₦airaland Forum

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.

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.

@sweetcheeks
Sweet name you have, one must say.

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.

Lol. This boy, sorry, bwoy. Do you ever sleep?!

frosbel: "For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified."- 1 Corinthians 2:2

They were men and subject to error.

I follow neither, Jesus is my model and scripture is the standard not the personal and often flawed interpretations of men !

But you are a man yet you strut around NL dishing out your own interpretations. Why should we take you seriously?

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.

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.

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.

Lol @ Pastor Kunu. That was why I clicked on the thread.

@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.

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.

^^^ Lol. The "fossilised paradigmal mindset" will go into full blast.

truthislight: Well, it is either following the bible has help them as a group or it has not.
Are u saying that this unity is as a result of human philosophy? Well, that will be a great monumental achievement for humans...

Have you seen any of the movies made on Jim Jones and the Guyana business? If you see “Eaten Alive” (don’t go near it if you don’t fancy cannibal movies) you will note the level of discipline and organisation at the camp. It does not take any serious thinking to know that a group will be highly organized when either physical violence or coercive persuasion techniques are used to enforce discipline. At Jones’ camp it was a combination of both. At your church and some other new age movements, it is only the latter. There is more discipline and law and order in North Korea than the United States, but which would you rather live in? I’m not saying that God is not in your church or that he is. I am saying that the fact that you are organized does not on its own prove that he is. Humans can do that on their own.

The JW humans achieved their high level or organisation and “unity” by easily identifiable methods. You tow the line or you are kicked out. You serve or you die. Everything is black and white, no gray areas. Once you show signs of weakness you are deemed “spiritually weak”, and the judging takes place faster than you can say “weak”. No mercy. No genuine love. It’s the organisation (which is mistaken for God) first, and anything else hardly matters. Yes, I'm speaking in parables.

Groups like the JW that define themselves by their separateness tend to be ordered and highly organised. That is to be expected. Once you become a Witness, a feeling of being in a specially chosen group is created in your mind. You don’t want to leave the group and go “out there”. Hot button phrases like “God’s people”, “the truth”, “Jehovah’s organisation”, “Babylon the Great”, “Satan’s world”, etc, have been deployed with remarkable success over years to put brains on a short circuit and reinforce the feeling of us (the chosen) versus them (the rest).

And, by the way, that seems to be ur personal opinion, that they dont follow the bible.

Please show me where I have made this specific claim. It may be that I have forgotten.

However. Lying is bad.
1. U said that the witnesses dont accept vaccinations.

You are calling me a liar for saying what I did about the Witnesses and vaccination? Well, you can be pardoned. I am aware that 99.something % of Witnesses don’t know their church’s history. Please read what I wrote again. I did not say “the Witnesses don’t accept vaccinations”. I know what I was talking about so I could not have written that. Yes, Witnesses accept vaccination today. But there was a time they did not. To show you I am not a liar, I will give you references to show you that the Witnesses once made a policy of banning vaccinations, probably leading to countless deaths.

This is from the Awake of 1929, pages 106-7: "Avoid serum inoculations and vaccinations as they pollute the blood stream with their filthy pus."
This was the official position of your church until the 50’s when it was revoked; that is, when Watchtower said the Bible said vaccines were okay. Or when Watchtower said the Bible does not say the vaccines are bad. You can confirm this from a Witness who was alive in 1950 if you know of any.

Back then there were countries where your child could not go to school without having been vaccinated. A European woman recounted how she bribed a doctor to produce a scar on her child’s arm that resembled the scar left by smallpox vaccination and then signed a certificate of vaccination. According to her, it was a common practice among the Witnesses in those days to enable their children register in school. How many Witness kids suffered from smallpox until the time this policy was revoked and vaccines pronounced okay?

So, to remind you, why rush to issue a ban in such a serious matter since the biblical direction was not clear on it? Do policies on blood, vaccinations and organ transplants not show that the Witnesses are not allowed to go by the dictates of their own conscience and understanding of the Bible even in private matters that the Bible is either silent on or not clear about? Are the leaders of your church not bloodguilty in having rushed ahead of the Bible to ban blood transfusion, vaccinations and organ transplants?

You did not comment on what I wrote about blood fractions. I take it then that you admit that the GB, the ruling council of your church, overreached itself on this matter by condemning what the Bible has not. This is poignant when one considers how they have swung back and forth like a pendulum on the matter – go right, go left, go right, go left… I was hoping you would get the point when I made use of examples of things you have changed doctrine back and forth on to show you the Bible is indeed not clear on many issues yet your church would not let individuals make their own decisions.

Yes, they do, but blood? No they dont.

Actually, they do. Sausage is pork. Smokeless cigarette is cigarette. Skimmed milk is milk. Decafenated tea is tea. And blood fraction is blood. I understand the differences, of course. Personally, I don’t consume whole milk, but I take skimmed milk. Because they are different. However, I will not tell someone that I don’t take milk the way you said “they don’t” take blood. I will say “I don’t take whole milk.” Or “I take skimmed milk.” If I wanted to abstain from milk altogether I would not take skimmed milk. Just as you Witnesses are fond of saying, abstaining from alcohol means not drinking it or taking it through your veins. But it also means not taking it in diluted form. For example, Image123 abstains from alcohol and will not be caught dead drinking beer which contains about 5% alcohol or even O’Douls which contains about 0.4% alcohol. According to The Watchtower of June 1, 1961, “abstaining from blood means not taking it into our bodies at all.”

And remember that your church bans blood donations while permitting blood fractions and some other medical preparations which come from donated blood. Besides, if blood fractions were bad yesterday but are good today, who’s to say whole blood won’t be okay tomorrow? And when that change is made (I look forward to it for the sake of those who die needlessly) you will come here and defend the new policy. In fact, you kid will come here and tell Nairalanders that the Witnesses have never forbidden blood, as the Witnesses appear to be very clever at hiding their history.

You see, whichever way one looks at your policy on blood, the inescapable conclusion is that it does not even begin to make biblical, scientific, or common sense. Whether it’s the banning of all transfusions or the acceptance of parts. A kid of six can see this.

Hmmm!
Ur desperation to paint them bad is so high.

No. I am not desperate to paint them bad. I am merely responding to you, as I have to prove that I am not dishonest and certainly not a liar. I have merely touched on most of the issues here and gone into little details about few, with everything coming off the top of my head. I could bombard you with truckloads of materials to shut you up for good and that would still not be desperation. Desperation would be if I start gathering anti-Witness material and then add my own embellishments. I can assure you I would never do that. Not that there would be need for it.

Besides, I don’t think the Witnesses are bad. Sometimes obnoxious, particularly with the blood stance, but still generally not bad people. I think they are just like other religions – a group of people, many of them sincere, looking for the truth and believing they have it. The aggressive efforts to recruit me and my family and the constant emphasis on the differences between them and other groups, in a bid to accentuate their imaginary superiority, can cause irritation. But these are just slight irritants. I think you Witnesses are cool on the whole.

U did say that Jesus and his followers could not be involve in politics cus they were missionaries.
Well, on that same ground, what do u think?
the witness are all missionaries too, too busy to be involve in politics.
They are too busy preaching from house to house to have time for politics.

Obviously, you didn’t get it, so I will try again. Jesus and his apostles were in missionary service and so they could not have found time for such mundane things as politics. That was for the same reasons that they could not engage in secular work. According to the story, Jesus gave up his carpentry profession. John and James gave up fishing and Matthew gave up tax collecting. However, there were lay disciples who continued with their secular normal lives – such as Lazarus and his sisters, and the chap who came to take Jesus’ body for burial and many others. There is no reason to believe that these lay followers who were not in full time service refused to make input into how they were governed or repudiated opportunities to serve in government. Not reason whatsoever. If you have any scripture citations to show that first century Christians who were not holding leadership positions in the church turned their backs on politics, please share them with me.

Coming to our day, there are people in your church who, like Jesus and his apostles, are in leading positions and missionary service and can clearly not find time for such mundane things as politics. That is for the same reasons they do not engage in secular work. This would apply to the governing elders of your printing corporation and those in missionary service. But what about other Witnesses? Do they stay away from secular work like Jesus and the apostles did? No, since there is no need for them to, as they have not been called out like the governing elders and missionaries have been. On your assertion that the Witnesses are missionaries, remember you said lying is bad. I am aware that every Witness is deemed a minister. This does not apply to “missionary”. You have a missionary class, people who are specially trained and then sent to other countries and, like Jesus and the apostles, will clearly not be able to hold government positions. This does not apply to every Witness. Anyone who intends to vote will surely have time to vote and the vast majority of Witnesses can hold public office if they intend to. Remember "lying is bad".

About the 1975 issue.
The magazine said that after the sixth(6) day of creation God rested.
It then said that 1975 will mark the sixth thousand years of human history, then it asked.
What next?
The magazine never said that the world will end that year.
People understanding defer,
So, if u had understood that to mean that the world is coming to an end, that was ur personal ideas.

Someone has not been honest with you. Let me assure you I have a far better understanding of that matter and its tangents than you do. Why don’t you read up on the issue to find out all that was actually said? If after reading up on the subject you still think your church said something about 1975 being the 6,000th year and it ended there, come back and say so and I will give you references.

The unity that exist amongst them is a very big testament to what christianity would have been if all others that claim christianity had followed the bible and not human philosophy like urs.

Another hot button phrase. What is my “human philosophy”, please? That water is good for fish, but not boiling water? That “gather together” is different from “pack together”? That groups normally aim for unity not uniformity? Anyway, like I have explained above, the fact you are “united” doesn’t prove anything.

And what is godly philosophy or wisdom in your book? All that we have talked about here?

Just see the mess religion in politics has created.
Case study, Nigeria.

Christians and muslims.
Fortunately, the witness stay clear from politics and war.

Did u ever imagine when two nation goes to war who kills the other at both ends.
Eg.
Catholics in Nigeria kills catholics in Cameroon during war and catholics in cameroon kills catholics in Nigeria in same war. Where then is the love?
This is impossible among the witnesses since they are always neutral, and would not support war. = Love among themselves.

Peace.

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. But it is very typical of the Governing Body of your church, and beyond shallow of anyone, to reduce war to “Catholics killing Catholics”. “Catholics kill Catholics in war, therefore, there is no love in the Catholic Church.” “Witnesses don’t go to war because they practice love.”

Don’t you think what you have written above is oversimplifying war, a very complex issue? Don’t you think that your church’s teaching on love vis-à-vis war is another childlike response to a situation that has no easy answers and demands critical thought? I mean, have you ever tried to drop your Watchtower goggles and think critically about what it means to abstain from war? If you wake up around midnight, open your eyes and see someone with a Dracula dagger trying to sneak into your kids’ bedroom, would you abstain from fighting and call it love? Has it ever occurred to you that that is what war often comes down to – people trying to invade your community and kill, plunder and enslave people and you defending your life, freedom and dignity and those of your family against them? In the light of the above, is it not more sensible and practical for the leadership of your church to let rank and file JW Christians decide individually which war it is okay to fight in and which not to, while applying the biblical injunctions on love?

And I wasn't saying you should bring religion into politics. You people are fund of lumping things together to obfuscate issues. How does a lay Christian voting or holding public office amount to bringing religion into politics? I am only asking why individual Witnesses are not allowed to decide for themselves whether to vote and hold public office or not since the Bible does not clearly forbid it and since you claim the Witnesses are allowed to use their conscience.

truthislight: @myjoe
Am actully taken aback by ur rationality.

I’m sure you mean my thinking or reasoning. Let’s see what’s taking you aback.

U said that unity is equal uniformity of world view?
Are u saying the JW all beheave and think the same way all over the world? No personal idiosyncrasies?

Well, it’s not likely I would say that, is it? I mean, it will be quite devious on your part to take what I said to mean that there are no Witnesses who like to hammer beans and bread in the afternoon while others prefer hot Molete (Ibadan) amala with ewedu and gbegiri while for yet others it's chicken nuggets with fries and Syrian salad all washed down with soda or coke.

Hmmmm. U mean that with following the bible as God's word the whole world will be united as such? Well, u said it.

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

I do know that, unity to them means that they all accept what the Bible says as final, and it creates this outstanding unity in them?

Unity is good. But uniformity is not necessarily good or desirable. Groups function well when they are guided by principles which members do well to adhere to. Not when you create an artificially purified community where it is mandated that everyone thinks and sees things the same way and this is ruthlessly enforced. Such a group is sterile, not alive.

1. Concerning blood.

Yes, concerning blood.

Read Acts 15;29. It says u will prosper good health to u if u abstain from blood, furnication, idolatrouse sacrifices (things), and things strangle.

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”?

2. Politic, John 17;6, Jesus said his that " they are no part of the world just as he is no part of the world"
one can only have one vote. They have voted for God's kingdom that they honest preach about and pray for Matt6;9,10.

Would you say that “no part of the world” is a CLEAR statement against all political participation? In all honestly, would you not admit that it takes quite some interpretation to move from "no part of the world" to "don't vote"? It does. Alternative interpretations are possible. Here is mine, and I think it's more probable:

Jesus wanted his followers to stay away from the sins of the world. That’s what he meant. On politics, of course, he and his desciples did not participate in it because they were called to missionary service and would have been distracted by politics. You see, it is impossible to stay completely out of politics. If you discuss politics with your workmates and influence their decisions, would you not call that participation. There are many rural parts of Nigeria where they still practice village democracies. I spent my preteen years in one of such villages - monarchy-gerontocracy-democracy. There was a king but he was far away and hardly relevant to us. There were titled elders whom matters were taken to for settlement but everyone was at liberty to participate at proceedings. When there was a dispute, everyone would gather at the house of the oldest titled man in the village and make their contributions. A concensus is somehow reached. Everyone participated, including those I knew to be Witnesses. Now, that is political participation at its best, yet it would be quite foolish for anyone to find problems with it.

Coming to the city and formal politics, the classical Witness approach to life - a childlike refusal to deal appropriately with the complexities of the world around him. Pain, disease and misgovernance being of Satan’s world, so no need to do anything since Armageddon, which is around the corner, will end it all. So everybody, forward march to God's Kingdom! – is neither sensible nor practical. Individual Christians should be allowed to decide if they want to vote and participate in politics or not. It is eggregiously wrong for this to be legislated on by a church.

You have read my own interpretation of "no part of the world". The question I am asking is: why do the the bosses of your church impose their own interpretation on everyone? Since the Bible is clearly not clear on the matter, if I decide to be become a Witness, why not allow me to pray and be led to my own interpretation or away from it? Why does your church insist that God does not illuminate individuals contrary to what the Bible says? Why are Witnesses encouraged to pray daily yet they are told God cannot illuminate them individually? What exactly do you pray for when you close your eyes? I know - that God should help you see it the way Watchtower sees it! Don't you find any problem with this kind of life?

Not withstandinding, they are law abiding citicens, they pay their taxes and obay all laws of the land that does not contradict bible priciples. And they love their neighbours.

Yes, they preach to their members to pay their taxes. As for loving their neighbour, I will pass that one for now.

When they wanted to make him king he refuse and went to the mountain.
He Jesus said that his kingdom is no part of this world. John 18;36

Yes. He couldn't have had time for that. He was a very busy man, that Jesus of Nazareth. That in no way precludes Christians from choosing to participate in politics. It's like marriage. The Bible says it's better if you stay single so as to have more time for the work of God, but marriage is fine.

3. Jesus says that the time and hour no body know.

Then why has your church, throughout its history, behaved as if it knew, even asking people to ignore Jesus' message that nobody knows the day? Why has it been setting dates for the world to end - 187-something, 1914, 1975?

But Jesus also said that his disciples should be on the watch so as not to be taken un aware.
There are lots of bible prophercies given to christ disciple to help them know the situation they are in the schem of things, so that they will not be caught sleeping.

[quote]As a watchman, that will be unfortunate, and meaning that they can not be able to warn others to awake for their lifes.

The watchdogs of your church have certainly been on the watch. Jesus can't charge them for not being on the watch. But there's something I once read in an Awake or Watchtower article, "working hard is not always a virtue", or something like that. Keeping on the watch is not always a virtue.

They have never said they know the day.

They have. Repeatedly, too. Want references?

But they cant go to sleep rather they keep on preaching to people that God's kingdom is near, explaining bible prophercies to this effect.

They have certainly been doing a lot of explaining. But that's when they've created the most confusion - while explaining. Why can't people be allowed to read the Bible and take it for what it says? What is wrong with admitting that the Bible is not clear when it isn't instead of creating confusion and causing problems for individuals, families and communities?

4. They have elders that serve as a Governing body. Read Acts 15;1 to 11.

This is the example set out in the bible.
The number is of couse not fixed.

They’re currently seven – all male, all elderly, nearly all white. Slight contradiction - the Bible number is fixed at 12 and that is the example they follow at the Latter Day Saints church. No big deal, I would think, but you're the one emphasising how it's the “example set the in the Bible”.

They dont pass out their personal opinion since they all recongnise that peoples lifes are at stake.

I do not agree with this line at all. Tell you why. Much of your doctrine is about the personal opinion of the leaders of the church. Once the Bible is not clear on a matter and you stretch it, twisting and turning in doing so, that is your personal opinion. Once you make policies that lead to deaths such as banning vacinations or blood transfusion, including fractions, you are not recognising that lives are at stake, materially speaking. And when inconsistency is your style and you are never sure of what you are preaching yet you go on dishing it out, at a time you claim is crucial in the scheme of things, you are not recognising that lives are at stake, spiritually speaking.

Peace to you, too.

GAR3TH: Okay, I see now that nigeria is different from the rest of the world...

No, it's not. Hillary Clinton was seriously considered for Attorney-General when Bill was in charge. President Kennedy's brother also served as his AG.

GAR3TH: Nigeria is now a complete joke. How can a first lady have two political jobs at the same time?

Its like being the deputy governor of lagos state and also at the same time work as the minister of finance in enugu state.

No, it's not. "First lady" is not a constitutional political office. She can pick up any job she likes. When Gen Abdusalam was Head of State, his wife was a high court judge.

When will these politicians and their speech writers grow a brain? Why bring Awolowo into this? Who on earth sees it as a matter of pride that his people are synonymous with second hand things?! And why insert the word Igbo?

truthislight: @myjoe
I dont like being personal on a forum.

Cool. It is not good to get personal on forums.

If it is true that ur interest is on confirming info about the JW THE BEST option is a one on one discuss.

Pal, this is another Pavlovian response - everyone has heard false things about the Witnesses and is eager to clear things up and learn "the truth". When did I insinuate that I want to "confirm info about the JW"? I already told you I do your "one on one" discussions with them. Why don't you let that remain what it is while our forum dialogue remains what it is? You yourself are involved in "one on one" discussions, why has that not stopped you from coming online to "defend the Bible"? Don't you think I am entitled to similar privileges as you?

My interest on this forum is to defend the BIBLE.

Carry go. Nothing do you. But like many others on the forum, I know a bit of Bible, too. So whenever you tell any barefaced lie, I may choose to intervene if I am reading the thread - ask ijawkid.

Meanwhile, while i am on that if there are related issues that interest me i may attend to them.

Cool.

On this note i suggest u bring up the point u needed comment on and let me and others see what can be done to them using the bible.

Please read post number 72. That was where we were before you distracted us with this branch office matter. Thank you.

truthislight: If i can see clearly and can read well i believe this is you saying u dont need any clearification

[/quote]That was a response to your referral of me to a branch office. Got it? Everyone is airing their views... In fact, you were the one who came into my conversation, calling me dishonest while doing so. I asked you some questions to help make my point and show I am not dishonest and you responded. I asked questions again and suddenly you declared that I should go find your members or write letters to a branch office for clarification! Does that sound like proper conduct to you? Again, can you find any unfriendly post I made to you before this point? Even your brother, ijawkid; when he opened a thread and absent-mindedly claimed that Jesus preached from house to house, he did not behave in this manner when I asked him to support his claim with scripture. He hurled some abuses my way but when he realised that would not get him to base one, he simply folded his tail between his legs and bolted from the thread. I realise you had no response to those questions. Why didn't you simply say so instead of asking me to write to a branch? People have been talking about trinity and all else, did you ask them to write to a branch? You people don't seem to realise how ridiculous it makes you sound when you respond to things like a programmed computer.

truthislight: men, ur choices of words are very interestingly diff.

Lol.

And i concluded that u dont need clearifications.
U actually did say it is i that needs it.

I don't see I need any clarification. But you may think otherwise and you could be right, too. Read my post again. Do I sound like I don't know what I am talking about? If so, please highlight the exact point where I erred or got things mixed up and need clarification. Thank you in anticipation of your cooperation.

U did sound as though u are angry.

Far from it. There wasn't anything to be angry about and I think you are a great guy who just happens to have a religion to defend. I just had to be firm in pointing out your improper conduct.

And u seem to know the JW, all u know about them was it online?
Cus you did not welcome my suggestion to meet them in person.

Everyone seeks information online these days, including you. If I got my info online, that would not on its own make it wrong, would it? I do understand that in using online information about a group one runs the risk of relying on third party stuff if he does not seek firsthand information or clarification from the concerned, in this case the JW.

To answer your question, No. I don't rely on online info. I have JWs around me. I speak to then. I have read tonnes on your literature. I have tonnes of them in my library. I even have more than those.

Did u have any pros with them?

Not with them as a people. In Nairaland, we all sometimes have to point out error whenever we can since we are all here to learn and catch some fun while doing so. I have pointed out errors when people lie against the Witnesses, like the thread where someone said the Witnesses don't believe in the divinity of Jesus, among others. Pointing out an error in a post made by a Witness does not mean I dislike them. They visit regularly at my place and we sometimes hold good conversations.

I for one, i talk to them a lot really.

Of course. If I belonged to a group that would be a given.

[quote author=Area_boy]oh believe me i know the difference of both words, but that is not my point just hold on one sec.

Ah! here we are
Genesis 22: vs 1. "And it came to pass after these things, that God did [b]tempt [/b]Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am."

its always beautiful to quote the bible


Now u see why i made that statement about "modify as demand requires"?[/quote]He he. This is a classical case of "busted". But one must say Mr Anony is good. Defending the Bible is not the easiest thing to do.

[quote author=ekt_bear]1. The rejection of the PDP/GEJ by the Oba
2. The rejection of the PDP/GEJ by the good people of Edo

In a sense, this election was a referendum on GEJ's tenure

And he performed woefully[/quote]No, it wasn't. It was primarily a local election. People went to the polls thinking of Oshiomhole, Anenih and Igbinedion. They were much more interested in individuals than parties. That is, they didn't care much about the ACN or the PDP - you will recall most of the ACN guys were former PDP people. They cared even much less about Jonathan, whatever you people may think of him.

^^^ I was aware of most of the other incidents you put up - they don't qualify under the context (which I carefully specified) under which I mentioned Europe as a POSSIBLE exception. Except this:

In Gough's Cave, England, remains of human bones and skulls, around 15,000 years old, suggest that cannibalism took place amongst the people living in or visiting the cave,[64] and that they may have used human skulls as drinking vessels.[65][66]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism#World_War_II

But that's 15,000 years old. I mean, we hardly know which people or tribe lived in those caves then. When you compare that with human sacrifices which took place as recently as 800 years ago or later in Scandinavia, you will see what I mean. Still worth referencing, though.

Last sentence edited

truthislight: From the above i dont know what u want.
Peace though.

Maybe you have comprehension challenges - mind you, this is a mere suspicion arrising from your averment that you don't know what I want even though I spoke in simple terms. Or maybe it's a deep-seated confusion since you say you understand me, then say I want a fight, then say you don't know what I want. I suggest you re-read my posts. If you do find a single unfriendly post before you asked my to write letters to a branch office, I will apologise to you.

ROSSIKE: You must be joking. Europe used to be the headquarters of cannibalism. In fact some say it still is, albeit now practised underground by the 'elite' in their occult rituals.

No, I wasn't joking. Educate me on the existence at anytime of the practice of cannibalism as a cultural practice in Europe. Please mention names of communities and time period and cite your sources so I can verify.

vescucci: In short, gbam! How's it hanging, MyJoe?

Calm and peaceful. I trust you are doing well too.

truthislight: its like u also saw what i saw(a fight)
1. he is not religious (pentecostal/catholic)
2. He is not atheist
3. He is not interested in clearification.
Then what does he need? = a fight

Funny.

And I'm not being condescending. I came here to clarify a simple matter in another poster's statement when you chooked ya mouth on top the matta.

truthislight: @myjoe
sorry mate.
If there are issues that u need clearification/express from the JW kindly meet one of the witnesses.
Am sure geographical location will not be a barier since they are available in almost all geographical area, going from house to house, note. their work is free, no tithing.

Better still, write to there branch offices.
Thanks.
Peace

Aha.

The programmed mind kicks in. A mere discussion scares him. He is only comfortable where he is the one talking away while the other listens quietly. Subject what he is preaching to serious questions and he simply can't handle the cognitive dissonance so he takes the easy way out. The alternative cannot be contemplated for one second. It's too much.

By the way, I don't need any clarifications. You are the one who does, but not the kind you think.

stagger: May God punish all the Bishop Oyedepo haters in Nairaland. Let them go and drink their piss and eat their excreta! Nonsense!

Such hatred for total strangers. *Sighs*

vescucci: There's no specific age. Especially the upper limit. Maybe there's a lower limit. Many people are still children at 70. Basically many people got it right in my opinion. Being a man is being an adult male (which means taking responsibility for your actions) who has had some experience borne out of mistakes and wrong choices. That's mainly what I consider what being a man is

I think subjectivity is okay if we are talking about what you "consider" being a man. I understand that "there are men and there are boys". But this thread is about how people are addressed. In this wise, there is no subjectivity on the matter. A man is an adult male human being - that is, someone who is 18 years and over. Thus, the phrase, "a 21-year-old boy", which you sometimes find in Nigerian newspapers, is an oxymoron since there are no 21-year-old boys.

This problem started with European colonisers. They were loth to consider black men to be men, hence they referred to and treated them as boys. Our people inherited this and things have tended to remain so ever since. If 18 and above, especially 21 and above, and someone calls you a boy, you can politely tell the person so stop addressing you that way and educate them on the subject of how adult male human beings are addressed.

@PastorAIO

Thanks for that^^^. Certainly an angle I had not averted my mind to. In exempting Europe, I was talking about cultural cannibalism, that is, where it is an established practice among the people of a village or tribe. I had course to research a bit on this cannibalism matter and failed to come up with European cases. There have certainly been cases of individuals, though. I am suspecting that the Berom case is a tribal practice carried over from ancient times. But if that is not the case and they simply sunk to this level on the spur of religious or ethnic hatred, then it perfectly parallels the example you have cited.