I was "born in the truth" and was indoctrinated to believe that other religions have nothing better to offer. Although this is basically true if you look at them from the organizational point of view, yet there are some theologians whose thought is MUCH deeper than you have ever imagened. Go to a bookstore and take a look at Hans Kung's "On Being a Christian", for example, and see how FAR that is from the kind of literature offered by the Watchtower's Writing Department who is supposedly directed by Jehovah.

YK:

Since Augustine Christendom has sought to enshroud the simple truths of Christ in intellectualism. In contrast to that satanic effort to rob mankind of the simplicity of God's truth, Paul, who was an intellectual in his own right, said that he chose to preach nothing except "Christ impaled." That unpretentious message seemed like foolishness to the high-minded Greeks, but as Paul pointed out, it was God's means of salvation. In our day the Society has likewise sought to be faithful to the primative truths of Christianity, going to great efforts to let God's word speak to uneducated and even marginally literate persons. While modern philosophers may also attempt to dress up a form of Christianity to flatter the intellect, they are as devoid of the spirit of Christ as are the teachings of Plato. / You Know


My mother who is 85 fell sick last year and spent a number of months in the hospital. When she was notified of her impending release, and no one from the congregation nor my fleshly brother who is an elder volunteer to care for her, so much for James 1:27.

My wife and I gladly took her in and cared for her. This to me was my personal resposibility, I didn't have to know the scriptures to fulfill my duty. I would have executed my responsibility WITHOUT me knowing the scriptures. As I have said, my non-christian grandmother taught me to have respect.

Since my mother was living in the home of her expelled son, this caused an interesting scenario for the friends to visit my mother. Only one or two initially came on their own to visit my mother and the others didn't. It was later announced over the platform that under the circumstances the friends had permission to visit my mother even though her she is living in the home of her expelled son. (Hmmm, exentuating circumstances, how convenient)

YK:

Keep in mind that most of the counsel found in the NT was originally directed to Christians in the 1st century because they were missing the mark. So, since the early anointed Christians were so terribly flawed, why should we expect Jehovah's people today to be any better? Truth is: there are many acts of unkindness and self-righteousness and other discouraging things that go on in the congregations. I am sorry for your difficulty, but you just can't allow yourself to stumble other these things. It is just part of our test, that as Jehovah's Witnesses, being aware of the universal issues of integrity and such, should be confronted both inside and outside of the congregation with difficulties that are disturbing and that test our faith. And frankly, that's why Jehovah is yet to judge his people, in order to determine who really are the faithful ones. Do you want to know exactly how Jehovah is going to level the measuring line upon us? / You Know


Q. Is Jerusalem somestimes talked to as a person or a city in Isa. and Ezek.?

YK:

Jerusalem is an organization of persons. Jehovah's organization to be precise. / You Know


Statement: ***They [Jehovah's Witnesses] cannot defend their doctrines.***

 

YK:

I beg to differ. None of you have yet to over turn one doctrine of ours. / You Know


Today You Know knows that that doctrine [generation that would pass away] was not true. But would anyone have been able to convince him of that to his satisfaction during those years the Society was teaching it? I would think not - no matter how much evidence was brought up about it. Why not? I don't know. But Jehovah knows...

YK:

Your post is nonsenical. For one thing, the generation teaching is not exactly a doctrinal teaching as such. It is an interpretation of a prophecy. There is a difference. Really, all that the recent generation revision has proven is that a generation is NOT a period of 70 or 80 years. Furthermore, it is not something that can be overturned by any of our oppossers. Only time will tell what exactly Jesus meant by his comment. It must be noted too, that there is a difference between not believing something and actually refuting it. No ridiculer is able to succesfully refute the evidence of Christ's presence by merely scoffing at the idea.

As for my being captive to the Watchtower's interpretation of things, well...you are wrong again. I for one don't accept the latest revision, on the grounds that it doesn't quite line up with other Hebrew usages of the term, as well as the context in which Jesus used it. When Christ said this generation would not pass away UNTIL such and such a thing occurs, he obviously was using a genaration to mark off a period of time. The word "until" signifies a duration of time.

It seems to me that what has occured is that Jehovah has "allowed an operation of error to go forth" among his people to give faithless ones the excuse they are looking for to leave. Once Jehovah's purpose is accomplished in that regard, then the end will begin, and many of Jehovah's Witnesses will find themselves on the outside gnashing thir teeth as it were.

Hope that helps / You Know

additional:

Obviously any error or falsehood is allowed by Jehovah, and it inevitably tests the faith and loyalty of his people. In the case of the generation deal, it simply shows to the extent that Jehovah's day has overtaken you. / You Know


Statement:

Much of that record of teachings from their own literature has been reproduced on the Internet. This is the REAL reason the Governing Body is discouraging the Witnesses from doing their own research on the Internet - not because what they find is not true, but because it IS true! And they can only maintain their control of the rest of Jehovah's Witnesses as long as the Witnesses don't come to realize that what's on the Internet is true.

YK:

That is a very clever argument, but it simply doesn't hold up. Most Witnesses have enough smarts to see through this sort of cunning. The fact of the matter is that from the very beginning the Society had the basics of the truth down. None of the foundational doctrines have changed, and none of them can be over turned. No apostate can successfully refute any doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses. It is a standing challenge to any and all comers to continue to try though.

As far as the various web sites dedicated to "exposing" the Watchtower's past, it is more a matter of trivial pursuit than any sort of relevant information that would actually disqualify them from Jehovah's service. As it is, it seems that puffed up and arrogant fault-finders are the only ones that are really susecptible to the con game anyway. The Society ought to mandate that every one get on the net as a means of winnowing such ones out at an accelerated rate. LOL / You Know


On Jesus having a body after his resurrection:

 

YK:

What you may be failing to understand is that spirits have bodies, they just aren't made out of molecular stuff. But they do have bodies, they aren't just some sort of celestial plasma floating around. As Paul noted: "There are heavenly bodies, and earthly bodies; but the glory of the heavenly bodies is one sort, and that of the earthly bodies is a different sort." (I Cor.15:40)

Further in Paul's discussion he said of Jesus in verse 45: "the last Adam became a life-giving SPIRIT. Nevertheless, the first is, not that which is spiritual, but that which is physical, afterward that which is SPIRITUAL." Isn't that plain enough?

Inerestingly, when Paul recounted his blinding encounter with the superhuman Christ, those of the Pharisses who were listening to his story understood by Paul's description that Jesus was a spirit. They said at Acts 23:9b: "We find nothing wrong in this man; but if a spirit or angel spoke to him---"

Furthermore, Peter says plainly that Jesus was "put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit." I know some translations say, "made alive by the spirit," but the context reveals that a contrast was being made in the two natures of Jesus, not in the means by which he was resurrected. Besides, "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of the heavens." Heaven is simply the domain of spirit creatures---
inaccesible to flesh. Why is that so hard to accept?

/ You Know


start at 2/1