself,and he seem to have more points than others, and guess what, he is yet to be baptised but was allowed to expose and test what he had learn to the public.

i think it is noteworthy that jehovahs witnesses allow 'the yet to be baptised' ones to openly declare their beliefs openly,exposing their beliefs or test what they belief with others openly for a particular period of time before they 'actually present theirself for baptism' which they say it means that they have agreed to 'enter into a contract' to accept what they have learn,make reseaches and convinced with.

so how do you 'reconcile your statement' with these few given facts,

or how do you mean? that;

failing to allow members to think for themselves and following their consciences based on their personal enlightenment or understanding of the Bible?



you may have erred with that assumption, and untill you prove otherwise.with fresh and legitimate facts, one by one so that we can treat them accordinly.

there is no proof that suggest that the watchtower have 'failed to allow members to think themselves' because each member willingly agreed to 'the principles of the doctrines thereby accepting the terms and conditions of their defined leadership' it was a concious mutual consent after a period of deliberations from a proposed member to either decide to accept the doctrine willingly or not.
i will appreciate if you give me instances directly,not neccesarily reffering me to other peoples posts, and if its possible that sentiments can be limited,im interested in legitimate claims and not mere assumptions
thanks

Myjoe quotes

In legislating on political participation

note; Jws is herein reffered to in the context as jehovah's witnesses.

On Political involvement,the (jws)took a stand based on what they found in the bible,to remain neutral,
to the extent that 'political involvement/participation is concern following an agreed terms that universally agreed upon,using several dictionaries,three good points stands out or all the points covered in the various definations were prunned down to (3)three, eligible to 'confirm' someone to be declared 'involved' in 'political involvement namely;

1) People can get involved in a public arena to advertise and communicate demands to anyone willing to listen. Example: joining a demonstration.
2) People may target policy-makers in legislatures or the executive branch as addresses of their communications. Example: signing a petition.
3) People may get involved in the selection process of those who aspire to legislative or executive office. Examples: voting for a party or running for office.


and in all these three above, Jws choose not to get involved.

any other insinuations such as 'do you want to tell me that' or 'are you saying that' or 'insults' directed at perceived act of suspicion of ones involvement on personal opinions against basic principles are null and void,and of no benefit or enhancement whatsoever to the accuser's argument.

and on the issue of 'who directed the doctrines to be enforced'
i have treated that in my last post,but more emphasis again, there is a reasonable period of time a particular member studies the principle guarding the doctrines,and untill such a person comes forward to declare his 'consent' to be baptised and 'signifies this with water immerssion' which stand as a declaration of his/her followership by willingly exclaiming in his/her own words 'here i am, send me',and this testifies to the fact that there was no force or coersion in agreeing to the directions of their respective and defined leadership.

and on why would a member or all members not present in decision making,

All these processes has already been studied in the pre-baptism period, understood and accepted by a proposing member which also includes those whose parents are Jws and are born there, there is no child/infant baptism but there is a reasonable time given for maturity and decision making stages before they choose to either proceed to baptism or not.

there are numerous instances like that in which a child would just choose not to proceed with his bible study due to his personal opinion, his wish will be respected, he still receives handshake and even some warm affection.

so, every member of jws are aware of the requrements of being an overseer, and this the jws choose to follow according to them 1 timothy chapter 3.

they choose to accept that requirement since it it based solely on bible principle that was actually practiced by the early christians and apostles.

so the issue of not voicing their view on what their leadership decides,is not an issue at all because it has been agreed accepted willingly prior to baptism.
they accept what paul says in

Hebrews 13:17

[size=14pt]17 Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority, because they keep watch over you as those who must give an account. Do this so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no benefit to you.[/size]

so with few of many facts provided here,backed up with the bible as their main 'boundary' i dont thnk your accusations is really justified until you proove otherwise with facts and not hearsays.

lets deal with facts,
im waiting.

Thank you, Barristers.

Years ago when I was on the verge of joining a mystical group, I decided to pause and look deeper into what I was about to do. I talked to more members. I went online. I read more books. I even got my hands on materials that only members were allowed access to. My forms were already filled out and all. But at the end of the day, I decided not to join. Here is what made me change my mind: I did not want to be told what and how to think. It is called mind control. Now, if I had joined, knowing fully the beliefs of the organisation, the basic tenets having been disclosed, I would have done so in exercise of my freedom; that is, willingly. This is your argument. That when people are about to join Watchtower, they know about beliefs and tenets - blood, political participation, etc - yet freely agree to join. Therefore, if, say, my mother is a Witness and she passes on are a result of refusing blood transfusion, I would have no legal case against the Watchtower Society. This argument is essentially correct. (Not absolutely so, it seems, but no need to go there.)

But, like I said, you have to read statements in context. Since you say you have been reading thread you are aware that when I came into thread, it was to point out there were differences in how the different movements react to dissent. It was about whether members are allowed to disagree or not. So your legalistic argument, while valid, is not of much use.

or how do you mean? that;

failing to allow members to think for themselves and following their consciences based on their personal enlightenment or understanding of the Bible?

you may have erred with that assumption, and untill you prove otherwise.with fresh and legitimate facts, one by one so that we can treat them accordinly.

I have already provided legitimate facts - I'm afraid I have to refer you to what I have written since there is no need to rehash them. But here are facts, now directed to you:

MyJoe:
Ok. Let’s say that verse is clear on blood transfusion. (whether it is is a matter for another day.) How about the issue of blood fractions? You will agree with me it is not clear on that. Here is what I am getting at:
On Monday, the church says: blood fractions are okay.
On Tuesday: the Bible says they are wrong.
On Wednesday: they are okay.
On Thursday: the Bible says they are wrong.
On Friday: they are okay.
If the Bible were clear on the matter (blood fractions), there would be no changes and confusion. Since the Bible is not clear on the matter, yet your church insists on deciding for its members, on what basis do you claim that members are allowed to use their conscience or understanding? Why didn’t your church simply say: “the Bible says don’t take blood transfusion(!). But as for the smaller fractions, it’s not clear. Let your conscience guide you”?

No, please, these are not "hearsays". There are references.

Blood. Political participation. Vaccinations. Organ transplants. Neutrality in the face of consuming evil. But once you address one you would have addressed the others.

there is no proof that suggest that the watchtower have 'failed to allow members to think themselves' because each member willingly agreed to 'the principles of the doctrines thereby accepting the terms and conditions of their defined leadership' it was a concious mutual consent after a period of deliberations from a proposed member to either decide to accept the doctrine willingly or not.

I am not disputing that there was consent in joining the movement, please. What I am saying is that Witnesses are not allowed to make personal religious decisions even in small matters, including those the Bible is clearly unclear on. If your view is that having willingly joined the individual has agreed to cede his thinking to a central brain and there is nothing wrong with that, we can disagree on that point – that is, whether there is anything wrong with it or not. I am merely pointing out that that is the situation. However, you cannot pretend that Witnesses are allowed to think for themselves just because they agreed not be allowed to think for themselves. Besides, does Watchtower admit this or are decisions slyly presented as the individual's? "My Bible trained conscience will not allow me to salute the flag." 1990: "I direct that no whole blood or fractions be transfused into me. This is in line with Acts 15:20" - or is it 29? 2012: "I direct that no whole blood should be transfused into me. But I may accept so and so fraction... This is in line with Acts 15:20". Acts 15 did not change. This individual here made the change because the central brain directed so. But the individual never says so. He says it is his own view according to the Bible. When you people refuse to fight in war you do so as “conscientious objectors” - something recognised under the Nigerian Constitution and the laws of many countries. But what we have here is not the individual's conscience but a group conscience. This is what I was pointing out.

Let me summarise this and perhaps there is will be no further argument on this point. You are saying that having willingly agreed to join, knowing that the organisation will make all religious decisions for him, the individual cannot turn around to complain that he was not allowed to make his own decisions. Period. All I am saying is that this should be admitted.

BARRISTERS:
But from my own experience, i knew someone that they (jws) studied with for years and the person participate in giving comments at their sessions, he receives handshake and warm affection while the same person still living with a woman whom he is not married to.

but years later as his study progressed, the man decided to engage the woman in court registry,and some witnesess attended,and since they(the couple) already have one issue;a child before, then the man made up his mind to get baptised after what he described as a willing acceptance of principles and doctrines he was presented with and he did not stop at that, he searched for evidences on his own to get convinced and later declared himself convinced and willingly signify his intention 'to make a dedication' in water baptism, and he was duly baptised and later the wife too got baptised a year later after she decided to wait and be sure if the religion doctrines really answers her questions,she declared that she is personally convinced not because of her husband or under pressure from anybody,but because she wanted to have answers to some basic questions, which according to her the answers that she actually receives progressively was convincing,and that she actually did the search and compare with what she believed before on her own.

I know of someone that they studied with. My friend's classmate's mother back in the day. She had to leave her husband because she was the second wife. Of course, she did not want to leave her husband since there were no serious problems in their marriage. But it was made clear to her that without taking that step, she could not get baptised. In other words, she would be denied full association with a Christian group she cherished and wanted to fellowship with as long as she insited on going by the real dictates of her own conscience which was to stay put in her marriage. Now, I think you would narrate this story somewhat differently. "...the woman made up her mind to get baptised after what she described as a willing acceptance of principles and doctrines she was presented with..." I guess it will be hard for an objective reader who has no personal acquaintance with the what goes on to say who is more accurate in his description, as this is quite subjective. But a whole book can be written on the manner in which JW "presentations" are made and the reasons people buy them. But that's a different matter. Well, maybe not, since your story probably has more bearing with it than my point that Witnesses don't think for themselves and follow their consciences. So if you like, this can be explored further.

another one,

i engaged a young boy in his fourteen who claim to be a jehovah's witnesses in a conversation several years back,and he was able to answer three out of my four questions convincingly with sound proofs, quoting several bible verses to back up his claim.(trinity concept among others),
he gave no interpretations from other source because the whole answers were supplied inside the bible itself,and he seem to have more points than others, and guess what, he is yet to be baptised but was allowed to expose and test what he had learn to the public.

I have seen eight year old Witnesses do this. In another thread on this forum I told a poster that a five year old Witness could tear up what he had written about the Trinity matter without breaking stride. Rote learning. That fourteen year old kid was simply parroting what he had been told. Proof? Ask another fourteen year old kid, or a seventy year old grandpa, or a 35 year old spinster, and the exact same words will be used. "...If a doctor told you to avoid alcohol, would you take it in through your veins?"

For example, ask the boy to explain Luke 21:32. That Bible verse contains a prophecy that clearly failed to come to pass - that those hearing Jesus would not all die before things were rounded up. But your fourteen year old will go into pure magic as he slashes and adds beginnings and middles and ends to come up with an explanation - just the way it was fed to him. Of course, if you asked him in 1915 you would get an explanation different from the one he gave you in 1890. He would give you entirely different interpretations in 1923, in the 1960's, the 1970’s, the 1980's, the 1990's and in 2012 - for the same Luke verse. If you ask a random Catholic or Pentecostal the same question he is likely to tell you he does not know what to make of the verse but that that does not affect his faith in the message of Jesus Christ. Does a Witness express this sort of honesty or does he simply buy wholesale what is dished out?

I am sure you, at least, understand my point by now.

i think it is noteworthy that jehovahs witnesses allow 'the yet to be baptised' ones to openly declare their beliefs openly,exposing their beliefs or test what they belief with others openly for a particular period of time before they 'actually present theirself for baptism' which they say it means that they have agreed to 'enter into a contract' to accept what they have learn,make reseaches and convinced with.

That the Witnesses often outperform other Christians during Bible discussions is not necessarily because they have a superior argument or because they have attained any personal enlightenment or understanding of the Bible. You well know that cannot be the case since Witnesses have no personal enlightenment or understanding of the Bible. (They got enlightenment and understanding as a group. This is something you have not refuted. In fact, your acceptance of it can be seen all over your posts, such as when you said this: "so the issue of not voicing their view on what their leadership decides,is not an issue at all because it has been agreed accepted willingly prior to baptism." Just raise a question that has not been practised on at the meetings and see how that fourteen year old will perform. Ask him how Daniel's Nebuchadnezzer got all that gold to build an image. You know that major news items are sometimes discussed at your services with members coached on how to respond. There is no church around that can hope to match the training programmes the Witnesses take their people through in furtherance of the aggressive effort to recruit as many people as possible.

BARRISTERS:
they choose to accept that requirement since it it based solely on bible principle that was actually practiced by the early christians and apostles.

Please show from the Bible that every Christian was forbidden from political participation in the first century. I would like to learn this.

Hebrews 13:17

[size=14pt]17 Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority, because they keep watch over you as those who must give an account. Do this so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no benefit to you.[/size]

What does submission to authority mean?
1 Peter 2:13-17
(NASB)
13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, 14 or to governors as sent [a]by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. 15 For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men. 16 [b]Act as free men, and [c]do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God. 17 Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the [d]king.

So you are also to submit to governors, not only the leaders of your church. Does this mean a Christian is to go against his conscience on the orders of his governor? Which takes precedence - obedience to your God-given conscience or submission to the governor? Which takes precedence - obedience to your God-given conscience or submission to your church leader?

1 Cor 7:19-23
(NASB)
19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God. 20 Each man must remain in that [a]condition in which he was called.

21 Were you called while a slave? [b]Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather [c]do that. 22 For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord’s freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ’s slave. 23 You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men.

Reconcile this with the poor woman who was made to leave her husband, then explain how she has not been deprived of her freedom to follow her conscience in line with this verse.

1 Peter 2:16-19
(NASB)
16 Act as free men, and [a]do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God. 17 Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king.

Christians are to act as free men and flee from only that which is evil.

Colossians 2:16-19
(NIV)
16 [b]Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. 18 Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you. Such a person also goes into great detail about what they have seen; they are puffed up with idle notions by their unspiritual mind. 19 They have lost connection with the head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.

In eating or drinking, who do you follow? Your conscience or those who insist in burdening you with their own details? Should Christians create burdens for themselves or try to follow Jesus who said his yoke is light? Should they allow anyone to rule their religious lives or cherish the freedom procured for them by Jesus Christ?



I believe I saw the word “insult” in your last post. I have not insulted you or anyone on this thread, please. I’d be disappointed in myself if I did.

Well, sometime i cant help it but wander if human can be able to reward himself with eternal life.
That is if some of them even belief that it is possible.

Really, considering that human have so watered down God's word due to self consideration.

Why do i say this?
Consider this:
Jesus said that marriage should be one man to one woman and one woman to one man the two will become one flesh. Mark 10:1 to 12.

Jesus did not say that the three will become one flesh, two woman one man.

That is what any that want to follow christ will endeavour to keep and not to bend this clear directive to suite individual urges.

Is the issue the freedom for her to follow her consciense or the freedom to have many wives by men? Lol.

Though It will suite many to take 5wives, Jesus did not give room for the solomon desires, he gave the above directives.
And any that wish to serve God as the bible says can see things for themself.

If a man should have many wive and many women are to shear one man, when and how will they come to have the clear mind to concentrate in the preaching work that is the commission that was given to christ followers?

Well, look at which of the standards is practical in allowing their members to concentrate in the preaching work. JW AND OTHERS that allows for multiple partners.

I can understand why the catholics will say they dont understand what the bible says on issues, since they dont go about preaching from house to house and they dont think that knowing the truth is important but rather following traditions,
but the witnesses do recognise that Jesus said that the true worshipers will worship God in spirit and in truth, and it is expected that they know what the bible teaches befor they can be able to help others to come to an accurate knowledge of the truth to be save.
John 4:23 and 1Timothy 2:3,4.

Can someone pls tell me what is mystical about the JW? That some one on a forum will come out to say they are mystical?

Do mystical cult go out from house to house to preach and teach the bible as to bring all kind of people to an accurate knowledge of truth?
This is a group whose meeting is held in the open in there kingdom hall, doors are never close while meetings are on, all sort of persons are welcome.
I think the mystic is a figment of ur own imagination.

The JW distribute their mag. The watchtower to all on the street and also have a library on it for reference purposes, is that the big deal that one should have and announce it on a forum that he has what he is not supposed to have?
This is just a CD ROM, AND ANY THAT IS INTERESTED IN HAVING IT CAN HAVE IT AS LONG IT WILL NOT BE COMMERCIALIZE, AND HENCE, THE CONTROL FOR IT MEMBERS.
It is only a research tool. Besides, it is made available online right now.
If it was any thing out of being a research tool, would you not have mention those things?
Why attempt to create suspicion about it? Pls, i plead of u to read through it and bring out the secret things u saw therein to warrant ur mentioning it on this forum.
If none, dont u see that u have a problem with ur life?

The witnesses simply follow the bible, if u dont know what the bible say like the catholics u mention, pls do well to read it.
Peace.

Mr truthislight

1. I did not call the JW a mystical group. I was quite obviously not refering to them when I used that word and I'm sure the person I was talking to can see that.

2. I did not say or imply any of those things you said about the library in the single place I have mentioned it. Read again.

I have no further inclination of talking to you since I cannot trust myself to continue to do so the way I have so far. Thank you in anticipation of your cooperation.

Starting from Frosbel to all other contributors, you've all displayed the level of your understanding in the question. Both JW and others are human beings like you. All what you read from them can also come from you. All information about all religious figures are human made. Trace the history of religion back to the genesis, human mind created all. Just as human mind originated science, so also is religion. Someone started catholic, another anglican, today we hear JW, even Latter Day saint came up with their own story not to talk of Cele. Stop discriminating, you too can start yours, formulate your own doctrine and you will see how multitude of fools will follow you. Shalom

MyJoe: Mr truthislight

1. I did not call the JW a mystical group. I was quite obviously not refering to them when I used that word and I'm sure the person I was talking to can see that.

2. I did not say or imply any of those things you said about the library in the single place I have mentioned it. Read again.

I have no further inclination of talking to you since I cannot trust myself to continue to do so the way I have so far. Thank you in anticipation of your cooperation.

On any forum, when the name JW IS MENTION, IF I AM AWARE OF IT MY RESPONSE IS AUTOMATIC.
Not when they claim to follow the bible, and someone have a pros with that i dont think i need an invitation to say what is in the bible and what is not.

Besides, do i need an invitation to post on a public forum?
Were u invited befor u started posting on this thread?

What is good enough for the goose should be good also for the gander.

Considering that my last post did not quote you. But considered issues on biblical rationalities. This i WILL always do as long i am available.
Peace.

@my joe....it seems u knw about d witnesses a lot...that's cool....

On there stance on politics and wars I espouse them....

We all know what politics have turned professed christians in this satan ruled world into....
Ogboni men,free masons,what have u.....


Let's not decieve ourselves.....

SATAN rules d world,except 1 is not wanting to face reality.......

We see what christians in 9ja do just to be well grounded in politics....I won't wanna say what they do because we all know......

Obama is there sanctioning gay marraige and all that when he claims to be a christian.....



In one of olagbagbe's post u see he posted a topic ""reasons why obama isn't a christian""

And there was mayhem all over d post....



There are so many factors 1 has to consider when going into politics....

And when critically considered u'll see why @ d end of it all christianity and d worlds politics aint compatible......


This whole issue can't be over-emphasized....

if u knw d witnesses very well and some how do understand there stand on some notion ,and how it harmonizes with Jesus's teachings then u gotta support them.....

If every christian for me culd b like the witnesses I wonder if we'll ever hear of wars again or nationalism......

I mean let's face facts and leave this whose religion is better or had made mistakes in d past.....

We see how christians who had engaged in politics and war in d past and present has led to the conversion of many into atheism.........


If only professed christians wuld follow Jesus foot steps closely they wuldnt have brought so much opprobrium on God and his Son........

An organized religion that can say no to war by there actions or neither take sides in politics just as Jesus wuld do has got to be doing something right...

It takes courage to stand by and follow up such principles........

Thank u!!!!!!!!

@Myjoe,

I must thank you for taking the time to express how you feel in your reply directed at my posts,
but i must point out some things in your post that i believed that you can try to adjust if you can so as to keep conversation focused and with some sort of dignity,

In my second reply to your post, i appeal to you like this 'in quote' below (bolded)

i will appreciate if you give me instances directly,not neccesarily reffering me to other peoples posts, and if its possible that sentiments can be limited,im interested in legitimate claims and not mere assumptions
thanks

But having agreed to taking the issues one-by-one,this is how you still went on to address it;
your quote below;
Myjoe quote;

I have already provided legitimate facts - I'm afraid I have to refer you to what I have written since there is no need to rehash them. But here are facts, now directed to you:

Again
Im very clear that i dont address insinuations and gave instances below (bolded)in my earlier quote;

any other insinuations such as[b] 'do you want to tell me that' or 'are you saying that' [/b]or 'insults' directed at perceived act of suspicion of ones involvement on personal opinions against basic principles are null and void,and of no benefit or enhancement whatsoever to the accuser's argument.

you still went on to force your own opinion on me this way, (bolded);

Myjoe

However, you cannot pretend that Witnesses are allowed to think for themselves just because they agreed not be allowed to think for themselves.

However,
Anyway,let me start dealing first with your summarry below;

Let me summarise this and perhaps there is will be no further argument on this point. You are saying that having willingly agreed to join, knowing that the organisation will make all religious decisions for him, the individual cannot turn around to complain that he was not allowed to make his own decisions. Period. All I am saying is that this should be admitted.

i will answer this from the same post that i have replied you with (bolded);


my earlier part-post

and on why would a member or all members not present in decision making,

All these processes has already been studied in the pre-baptism period, understood and accepted by a proposing member which also includes those whose parents are Jws and are born there, there is no child/infant baptism but there is a reasonable time given for maturity and decision making stages before they choose to either proceed to baptism or not.

[size=14pt]there are numerous instances like that in which a child would just choose not to proceed with his bible study due to his personal opinion, his wish will be respected, he still receives handshake and even some warm affection.[/size]

more emphasis on some part of your querry;

knowing that the organisation will make all religious decisions for him, the individual cannot turn around to complain that he was not allowed to make his own decisions.

can you choose to drive on the left-hand-side of the road here in Nigeria,having been validly licenced and imformed on where the rule states that all drivers must drive on the on the right hand sie of Nigerian roads,[b]but you turned around [/b]on 'grounds' that you have lived all your life in the U.K,or that you are a leftee, that is you are comfortable using your left hand to control your car's gear? and so the authority must bend to your own opinions on the two of the numerous grounds above and failure to do that means that you are not allowed to think?or excercise your 'feelings' or maybe you got your car impounded(for example) by the traffic officials and you end up paying heavy fines,

who do you blame?

and on
Your-friend's-classmate's-mother-back-in-the-day's claim below;

I know of someone that they studied with. My friend's classmate's mother back in the day. She had to leave her husband because she was the second wife. Of course, she did not want to leave her husband since there were no serious problems in their marriage. But it was made clear to her that without taking that step, she could not get baptised.

how you are so precise about the event considering the long individual relations involved (My friend's classmate's mother back in the day)involved is noteworthy,
trying to force a (bolded)statements below on me ahead of my response has just gave me a hint about you,but i can handle that,see below;

Myjoe quotes;

[size=14pt]Now, I think you would narrate this story somewhat differently[/size]. "...the woman made up her mind to get baptised after what she described as a willing acceptance of principles and doctrines she was presented with..." I guess it will be hard for an objective reader who has no personal acquaintance with the what goes on to say who is more accurate in his description, as this is quite subjective. But a whole book can be written on the manner in which JW "presentations" are made and the reasons people buy them.

At this junction, i would like to ask that do you meet the alledged woman in question in person to hear her reason-for-leaving her husband first, one on one,or do you just listen-in-reverse like this ..from 3-2-1; see what i mean; the information came like this, (1)[your-friend] relied-on-the-story-from-his-own (2)[classmate] whose (3)[mother] actually experinced the event,another factor is back-in-the-day,is not precise so lets leave that out.

why i ask is that do you know that Marriage laws 'do not' recognised two women 'in contract' at the same time with a man?
this is just exactly what they will be told in the court registry, lets leave The Jws out of this.

you know i have told you that i deal with facts,but you still choose to present cases with emphasis to draw emotions and direct the fault wholy at your accusers doorstep.

and do you know that,

second wives often suffer in legal claims which often happen as a result of claiming rights in the event of death of the husband?

And is it a crime if someone expose a person to an inpending danger directing the person to the bigger picture ahead?

on the issue of a fourteen year old boy who was a jws, who answered my 3 out of my 4 questions impressingly,below are your replies,

Myjoe;

That fourteen year old kid was simply parroting what he had been told. Proof? Ask another fourteen year old kid, or a seventy year old grandpa, or a 35 year old spinster, and the exact same words will be used.

At the stage,
since the story is from me, and i have appealed for 'no insult conversation'
what is 'parroting'
see your last quote on the issue;

Myjoe
I believe I saw the word “insult” in your last post. I have not insulted you or anyone on this thread, please. I’d be disappointed in myself if I did.

just to show you,im not bothered with it,but your sentiments is growing louder, pls lets get focused on issues and not attacking someone that you 'have never met before'

when seeking equity,they say you must come with clean hands.

back to the topic

It is not possible for two individuals to say the same thing allthrough, because i deal with writing verbals or statements at times,no two statement are exactly same brother, so the use of that discription to me is unfounded, and if the jws says the same thing, let me remind you another reason that may contribute largely to this of which many people ignore....they only accept the bible (commonly known 66 books of sacred scriptures)as their basis, while other denominations would merge with some philosophical ideologies.they provide a basis for not buying to philosophical ideologies due to the clear warnings below;

colossians2:8
See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world [size=14pt]rather than on Christ[/size].
the jws accept based their acceptability of the bible without notable phylosophical ideas based on this scripture below;
2 Timothy 3:16-17

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

i think that they have defined their basis and boudaries, and thats one of the reason that could make one to predict some of their answers.

and to prove you wrong on the fourteen year old boy issue,

i wasnt alone asking him questions, a friend named john who was a catholic was around,and on the issue of purgatory(which catholics believed to be the purification of souls of the dead before the souls enter the heaven),

the boy having used the the bible to an extent, my friend john now started to back the purgatory claim from the apocrypha scriptures called the 'maccabees' which the catholics choose to adhere to in their proof of purgatory,the scripture was unfamiliar to the majority of christians,
so we all listen to the reading of that i could term an 'unfamiliar scripture' to the majority of other faiths outside catholic, my friend john read among others thus;

2 Maccabees 12:39-45
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
39 And the day following Judas cam with his company, to take away the bodies of them that were slain, and to bury them with their kinsmen, in the sepulchres of their fathers.
40 And they found under the coats o the slain some of the donaries of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth the Jews:
41 Then they all blessed the just judgment of the Lord, who had discovered the things that were hidden.
42 And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten. But the most valiant Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forasmuch as they saw before their eyes what had happened, because of the sins of those that were slain.
43 And making a gathering, he twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection,
44 (For if he had not hoped that the that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,)
45 And because he considered that the who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them.

listening again with emphasis to the reading of the the bolded chapter 43-44, the same fouteen year old boy insist that on the basis of this two bolded verses above,

''43 And making a gathering, he twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection,
44 ([color=#000099]For if he had not hoped that the that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead''

the boy insist that these whole quoted verses rests on these two paragraphs 43-44.he insists that the verse were not supporting purgatory concept but ressurection.here is it;

''thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection,
44 (For if he had not hoped that the that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead''


the boy make this decision in just lees than 20mins or so of listening and gazing at the system to the reading of these from a catholic bible file that my friend saved on his system.

john (my friend)says that catholics too believed in ressurection,but thats not the issue, i expect more convincing and logical points from one who choose a particular religion.anyway that you choose to aquirre sound knowledge, so far you can defend it and pleased with it, then let it be.

and if you call that 'buying wholesale' well it may just be a personal opinion of yours of which you are entitled to.

Thank you again, Barristers, for your forthright and brilliant post.

BARRISTERS: @Myjoe,
I must thank you for taking the time to express how you feel in your reply directed at my posts,
but i must point out some things in your post that i believed that you can try to adjust if you can so as to keep conversation focused and with some sort of dignity,

In my second reply to your post, i appeal to you like this 'in quote' below (bolded)



But having agreed to taking the issues one-by-one,this is how you still went on to address it;
your quote below;
Myjoe quote;

I’m not sure what the problem is here. And I am sensing a strategy - I could be wrong, of course - of dismissing everything as “assumptions”, “sentiments”, or “hearsays”. I stated I had to refer back to what I had previously written. I said then, again, here it is: address this one, and copied and pasted what I wrote previously. You have not addressed it but you go on about extraneous matters. In any case, that is a moot point now since we are not disputing my initial assertion that the leadership of the church makes decisions for members, including on matters the Bible is not clear on. I mean, the blood issue I raised would only be relevant to this discussion as it stands if you disputed this assertion of mine. By the way, you have been opinionating too. Opinions have their use in a discussion like this. They are good as long you don’t try to pass them off as facts. Where the opinion maker is mindlessly unobjective you can point this out with a better argument.

Again
Im very clear that i dont address insinuations and gave instances below (bolded)in my earlier quote;


you still went on to force your own opinion on me this way, (bolded);

Myjoe

Maybe you can see what I meant there. The entire paragraph was not an opinion but a statement of fact which followed logically from submissions made. But, yes, I chose my words wrongly in employing the word "pretend". I will not use it again. I believe I have not used the other phrases you highlighted, though.

However,
Anyway,let me start dealing first with your summarry below;



i will answer this from the same post that i have replied you with (bolded);


my earlier part-post


more emphasis on some part of your querry;


can you choose to drive on the left-hand-side of the road here in Nigeria,having been validly licenced and imformed on where the rule states that all drivers must drive on the on the right hand sie of Nigerian roads,[b]but you turned around [/b]on 'grounds' that you have lived all your life in the U.K,or that you are a leftee, that is you are comfortable using your left hand to control your car's gear? and so the authority must bend to your own opinions on the two of the numerous grounds above and failure to do that means that you are not allowed to think?or excercise your 'feelings' or maybe you got your car impounded(for example) by the traffic officials and you end up paying heavy fines,

who do you blame?

Apart from being unnecessary – since I understood you the first time – this analogy is off. In my opinion, it is also a bad analogy. Or can’t I question the government when my privacy rights are infringed upon? Does the fact a law is properly enacted make it morally right? You yourself know how much your church has contributed to the jurisprudence on free speech while defending their right to preach in various countries. If you go the ECHR would the argument that when they chose to set up shop in that country they were aware that the parliament of that country can make a law or change the constitution as it sees fit and this is binding on all citizens be a good argument in this case? What if a law goes against the “spirit and letter” of the constitution?

I am saying that your church is denying Christians, many of whom are very sincere, their God-given freedom to think and choose for themselves, even in matters the Bible is not clear on which ought to be left to the individual. This freedom can be determined from reason. Many of them are also coded in the Bible, which is the constitution in this case. Even if we suspend reason and go by the Bible alone, your church would still be found culpable. Maybe you will get to address this issue now it has popped up once again due to your analogy. To satisfy your requirements, I will be specific. Why does the church’s leadership not allow Christians to decide for themselves in matters of medical treatment when the Bible is not clear on the matter? For example, blood transfusion, vaccines and organ transplant.

The JWs maintain that they follow the Bible. The Bible is not clear on blood transfusion. Therefore this matter should be left to personal conscience, personal spiritual enlightenment and personal understand of the Bible. This is the point you have not addressed but rather you are making a legal point I have already stated I am not disputing – that people willingly agree to surrender their freedom to choose in these matters, therefore, they can’t complain.

and on
Your-friend's-classmate's-mother-back-in-the-day's claim below;



how you are so precise about the event considering the long individual relations involved (My friend's classmate's mother back in the day)involved is noteworthy,
trying to force a (bolded)statements below on me ahead of my response has just gave me a hint about you,but i can handle that,see below;

You could very easily slip into what you rightly or wrongly accuse others of.

At this junction, i would like to ask that do you meet the alledged woman in question in person to hear her reason-for-leaving her husband first, one on one,or do you just listen-in-reverse like this ..from 3-2-1; see what i mean; the information came like this, (1)[your-friend] relied-on-the-story-from-his-own (2)[classmate] whose (3)[mother] actually experinced the event,another factor is back-in-the-day,is not precise so lets leave that out.

Lol. You do have a point. However, it was not so fourth hand or fifth hand as you analyse it and “back in the day” takes nothing away from it. I did not have to rely on my friend’s story. Indeed, I didn’t. I will rather not go into details and you are free to leave that one out. My point was that the church decided for her. Besides, this particular story or not, I am familiar with your stance on this matter. No, not by hearsay. I was present, as an eight year old when this noted polygamist asked your people on house call questions on the matter. Patrick, the Witness from the neighbourhood who answered, was not literate, so he does not have your sophistication or subtlety. He delivered it straight as it is. Apart from the woman’s story I told you, there were others, although that is the only one I personally witnessed.

I did not force any statements on you. You may have noticed that I picked the exact you used in the previous paragraph and changed “he” to “she”. I was merely showing that the story would be narrated differently from a Witness’ perspective. I do not think you would have used the same words I used such as “it was made clear to her that without taking that step, she could not get baptized” even though that is the fact – no hearsay. If you feel statements have been forced on you, that is not the way I meant it.

why i ask is that do you know that Marriage laws 'do not' recognised two women 'in contract' at the same time with a man?

Pardon, but what marriage laws? You recall that a marriage does not have to be contracted under the Act to be recognized, valid and enforceable by the courts? Even the English courts have been known to recognize polygamous marriages emanating from Nigeria.

this is just exactly what they will be told in the court registry, lets leave The Jws out of this.

I don't think we should. They are too deeply involved. What we ought to leave out are the courts since that was what she and her husband chose to do – leave the courts out and do the native marriage – and that marriage was legal. The JWs told her that quitting her marriage was a condition for baptism. You have not denied that this is the practice. Recall that the mandatory court registration is imposed by the JW.

you know i have told you that i deal with facts,but you still choose to present cases with emphasis to draw emotions and direct the fault wholy at your accusers doorstep.

That^^^ is entirely without basis.

and do you know that,

second wives often suffer in legal claims which often happen as a result of claiming rights in the event of death of the husband?

And is it a crime if someone expose a person to an inpending danger directing the person to the bigger picture ahead?

I think you are the one appealing to emotions now. Read that^^^ again. A lot of marriages, monogamous or polygamous, experience problems. Yes, polygamous marriages do have their unique challenges. [i]But we are talking about the freedom to choose, [/i]not whether polygamy is good or bad. (Not that there is a consensus that polygamy is bad.) There are people who believe that being JW is bad because of certain health decisions but I would defend your fundamental rights to choose to be JW and any adult’s right to choose to reject any form of medical treatment.

on the issue of a fourteen year old boy who was a jws, who answered my 3 out of my 4 questions impressingly,below are your replies,

Myjoe;


At the stage,
since the story is from me, and i have appealed for 'no insult conversation'
what is 'parroting'

Parroting. Now, that was out of order. I take it back. However, I was not attacking him and you have not denied that he has a format which he does not depart from. I will get back to this matter presently.

just to show you,im not bothered with it,but your sentiments is growing louder, pls lets get focused on issues and not attacking someone that you 'have never met before'

when seeking equity,they say you must come with clean hands.

back to the topic

It is not possible for two individuals to say the same thing allthrough, because i deal with writing verbals or statements at times,no two statement are exactly same brother, so the use of that discription to me is unfounded, and if the jws says the same thing, let me remind you another reason that may contribute largely to this of which many people ignore....they only accept the bible (commonly known 66 books of sacred scriptures)as their basis, while other denominations would merge with some philosophical ideologies.they provide a basis for not buying to philosophical ideologies due to the clear warnings below;

colossians2:8
See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world [size=14pt]rather than on Christ[/size].

What is human philosophy? What is based on Christ and what is not? Is the Bible devoid of ambiguities such that we can objectively determine Christ’s view on all matters? Is going by reason human philosophy? Are the opinions of people such as Paul, Peter and James human philosophy or Christ’s views?

the jws accept based their acceptability of the bible without notable phylosophical ideas based on this scripture below;

I do not share this opinion. There are notable philosophical ideas in the JW theology. In fact, you can argue that the whole JW concept is founded on human ideas. No, I am not making assumptions. I have reviewed the facts.

2 Timothy 3:16-17

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

i think that they have defined their basis and boudaries, and thats one of the reason that could make one to predict some of their answers.

and to prove you wrong on the fourteen year old boy issue,

i wasnt alone asking him questions, a friend named john who was a catholic was around,and on the issue of purgatory(which catholics believed to be the purification of souls of the dead before the souls enter the heaven),

the boy having used the the bible to an extent, my friend john now started to back the purgatory claim from the apocrypha scriptures called the 'maccabees' which the catholics choose to adhere to in their proof of purgatory,the scripture was unfamiliar to the majority of christians,
so we all listen to the reading of that i could term an 'unfamiliar scripture' to the majority of other faiths outside catholic, my friend john read among others thus;

2 Maccabees 12:39-45
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
39 And the day following Judas cam with his company, to take away the bodies of them that were slain, and to bury them with their kinsmen, in the sepulchres of their fathers.
40 And they found under the coats o the slain some of the donaries of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth the Jews:
41 Then they all blessed the just judgment of the Lord, who had discovered the things that were hidden.
42 And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten. But the most valiant Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forasmuch as they saw before their eyes what had happened, because of the sins of those that were slain.
43 And making a gathering, he twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection,
44 (For if he had not hoped that the that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,)
45 And because he considered that the who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them.

listening again with emphasis to the reading of the the bolded chapter 43-44, the same fouteen year old boy insist that on the basis of this two bolded verses above,

''43 And making a gathering, he twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection,
44 ([color=#000099]For if he had not hoped that the that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead''

the boy insist that these whole quoted verses rests on these two paragraphs 43-44.he insists that the verse were not supporting purgatory concept but ressurection.here is it;

[i]''thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection,
44 (For if he had not hoped that the that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead''

I thought so too, when I schemed it.

That was a general point about repeating what was learnt during studies, which include practice sessions, at church, which is called “kingdom hall”. Here is how someone put it: “Churches don’t teach logic and refutation. Kingdom halls do!” Of course, there will be those who will make their own intellectual input. While others will merely repeat what was taught. I, too, have encountered smart Witnesses like this fourteen year old as well as other categories of Witnesses. The response is basically the same. The fact is that there are issues in which we should normally expect the same replies because it can be ascertained with reasonable objectivity from the Bible verses that that particular Christian denomination chooses to focus on – like the Trinity issue. But what about the Luke example I gave – where we would not normally expect the same replies? Anyway, since you already agreed that the Witness has already consented to a system that does not permit individual “light” I guess that is a moot point.

Your argument about people understanding and accepting before baptism does not apply universally. There have been cases of people using the same phrase I did: “well, because, others were getting baptized”. Some are former Witnesses while others are still Witnesses. But the Witnesses always then go on to add how they later made examinations and came to “accurate knowledge”.

john (my friend)says that catholics too believed in ressurection,but thats not the issue, i expect more convincing and logical points from one who choose a particular religion.anyway that you choose to aquirre sound knowledge, so far you can defend it and pleased with it, then let it be.

and if you call that 'buying wholesale' well it may just be a personal opinion of yours of which you are entitled to.

No, it's not simply my opinion. "Buying wholesale" is usually part of being affiliated with any organised religious or quasi-religious group. This is an objective fact and many religious folk admit it. I guess that's what thehomer was about - that the JW aren't different in that respect. I was merely pointing out the subtle differences which JWs have admitted on this thread.

Thank you, Ijawkid, for your contribution to the discussion.

@my joe....it seems u knw about d witnesses a lot...that's cool....

Thank you. At least, you are not accusing me of hearsay and whatnot.

On there stance on politics and wars I espouse them....

We all know what politics have turned professed christians in this satan ruled world into....
Ogboni men,free masons,what have u.....

Yes, but what about those who are not Ogboni men or freemasons? Don’t you think we cannot use the fact some politicians engage in cultism to generalise to all others, just as we cannot use the actions of some JW who do bad things to say all of them are hypocrites?

Let's not decieve ourselves.....

SATAN rules d world,except 1 is not wanting to face reality.......

Oh, well.

We see what christians in 9ja do just to be well grounded in politics....I won't wanna say what they do because we all know......

What about Christians not in 9ja? I mean, if the present negativities that you associate with Nigerian politics were removed, would you okay politics?

Obama is there sanctioning gay marraige and all that when he claims to be a christian.....

So what about politicians fighting against gay marriage? You cool with them?

In one of olagbagbe's post u see he posted a topic ""reasons why obama isn't a christian""

And there was mayhem all over d post....

Don’t you think Obama’s universal health care plan was good since it brought health care to people that would otherwise not have been covered? In my opinion, it is. Yet, Olaadegbu dismissed that as Socialism some years back when he started his campaign against Obama’s second term on Nairaland. If you examine the life of anyone, I am sure you will find both things you agree with and things you don’t. It is called reality.

There are so many factors 1 has to consider when going into politics....

And when critically considered u'll see why @ d end of it all christianity and d worlds politics aint compatible......

I have considered them, but I haven’t come to the same conclusion. But everything you have said above and my responses to them is not the issue. I am not a member of any political party, so obviously I am not advocating for everyone to join politics. I am not saying that politics is good or bad. If you decide not to register or vote in an election and the government decided to persecute you for that, I would stand up and defend your fundamental rights to take that stance. I have had course to argue this point somewhere. What I have spoken against in this thread is when a group dictates to its members that they should not exercise their civic rights. I believe this is neither compatible with reason nor the Bible. And since the Bible does not clearly forbid Christians from political participation, it comes down to the personal views of the leaders of your church and nothing more. That is my argument.

This whole issue can't be over-emphasized....

if u knw d witnesses very well and some how do understand there stand on some notion ,and how it harmonizes with Jesus's teachings then u gotta support them.....

If every christian for me culd b like the witnesses I wonder if we'll ever hear of wars again or nationalism......

We will, since everyone in the world are not Christians. If everyone in the world were JW, there probably won’t be any wars or nationalism. But, then, everyone in the world is not JW and we have to live in the world as it is. Reality.

I mean let's face facts and leave this whose religion is better or had made mistakes in d past.....

I am not about whose religion is better. I will leave that to you guys.

We see how christians who had engaged in politics and war in d past and present has led to the conversion of many into atheism.........

I’m not sure about this. Expatiate.

If only professed christians wuld follow Jesus foot steps closely they wuldnt have brought so much opprobrium on God and his Son........

I don’t believe that when people, Christians or not, do bad they bring any opprobrium on God. But your view on that matter is your view.

An organized religion that can say no to war by there actions or neither take sides in politics just as Jesus wuld do has got to be doing something right...

No, not necessarily. I think the actions of your brothers in refusing to help Hitler prosecute his satanic war was commendable. I believe people should stand up for what is right and if I ever face the situation they did, I hope I will have the courage to do what they did. However, you have to refer back to my analogy about the man whose family was attacked by a knife-wielding man. Your brothers in France or the UK who refused to fight to defend the community against Hitler in that war did not do anything commendable in my opinion. There was nothing [i]right [/i]in what they did - most thinking humans would agree. I doubt if Jesus’ mother and siblings were attacked by a knife wielding man he would have sneaked out of the house to preach on Mount Olives, as Witnesses are wont to go out preaching during such calamities. Since one war differs from another, my point is that people should be free to weigh the subtleties, make the distinctions and decide for themselves individually whether to join the effort or not.

MyJoe: Thank you, Ijawkid, for your contribution to the discussion.


Thank you. At least, you are not accusing me of hearsay and whatnot.


Yes, but what about those who are not Ogboni men or freemasons? Don’t you think we cannot use the fact some politicians engage in cultism to generalise to all others, just as we cannot use the actions of some JW who do bad things to say all of them are hypocrites?


Oh, well.


What about Christians not in 9ja? I mean, if the present negativities that you associate with Nigerian politics were removed, would you okay politics?



So what about politicians fighting against gay marriage? You cool with them?


Don’t you think Obama’s universal health care plan was good since it brought health care to people that would otherwise not have been covered? In my opinion, it is. Yet, Olaadegbu dismissed that as Socialism some years back when he started his campaign against Obama’s second term on Nairaland. If you examine the life of anyone, I am sure you will find both things you agree with and things you don’t. It is called reality.


I have considered them, but I haven’t come to the same conclusion. But everything you have said above and my responses to them is not the issue. I am not a member of any political party, so obviously I am not advocating for everyone to join politics. I am not saying that politics is good or bad. If you decide not to register or vote in an election and the government decided to persecute you for that, I would stand up and defend your fundamental rights to take that stance. I have had course to argue this point somewhere. What I have spoken against in this thread is when a group dictates to its members that they should not exercise their civic rights. I believe this is neither compatible with reason nor the Bible. And since the Bible does not clearly forbid Christians from political participation, it comes down to the personal views of the leaders of your church and nothing more. That is my argument.


We will, since everyone in the world are not Christians. If everyone in the world were JW, there probably won’t be any wars or nationalism. But, then, everyone in the world is not JW and we have to live in the world as it is. Reality.


I am not about whose religion is better. I will leave that to you guys.


I’m not sure about this. Expatiate.


I don’t believe that when people, Christians or not, do bad they bring any opprobrium on God. But your view on that matter is your view.


No, not necessarily. I think the actions of your brothers in refusing to help Hitler prosecute his satanic war was commendable. I believe people should stand up for what is right and if I ever face the situation they did, I hope I will have the courage to do what they did. However, you have to refer back to my analogy about the man whose family was attacked by a knife-wielding man. Your brothers in France or the UK who refused to fight to defend the community against Hitler in that war did not do anything commendable in my opinion. There was nothing [i]right [/i]in what they did - most thinking humans would agree. I doubt if Jesus’ mother and siblings were attacked by a knife wielding man he would have sneaked out of the house to preach on Mount Olives, as Witnesses are wont to go out preaching during such calamities. Since one war differs from another, my point is that people should be free to weigh the subtleties, make the distinctions and decide for themselves individually whether to join the effort or not.

so in all i think u feel the witnesses stance on there neutrality to wars and d worlds politics isnt correct and that it shuld rather have been an individuals decision...??right??

and as regards the ogboni issue i will really like u to show me 1 top politician who isnt part of ogboni or any other frat...

****u asked me to explain how d involvement of professed christians in d past has led to many turning to atheism and being irreligious....

if u can remember d crusade that claimed d lives of many,d fraud that was perpetuated by d ruling class then and all d atrocities committed by them....
those atrocities were committed by those who claimed to follow Jesus..
u know what d papacy did....politics and being an ardent follower of christ are just not compatible....

even scientists who werent witnesses could understand how politics workk....

like u agreed quite well that we live in a satan ruled world that is soon to crush...even Jesus understood that and shuned political sits...u know that quite well...jesus who had so much power would have been in d best position to delve into the politics of his day,but he bluntly refused knowing whose hands d rulership of these earthly kingdoms belonged to and how soon he himself will crush human governments....

if we wanna imitate jesus then we gotta espouse his stand and follow suit....witnesses just follow Jesus"s footstep,nothing more nothing less....

back in d 1st century the apostles and early christians as a group abided by directions from the holy spirit and also followed jesus steps...we are 100% percent sure that d 1st century christians were neutral when it came to war and politics..all they did was preach,preach and preach knowing they had a short period of time and knowing ruling in satans world is weightless effort,,...after all these governmemnts we see today will be crushed by Gods kingdom...the business of d christians back then was to promote Gods kingdom and not humans or satans....

would u have also asked d apostles why they didnt and wont involve themselves in wars??
would u have said that d early christians were just following the orders of d apostles and not Jesus??

if a witness presumpteously decides to go to war for his country just as u want who would he be shooting @ and killing??he might end up shooting a fellow witness who's neutral as respects war and also be killing his neighbour who is from a diff country....
jesus sternly told d apostle peter::he that kills by d sword dies by it....if Jesus wanted his followers to be engaging in conflicts no matter hw justified many will want to make it look(just as peter carried out a reprisal attack by cutting a soldiers ear all in d thought of defending jesus,which would sound right to many today) or engage in wars of any sort he wuldnt castigate peter for his actions..


what on earth will make d witnesses remain neutral in these 2 aspects we are considering if not because they wanna follow Jesus footsteps??

if d witnesses dnt imitate jesus then who should they imitate?? individual views??

now i"ll ask u:::would u as a christian wanting to follow jesus engage in war??if nigeria decides to go to war with another nation will u pick up arms to defend nigeria,and kill for d country(killing fellow christians who are on the other side)??

witnesses are peace makers and pursuers of peace till thy kingdom come...

next time u find it a problem why d witnesses remain neutral to wars and politics ask your self what jesus would do??

will Jesus engage in war and politics??

remember who we are:::FOLLOWERS OF CHRIST,not followers of our own originality.....

its good to defend ur rights and speak up when been oppressed ,but there shuld be a limit.. would u like many violently speak up...??
if in nigeria our only hope to erect a better govt is to engage in a violent revolution just as it was in libya,egypt etc would u as a christian pick up arms against d govt??

in some african countries series of revolts took place just to flush out so called bad government..

would u as a christian join in such revolts??join in fighting against d govt??killing and being brutal just because ur fighting for a short lived right??

witnesses respect superior authorities and maintain there neutral stand just as Jesus did....

if all professed christians culd imitate jesus's neutrality i bet if we will even experience tribal wars....

i love d witnesses for there calmness and peacefulness and worldwide love....
nothing seperates them nor stops them from loving each other...no political party can seperate them,because they belong to no political party..

witnesses are ready to die just to be peacable with all men...
and as such would never engage in wars for any reason whatso ever..

is that nt what Jesus wuld do??

as a group d witnesses are united in christlike love,...

my dad simply became a witness just for d fact that d witnesses as a group and as individuals didnt take part in d biafra war....
while other persons who claimed to be following christ engaged in d civil war killing each other irrespective of there religion and denomination, d witnesses were out there preaching about a time when wars will cease..it got my dad surprised!!!!!...

what would Jesus do??always ask urself that question.....

altho d witnesses have had some past flaws,but as regards there neutrality to wars and politics they GOT IT ALL RIGHT....
Jesus set that standard and that is what they stick to....

thanks....

@Ijawkid

Thank you for your interesting post. But allow me.

For the avoidance of doubt on your part or that of anyone who is reading, I did not agree that Satan rules anything. And I don't want Witnesses or anyone to presumtiously fight any war for their country or any side.

But thanks again and have a good night.

MyJoe: @Ijawkid

Thank you for your interesting post. But allow me.

For the avoidance of doubt on your part or that of anyone who is reading, I did not agree that Satan rules anything. And I don't want Witnesses or anyone to presumtiously fight any war for their country or any side.

But thanks again and have a good night.

UR WELCOME BRO.....



WE CULD BE FREINDS U KNOW.....

WHAT DO U THINK??

Certain question have cross my mind after reading those post. I have just been wandering.

Since Jesus said that certificate of divorce be given to a divorce person, that being the case.
Since some one said that it is not mandatory for christians to register their wedding according to the ACT.

So, in the traditional marriage, do they issue certificate to couple in such wedding or it is done in the registry? Call it under the act?

If certificate is issued under the act i just wander why someone will say that marriage under the act is not mandatory for christians.

The motion that all of JW beliefs are base under human philosophy is definitely a figment of ones imagination
And the product of a manslayer and a liar without basis.
That one can make such accusation shows the level of the hate for the JW.
Of course, this can easily be verified by all.

Since the JW dont claim that God talk to them but rather all their teaching is base on the bible and devoid of philosophy of men and tradition of men. It is then not out of place if on a closer look it is observe that there is need for further clarification on matters to ensure absolute compliance with the bible.
This humble men dont hesitate in doing that knowing fully the import of aligning completely with God's word the bible, this is a function of being without pride, having God's interest first.

This is true even with the apostle, their were things they did not have a full understanding initially. Even peter did humbly summit that there are issues that he did not have the full knowledge of in his letter.

Ensuring a full consistency with the bible should be the main concern of any sincere follower of christ as not to incure his wrath matthew 7:22,23
Peace.

@Myjoe

I’m not sure what the problem is here.

are you sure its not here, let me give a little hint;
myjoe quote;

Thank you and welcome, Barristers. Yes, it's good to take on isues one by one.

you actually aknowledge innitially that 'its good to take issues one by one' above.then why these below;


i expect you to bring any of the matter one by one,treating my issues alone progressively but you copied and pasted some topics that has already been built to a level by another person and you expect me to buy that,see what you posted below;

MyJoe:
Ok. Let’s say that verse is clear on blood transfusion. (whether it is is a matter for another day.) How about the issue of blood fractions? You will agree with me it is not clear on that. Here is what I am getting at:
On Monday, the church says: blood fractions are okay.
On Tuesday: the Bible says they are wrong.
On Wednesday: they are okay.
On Thursday: the Bible says they are wrong.
On Friday: they are okay.
If the Bible were clear on the matter (blood fractions), there would be no changes and confusion. Since the Bible is not clear on the matter, yet your church insists on deciding for its members, on what basis do you claim that members are allowed to use their conscience or understanding? Why didn’t your church simply say: “the Bible says don’t take blood transfusion(!). But as for the smaller fractions, it’s not clear. Let your conscience guide you”?

now, when have we build the topic from blood transfusions to 'fractions', is it from my own conversation or someone else?
i dont buy such concuctions-put-together and built in conversation with another person, and so if you want my comment on that then we go back to our innitial agreement to build a particular conversation.let me analyse without tachnicalties now but man to man.

myjoe

What I am saying is that Witnesses are not allowed to make personal religious decisions even in small matters, including those the Bible is clearly unclear on. If your view is that having willingly joined [size=14pt]the individual has agreed to cede his thinking to a central brain [/size]and there is nothing wrong with that, we can disagree on that point – that is, whether there is anything wrong with it or not. I am merely pointing out that that is the situation. However, you cannot pretend that Witnesses are allowed to think for themselves just because they agreed not be allowed to think for themselves.

let me address the (bolded)above now,

i have previously addressed the issue of 'if members are allowed to think' and this i have explained citing that reasonable period of time were allowed for an individual to learn logically what Gods words is,and how it affects them,and what the future holds for them, with emphasis on Gods kingdom to come,so that Gods will will be done,as in heaven so also upon the earth,
an individual proposing for baptism decides 'during the course of study' to accept the direction given through their leaders'.
now, you requested that having accepted to be guided by the direction handed through leaders ,that cant someone 'turned around' to question or complain about 'why' a decision he/she has already studied in the bible and accepted,and thereby raising further questions to draw attention to his own 'new opinion' having turned around on same matter?

From the onset starting with the isrealites, God has a pattern to direct his people,.....they must receive his direction through an annoited leader.

moses leadership was chalenged by korah/dathan/abiram,....they wanted to decide just the way you are clamouring, without really knowing what is involved,hear what they say

Numbers 16:1-3;

.1 ¶ Now Korah, the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, and Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, and On, the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took men:
[size=14pt]2 And they rose up before Moses, with certain of the children of Israel, two hundred and fifty princes of the assembly, famous in the congregation, men of renown:
3 And they gathered themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said unto them, Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them: wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the LORD?[/size]

the rebels regretted their actions, but something still stands out,..someone is really making a case for the congregation,making an appeal on behalf of the congregation clamouring that they also have all if not more than what it takes lead the isrealites and that there is nothing special about
moses duties than [size=14pt]'just thinking'[/size] and that they can really think for theirselves.

in your own case [b]your own assumptions on the jws leadership can only be reduced to mere 'thinking' [/b]and depriving others from doing that, isnt it?

lets see another one;

Numbers 12:2-3.
Miriam happened to miriam later was not even neccesarry,

2 [size=14pt]"Has the LORD spoken only through Moses?"[/size] they asked. "Hasn't he also spoken through us?" And the LORD heard this.

3 (Now Moses was a very humble man, more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth.)

what happened later wasnt needed here to scare anybody but then,people are making a case to be involved in the process of the lords [size=14pt] dissemminating imformation without knowing what it takes.[/size]

isrealites did voice their opinions in the wilderness complaining bitterly that he should have left them in egypt, those who died as a result of murmurring too is not the point here but [size=18pt]'reducing moses funtion as mere thinking that does not require anything special. isnt it?,[/size]

[size=14pt]before i proceed here, do you agree that it takes 'more than just mere thinking like others' to be involved in managing Gods people?
[/size]
i dont need questions please, but give a yes or no, because, this is the area that actually defines the role of leadership of Gods people.
dont answer with questions pls.

@myjoe

my statement that i have been following the tread does not translate to mean that i have also 'undertake all opinions relating the topic' no build a topic from the root. ThANKS

Yes. It would take more than merely thinking like everyone else.

You may tie up the argument above or do you prefer I address those points before you proceed?

ijawkid:

UR WELCOME BRO.....



WE CULD BE FREINDS U KNOW.....

WHAT DO U THINK??

Cool, thanks. Have a great Sunday.

@Myjoe
okay lets leave some law technicalties out for now,
and
back to the 'boy' that i earlier talked about;
your quote below;

For example, ask the boy to explain Luke 21:32. That Bible verse contains a prophecy that clearly failed to come to pass - that those hearing Jesus would not all die before things were rounded up.

purely wrong and hasty assumption mr,who told you that the prophecy failed? thats serious,so jesus prophesy 'too a failed prophecy'? then if you can beef jesus then who else that you cant? note that the prophecy 'must come to pass' because its a futuristic prophecy,just like jonah's issue.so if you are are around during jonahs day when he declare in precise 'just in 40 days' the lords will bring ruin to nineveh but 40 days lapsed and nothing happens, note that there wasnt any condition attached to 'what could delay the event', im sure jonah might receive some bashing and strong criticism from you, but although the generation that was decleared to be ruined 'in 40 days plus jonah himself died'.

as he slashes and adds beginnings and middles and ends to come up with an explanation - just the way it was fed to him. Of course, if you asked him in 1915 you would get an explanation different from the one he gave you in 1890. He would give you entirely different interpretations in 1923, in the 1960's, the 1970’s, the 1980's, the 1990's and in 2012 - for the same Luke verse.

and another prophet 'nahum' also came after jonah with same prophecy and he didnt witness it in his lifetime, Myjoe would have seen another magician here,isnt it? but then with patient,what happened; not untill later time in the future when niniveh felled as prophysied to such extent that its location never experienced any inhabitants called nineveh again.dont seperate this facts above pls,its a fact recorded.

you can see that your sticking to the literal understanding of the verses(luke 21;32)phylosophically is an evidence of your stand on the issue(i will treat what i mean later, marked [1#]),an unyielding stand on issues couple with impatient at time may defines your approach to issues raised here on the forum,i can see that your strategy is to water down any form of 'spirituality'because you have made up your mind resolutely! ,and then you use the opportunity to raise further questions from answers supplied to you 'not because you want to reason with it,but to arm you with further grounds to raise questions leading the topic nowhere so as to weather down your opponents, im used to those strategy,
but...at this point,

before i neccesarilly go into details concerning this luke 21:32,
will you be honest to the explanation? even if the boy gave it,or it will still turn to a self branded 'magic'?

But your fourteen year old will go into pure magic as he slashes and adds beginnings and middles and ends to come up with an explanation - just the way it was fed to him.

its glarring that you have made up your mind in anticipation of expecting what you termed as 'pure magic'.

If you ask a random Catholic or Pentecostal the same question[b] he is likely to tell you he does not know what to make of the verse but that that does not affect his faith in the message of Jesus Christ[/b].

yes, because many who give that kind of answer do not even know or make effort to know 'why' they serve God, or why they are here on earth in the first place and not heaven if God really wants humans to join him in the heaven not neccesarilly 'through purgatory to heaven'.
and those that make reasonable effort to reach out in seach of the answer is 'not honest' in your own opinion,
this is what i mean, ...during church service, while the talk is on on the pulpit, a 'honest person' will simple be on his/her BB (blackbberry)pinging and engaging others for more than the 2/3 of the total hours spent in the church that is supposed to be devoted to God, but then he/she is honest because at least he 'own up' to insincerity, can you see that? strange honesty indeed!!!.
and that decribe the derogatory 'honesty' below;

Does a Witness express this sort of honesty or does he simply buy wholesale what is dished out?

so going by your usual brand tagged 'wholesales' dished out, i dont think jws need such derogatory honesty, are you clear now? or another strategy?

Just raise a question that has not been practised on at the meetings and see how that fourteen year old will perform. Ask him how Daniel's Nebuchadnezzer got all that gold to build an image.

where do get the imformations about 'all' the Gold nebuchadnezzer used,im sure that you cant get that, and so he doesnt neccessarily need that.

at this point, you cant bear it anymore but you decided to join me with jehovahs witnesses even when there is nowhere you can point to that that assertion, anyway im not having problem with that,and im not also denying to fully join,and you know what, they are the only organisation that is most persecuted and that alone draws me to make my extensive reseach on their activities,but must you join me sarcastically in such a description below;

You know that major news items are sometimes discussed at your services with members coached on how to respond. There is no church around that can hope to match the training programmes the Witnesses take their people through in furtherance of the aggressive effort to recruit as many people as possible.

yes mathew 24:14....the good news must be preached.......as a witness to all nation.

Please show from the Bible that every Christian was forbidden from political participation in the first century. I would like to learn this.

im not expecting you to learn in this reply, but to see where true christians 'doing the will of God' and not 'all christians calling 'lord' 'lord' (can you see the difference) choose to follow;
see it here;
john 17:16....they are no part of the world, just as i am no part of the world...jesus draws a parrallel here,
john 6:15....jesus avoid being made 'a king'.(politics),
john 18:16....jesus echoed again 'why he is no part of the world'
james 4;4,....friendship with the world constitutes enmity with God.

jesus tells the pharisees who refuse to recognise jesus as Gods son that;
Mathew 21:43... “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit.

Galatians 5:17,19-21.
17[b] For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh[/b]. They are in conflict with each other, [size=18pt]so that you are not to do whatever you want.[/size]

19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft;[size=14pt] hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy;[/size] drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that [size=14pt]those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
[/size]
paul still emphasises 'Gods kingdom in perspective'and warned against acts that constitutes 'acts of flesh' above with often result in politics, true christians descern this as the reason why jesus reject being king but rather declare 'a better rulership' not just because he wouldnt have time.

as to 'political participation', i have already answered that one earlier,but for more emphasis sake, see i here again;

'political involvement/participation is concern following an agreed terms that universally agreed upon,using several dictionaries,three good points stands out or all the points covered in the various definations were prunned down to (3)three, eligible to 'confirm' someone to be declared 'involved' in 'political involvement namely;

1) People can get involved in a public arena to advertise and communicate demands to anyone willing to listen. Example: joining a demonstration.
2) People may target policy-makers in legislatures or the executive branch as addresses of their communications. Example: signing a petition.
3) People may get involved in the selection process of those who aspire to legislative or executive office. Examples: voting for a party or running for office.and in all these three above, Jws choose not to get involved.

Again, i will treat this one with the same approach used for sifting grain from chaff in the issue you raised about all christian participate in politics,below

What does submission to authority mean?

You deliberately omit 'their' from ''submission to their Authority'' rendering it this way 'submission to authority mean''?

And you also came with that strategy of 'openings statements up with questions' so as to be armed with answers-used-as-tools provided to water down the real focus of the point. (i will expound on that later, marked [2#])

1 Peter 2:13-17
(NASB)
13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, 14 or to governors as sent [a]by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. 15 For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men. 16 [b]Act as free men, and [c]do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God. 17 Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the [d]king.

So you are also to submit to governors, not only the leaders of your church. Does this mean a Christian is to go against his conscience on the orders of his governor? Which takes precedence - obedience to your God-given conscience or submission to the governor? Which takes precedence - obedience to your God-given conscience or submission to your church leader?

easy..easy Mr, dont steer us from the real direction,there are holes in this all your assumpsions
here,and i think that i have warned about forcing concucted phrases on my statement such as those above,'your God given concience' forced ahead of my replies so as to divert from the original point.

why this particular verse (heb 17 above)cannot include those that you have pasted above is but very specific to whose authority is being discussed in the context;

Hebrew 13:17-19

17 Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority, because they keep watch over you as those who must give an account. Do this so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no benefit to you.

Just after verse 17,the persons reffered to as the leaders that 'confidence,and submissions to their authority' was unveiled in the next verse 18;

18 Pray for us. We are sure that we have a clear conscience and desire to live honorably in every way.

why did paul stressed having good concience,not because he has assume the 'centre brain brand' that you concucted to divert, but because their decisions in directing Gods people ''[size=14pt]We are sure that we have a clear conscience and desire to live honorably in every way[/size]''.

also see another point why your points below wont even fit in in the first place but meant for diversion

So you are also to submit to governors, not only the leaders of your church. Does this mean a Christian is to go against his conscience on the orders of his governor? Which takes precedence - obedience to your God-given conscience or submission to the governor? Which takes precedence - obedience to your God-given conscience or submission to your church leader?

paul was even writing from the prison, shikenaah!!! see below;

[size=14pt]19 I particularly urge you to pray so that I may be restored to you soon.


22 Brothers and sisters, I urge you to bear with my word of exhortation, for in fact I have written to you quite briefly.

23 I want you to know that our brother Timothy has been released. If he arrives soon, I will come with him to see you.[/size]
another good news of good triuph over evil,timothy was released, Timothy was not swallowed by evil!!

24 Greet all your leaders and all the Lord’s people. Those from Italy send you their greetings.

25 Grace be with you all.

this is just a clear manifestation of working in harmony with Gods spirit,you feel that you can also quote the bible,but you people read without meditation, and you could have avioded this error had it been that you are led by the spirit, moses and aron dropped their sticks and it turned to snake,the pharaohs sorcerers too did same,but moses/Aron snake swallowed the sorcerrers's snake,it applies here,you see that, 3 gbosas!!!

1 Cor 7:19-23
(NASB)
19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God. 20 Each man must remain in that [a]condition in which he was called.

21 Were you called while a slave? [b]Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather [c]do that. 22 For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord’s freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ’s slave. 23 You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men.

[size=14pt]Reconcile this with the poor woman who was made to leave her husband, then explain how she has not been deprived of her freedom to follow her conscience in line with this verse[/size].

branding the woman here poor does not take anything from her,the same way if not mere than that she will label you poor-boy that is supposed to be serving God jehovah,oooooooooooo!

and on the circumcission issue, yes it wasnt required again to become sons of God,since the door has been opened to the gentiles now through faith and not throught the mandatory circumcission circumcision of both the jewand non jews,yes it is no more only jew affair, but our reconcilliation to God is through faith in christ as our 'center brain' sorry as our mediator,but cant we challenge that why cant we approach God directly without christ?

1 Peter 2:16-19
(NASB)
16 Act as free men, and [a]do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God. 17 Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king.

Christians are to act as free men and flee from only that which is evil.

you are not specific?

Colossians 2:16-19
(NIV)
16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. [b]18 Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you. Such a person also goes into great detail about what they have seen; they are puffed up with idle notions by their unspiritual mind. 19 They have lost connection with the head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.

In eating or drinking, who do you follow? Your conscience or those who insist in burdening you with their own details? Should Christians create burdens for themselves or try to follow Jesus who said his yoke is light? Should they allow anyone to rule their religious lives or cherish the freedom procured for them by Jesus Christ?

Another seeming diversion here, thats not what is being stressed here,because 'judge' above is not same as what you termed as 'burdening',
very interesting quote,
Its not difficult to know where the emphasis lie, surely it lies on verses 18-19 above, why do i say so.

18 [size=14pt]Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you. Such a person also goes into great detail about what they have seen; they are puffed up with idle notions by their unspiritual mind. [/size]19 They have lost connection with the head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.

who ''18 Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you. Such a person also goes into great detail about what they have seen; they are puffed up with idle notions by their unspiritual mind. ''

jws dont worship angels catholics do,

jws direct their worship to jehovah God and not angels

i will be right back pls,

catholics worship images of Mary sorrounded by angels

@myjoe I don’t really like commenting on issues that has to do with religion and Jehovah’s Witnesses because everything you need to know about the organization is open. Check out www.jw.org but just to clear some point you raised:-

Now, I can think of six possible reasons this interest would arise:

(1) You look at the Witnesses and you wonder why they go preaching from house to house in the sun and rain.

Matt 24:14 - And this good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come. Matt 28:19-20 - Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded YOU. And, look! I am with YOU all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.”
All true Christians must carry out that above assignment by Christ Jesus.

(2) You wonder why the Witnesses insist only they have "the true religion".

1Cor. 13:33 - For God is [a God], not of disorder, but of peace.
in His dealing with humans God has always use a group of people dedicated to do his will… counting
Enoch, they never listen;
Noah and his family build an art and entered it… the people never listen. Reason if others built their art since Noah was talking about floodwaters will they have survived in their own art?
Moses and the Israelite out of Egypt. Ex 12:38 - And a vast mixed company also went up with them, as well as flocks and herds, a very numerous stock of animals. Egyptians that believed in Israelite s God have to physically move out with the Israelite for survival.
Rahab of Jericho she was told to tire a red cloth on her window and any that is with her will survive. Reason if other inhabitant of Jericho got to tire red cloth instead of joining Rahab will they have survived? Rahab’s friends and family members that needed to survive must be in that house. Jos 5-6
They are a lot of other references showing that God save people in an organized way so this time will not be a different.

(3) You are in the process of being recruited and you tell yourself "hey, truthislight, better pause and take a good look at everything first".
Ps 11:5 – “Jehovah himself examines the righteous one as well as the wicked one, And anyone loving violence His soul certainly hates.” God hates violence so why support an organization that is known for bloodshed and are blood guilty?

(4) You are born of Witness parents and feel you should get baptised since, well, everyone is getting baptised. But just before you take the decision, you decide to pause and take a good look at the church.

John 8:32 - and YOU will know the truth, and the truth will set YOU free.” No child born in the organization can just get baptized because his or her mate are doing it if that is done the person will fall away sooner or later. You must know and accept the truth before you are baptized then and only then you can be known as a Jehovah’s Witness.

(5) You are engaged to a wonderful lady but she insists she can't marry you since you are not a Witness. You wonder what it is that would make your angel want to throw the special thing you have going between you two away. You decide to investigate that thing so as to either (i) join, or (ii) show her that what she is clasping is an empty shell. (If you have ever lost a lady you love you will agree with me that few pains compare to it.)
1cor 7:38 - A wife is bound during all the time her husband is alive. But if her husband should fall asleep [in death], she is free to be married to whom she wants, only in [the] Lord. No way you cant change God’s direct command on that, remember he told the Israelite not to form marriage aliens with non-Israelite so it is either you accept his command and live or you make yours.

(6) You are a member of the JW but one day it occurs to you that a lot of things don't add up, so you decide to do a bit of digging.
Here I don’t know what does not add up because everything is presented black and white from the bible. Except you have something you want to tell me.

@Myjoe

do you prefer I address those points before you proceed?

i dont think that we have a bargain to that effect!

BARRISTERS:
i have previously addressed the issue of 'if members are allowed to think'

You did not previously address it, since I was not disputing the fact that people joined freely and willingly. Your baptismal point addresses a different issue, one that did not even arise. And I did not suggest that people should raise their “new opinions” and try to force them on the church or rebel in the manner of Korah. I will get to that presently. But you have addressed the point in this post by citing what can appear to be Bible parallels.

Thank you for addressing the issue frontally. However, relying on the Old Testament, particularly the Moses case, in this matter, is thoroughly misguided. I will develop that point presently, but first let me digress to make an observation that a lot in religion is based on assumptions. People assume to know what God wants. A Christian typically believes that what God wants can be ascertained from the Bible, but then he still makes assumptions that are not contained in the Bible. For example, it is said that polygamy should not be practiced. There is no single place polygamy is condemned in the Bible. Monogamy is clearly encouraged and given preference in the New Testament, but that is how far it went. Another case is “fornication” which is commonly used interchangeably with “premarital sex” or “sex outside marriage”. Nowhere in the Bible is fornication (porneia: sexual immorality or sex sin or illicit sex or prostitution) defined as “premarital sex”, but this assumption has completely gained ground. (I am not saying that churches should not preach against premarital sex, or offer their own subjective definition of “fornication”. I am just making an observation about misplaced assumptions, in this case, a definitional assumption.)

Back to the subject. We cannot simply assume that just because Moses lead a religious group, and the leadership of your church leads a religious group, therefore there is a parallel. Otherwise, we would be according godly authority to knaves who do bad things in the name of religion, such as those who lead their followers to mass murder, suicide or extortion.

There are two reasons we cannot compare Watchtower’s leadership with that of Moses. (1) Moses was anointed to lead the Israelites, Watchtower is not anointed to lead anyone. (2) Moses was consistent; that is, he was not in the habit of giving conflicting instructions – the same cannot be said of the Watchtower. But number two follows from number one. Moses heard from God directly and God specifically, you can say personally, anointed him for the task of leading the nation of Israel. Korah, Datam, Abiram, the 250, and Mariam knew this. They were there when fire came down from heaven and the gathering asked to be excused. The wilderness murmurers saw the miracles in Egypt and the consequences that came to pass when golden calves were made. Therefore you can say (1) God personally told Moses he had appointed him leader, (2) God also told the Israelites he had appointed Moses their leader. Any member of that lot who rebelled was, therefore, challenging God.

But let’s look at Watchtower. I am aware the elders talked about earlier are referred to as “anointed”. While some very fundamental issues can be raised about that, this is not the time for that. I just want you to know that when I say Watchtower is not anointed like Moses, I simply mean it in the sense that they are “not inspired” – that is how they put it. Yes, they themselves have stated this in fairly clear terms, so I am not making assumptions here. So we all know God has never personally told the JW leadership that he has picked them as his channel of truth. And he has not told me, either. I am trying to maintain an even tone, so I will refrain from mentioning names that can cause distractions. But at the starting of the church in the 1870’s, no such claim was made. The present Body which leads the church by the authority it inherited from the 1870’s pastor has also never made any claims to inspiration. The claim, conclusion, or assumption that the JW is the true church is made solely on the basis that they study the Bible a lot and in their own opinion they follow it more than anyone else. That is, the claim, conclusion or assumption is not based on revelation.

It does not sound logical or right for the leadership of your church to inform us they are not inspired when they err and then seek to claim protection from scrutiny under the anointing of Moses. There is a tired line about eating cakes and having them. Are they inspired so we may hold them up to the standard of Moses, Elijah and Isaiah, or not inspired so we may have realistic expectations and let our own enlightenment and understanding of God’s word guide us, while assisting, supporting and respecting them as leaders?

According to the Bible, God led people directly in the past through prophets, kings, priests and judges who personally heard from him. Today, we are not under that dispensation – that is what Watchtower teaches and they are probably right since I have never heard God speaking to anyone the way people heard him to Moses in the Bible. In the Old Testament, it was Moses alone at first. In the New Testament, we saw a whole 120 people picked at once. Subsequently, the Bible tells us that the spirit of God is for everyone who believes and so desires.

This is in Romans 5:5:
Romans 5:5 (NKJV)
5 Now hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us.

Romans 7:6 (NWT)
But now we have been discharged from the Law, because we have died to that by which we were being held fast, that we might be slaves in a new sense by the spirit, and not in the old sense by the written code.

1 Corinthians 2:11-13(NKJV)
11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.
13 These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy[a] Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.


Is this spirit given to a select group of Christians or all believe?
1 Corinthians 12:3 (NKJV)
3 Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed, and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.

More:
John the Beloved agrees in the book attributed to him:
1 John 3:24 (NKJV)
24 Now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us.


You no longer have to look up to a Moses, except Jesus Christ, “the greater Moses”. (Watchtower) Christians are to be taught and guided by the holy spirit. Paul knew this and made maximum use of it, as he was not in the habit of making constant reference to the elders in Jerusalem.

This is what you seem not to have understood in thinking that I want people to raise their “new opinions”, after having joined freely and willingly, and foist them on the church. I am simply reiterating the biblical position which is that God enlightens individual Christians. That is, Barristers does not have to wait for anyone to know what to do. His own maturity, understanding and God’s spirit, are to guide him on areas he has doubts, that is, matters on which the Bible is not clear to him. This is not the same thing as suggesting that Barristers should foist his views on MyJoe or that Ijawkid should challenge some elders. Christians are to support each other in these matters but they are not to dictate to each other. As I showed you in my other post, Paul made this point strongly, using the examples of eating and drinking.

Anyone Christian who fails to ask questions, take herself through the rigours of finding out what the Bible actually says, and be guided them that and by reason, rather than men opens herself up to being duped by pastors who levy tithes and first fruit offerings, prophets who take away life savings, and elders who impose whimsical restrictions on medical treatment. (“Whimsical” because they themselves are not sure of the policies and make changes to them every other day). People have become Witnesses because they questioned their previous beliefs or certain things done by their leaders. People have renounced membership of the JW because they questioned certain beliefs or actions taken by the leadership. Nothing I have said above should not be construed to mean that I support coup making or rebellion, the manner adopted by Korah and co, against the Watchtower or any similar leadership. What Korah and co did was wrong and motivated purely by selfishness, as everyone cannot lead at the same time. I will explain.

moses leadership was chalenged by korah/dathan/abiram,....they wanted to decide just the way you are clamouring, without really knowing what is involved,hear what they say

I will treat this as a genuine error on your part, but you get me wrong. I am not clamouring that everyone gets involved in decision making, as that is not feasible. Nowhere have I said so during this discussion. Some people are bound to lead and others have a duty to follow. My point, which is simple, really, is that the leadership does not have to micro-legislate on small matters, such as those bordering on health decisions, especially where the Bible is not clear on the matter. That is different from saying that everyone should be involved in decision making or that those who have been selected to lead should not be respected. If the church is needed so that Christians can fellowship together, encourage one another and remind one another, fine. Certain people must be appointed to take the lead to administer such groups. But nowhere in the scripture are they permitted to overreach themselves or insert themselves between God and the Christian since Jesus Christ already occupies that role.

****

On the first point you raised, let me quickly say that discussion did not build up to the matter of blood fractions. I raised it as an example of something the Bible is not clear on which the JW church has gone ahead to legislate on even without being sure about the rightness of their own position.

Your statement that my “assumption on the JW leadership can only be reduced to mere thinking” does not disclose anything, much less encapsulate my position. My point is that… well, you know it. Thinking is fundamental to making decisions for yourself. If you are not allowed to decide for yourself in matters you ought to be allowed, it follows that you are not allowed to think for yourself. I am not mindlessly or willy-nilly reducing anyone to thinking. And I am not making any assumptions, as you yourself have not denied that the JW leadership does what I have said they do in the matter of legislating. You are merely seeking to justify it. That is not the same thing as demonstrating that I have made an assumption.

@Myjoe
More detailed analysis on your quote below;

1 Peter 2:13-17
(NASB)
13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, 14 or to governors as sent [a]by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. 15 For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men. 16 [b]Act as free men, and [c]do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God. 17 Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the [d]king.

So you are also to submit to governors, not only the leaders of your church. Does this mean a Christian is to go against his conscience on the orders of his governor? Which takes precedence - obedience to your God-given conscience or submission to the governor? Which takes precedence - obedience to your God-given conscience or submission to your church leader?

So you are also to submit to governors, not only the leaders of your church. [size=14pt]Does this mean a Christian is to go against his conscience on the orders of his governor?[/size]

Myjoe, im sorry, your failure to read the answer to your question above from the same chapter (1pet 2)that you cited, has just exposed more about your motives(that is reading for reading sake..[marked 3#] i will refer to it for more explanations)but,let me show you the answer from your own quoted bible reference, here is the answer in verses 21,22;

1peter 2:20,21.
20 For what credit is it if, when you are beaten for your faults, you take it patiently? [size=18pt]But when you do good and suffer, if you take it patiently, this is commendable before God.[/size] 21 For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps:

the answer derived from here is,

1, going against your concience on governors order,it is of little or no benefit or credit to you compare to the benefit derived from 'suffering' for the lords.because the present leaders(gorvernors etc,are just temporary)compare to Gods coming kingdom rulership.

2,going for or against your concience on governors order [size=14pt]is not the same as following directions provided through the christian leaders called servants.[/size](note the word;directions provided through the christian leaders called servants)

3,[size=14pt]But [i]when you do good and suffer, if you take it patiently, this is commendable before God.
[/size]
you still wonder what paul declared as 'do good and suffer' please note the extent that paul declared
let me help you;

Acts 5:27-30;

27 The apostles were brought in and made to appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. [size=14pt]28 “We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,” he said. “Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching[/size] and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.”

29 Peter and the other apostles replied:[size=18pt] “We must obey God rather than human beings![/size] 30[i] The God of our ancestors raised Jesus from the dead —whom you killed by hanging him on a cross.[/i]

Which takes precedence - obedience to your God-given conscience or submission to your church leader?

[size=14pt]you will also wonder why the apostles did not answer individually but answered using a collective noun 'WE'[/size].which further stressed what jesus declared in;
'labelling The apostles decision on this matter' as 'shifting of individuals thinking to the central brain' shows some poor understanding regarding the duties of christian leaders called servants.

using a collective noun 'WE'.again further stressed who jesus is reffering using 'you'. in;

John 15:19

19 If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.

had it been that you have done your home work very well,in your apologetics above you would have aknowledged the aforementioned reasons why paul and even timothy were in the prison in the first place right inside the bible chapter (1pet 2)that you have quoted,and your failure to do that has exposed more about your motives, lets go now!!!.

BARRISTERS: @Myjoe
i have previously addressed the issue of 'if members are allowed to think'

You did not previously address it, since I was not disputing the fact that people joined freely and willingly. Your baptismal point addresses a different issue, one that did not even arise. And I did not suggest that people should raise their “new opinions” and try to force them on the church or rebel in the manner of Korah. I will get to that presently. But you have addressed the point in this post by citing what can appear to be Bible parallels.

Thank you for addressing the issue frontally. However, relying on the Old Testament, particularly the Moses case, in this matter, is thoroughly misguided. I will develop that point presently, but first let me digress to make an observation that a lot in religion is based on assumptions. People assume to know what God wants. A Christian typically believes that what God wants can be ascertained from the Bible, but then he still makes assumptions that are not contained in the Bible. For example, it is said that polygamy should not be practiced. There is no single place polygamy is condemned in the Bible. Monogamy is clearly encouraged and given preference in the New Testament, but that is how far it went. Another case is “fornication” which is commonly used interchangeably with “premarital sex” or “sex outside marriage”. Nowhere in the Bible is fornication (porneia: sexual immorality or sex sin or illicit sex or prostitution) defined as “premarital sex”, but this assumption has completely gained ground. (I am not saying that churches should not preach against premarital sex, or offer their own subjective definition of “fornication”. I am just making an observation about misplaced assumptions, in this case, a definitional assumption.)

Back to the subject. We cannot simply assume that just because Moses lead a religious group, and the leadership of your church leads a religious group, therefore there is a parallel. Otherwise, we would be according godly authority to knaves who do bad things in the name of religion, such as those who lead their followers to mass murder, suicide or extortion.

There are two reasons we cannot compare Watchtower’s leadership with that of Moses. (1) Moses was anointed to lead the Israelites, Watchtower is not anointed to lead anyone. (2) Moses was consistent; that is, he was not in the habit of giving conflicting instructions – the same cannot be said of the Watchtower. But number two follows from number one. Moses heard from God directly and God specifically, you can say personally, anointed him for the task of leading the nation of Israel. Korah, Datam, Abiram, the 250, and Mariam knew this. They were there when fire came down from heaven and the gathering asked to be excused. The wilderness murmurers saw the miracles in Egypt and the consequences that came to pass when golden calves were made. Therefore you can say (1) God personally told Moses he had appointed him leader, (2) God also told the Israelites he had appointed Moses their leader. Any member of that lot who rebelled was, therefore, challenging God.

But let’s look at Watchtower. I am aware the elders talked about earlier are referred to as “anointed”. While some very fundamental issues can be raised about that, this is not the time for that. I just want you to know that when I say Watchtower is not anointed like Moses, I simply mean it in the sense that they are “not inspired” – that is how they put it. Yes, they themselves have stated this in fairly clear terms, so I am not making assumptions here. So we all know God has never personally told the JW leadership that he has picked them as his channel of truth. And he has not told me, either. I am trying to maintain an even tone, so I will refrain from mentioning names that can cause distractions. But at the starting of the church in the 1870’s, no such claim was made. The present Body which leads the church by the authority it inherited from the 1870’s pastor has also never made any claims to inspiration. The claim, conclusion, or assumption that the JW is the true church is made solely on the basis that they study the Bible a lot and in their own opinion they follow it more than anyone else. That is, the claim, conclusion or assumption is not based on revelation.

It does not sound logical or right for the leadership of your church to inform us they are not inspired when they err and then seek to claim protection from scrutiny under the anointing of Moses. There is a tired line about eating cakes and having them. Are they inspired so we may hold them up to the standard of Moses, Elijah and Isaiah, or not inspired so we may have realistic expectations and let our own enlightenment and understanding of God’s word guide us, while assisting, supporting and respecting them as leaders?

According to the Bible, God led people directly in the past through prophets, kings, priests and judges who personally heard from him. Today, we are not under that dispensation – that is what Watchtower teaches and they are probably right since I have never heard God speaking to anyone the way people heard him to Moses in the Bible. In the Old Testament, it was Moses alone at first. In the New Testament, we saw a whole 120 people picked at once. Subsequently, the Bible tells us that the spirit of God is for everyone who believes and so desires.

This is in Romans 5:5:
Romans 5:5 (NKJV)
5 Now hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us.

Romans 7:6 (NWT)But now we have been discharged from the Law, because we have died to that by which we were being held fast, that we might be slaves in a new sense by the spirit, and not in the old sense by the written code.

1 Corinthians 2:11-13(NKJV)
11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.
13 These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy[a] Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

Is this spirit given to a select group of Christians or all believe?
1 Corinthians 12:3 (NKJV)
3 Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed, and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.

More:
John the Beloved agrees in the book attributed to him:
1 John 3:24 (NKJV)
24 Now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us.

@Myjoe,
you dont need to wait for me to reply pls,thanks