Watchtower is a stock company-where does the money go?
FHLA56
Perhaps someone here can answer this question. The Watchtower Bible and Tract
Society is a stock company, which means, it also pays dividends. Sooo-who gets
that money? How is it handled? How much do they pay the board of directors?
BTW--The society is in the progress, I hear, of having all KH titles put in its
name, also having all general fund monies at the local level sent to them.
I heard that. Perhaps someone can verify.
Where is the chrater for people to read?
It seems to my small way of thinking that the local KH around the world are
legit nonprofites, but the headquarters? How can they be, when they are the
publishing arm?
Lots of things I do not understand.
Any help will be apprecited.
PS there is a web page by a currently active JW and he stated that whole
congregations have been disfellowshiped. he said it does not happen very
often, but it s the first time I have ever heard of that. I cannot imagine why
an entire congreattion would be disfellowshiped unless someone wanted them to
abide by something that was not based on the Bible.
I read there that someone said a congregation had had all its elders deleted
except one, that people were brought in to fill the void, until new elders
could be appointed. Dont you wonder why it is the elders were "deleted"? I
ill bet they had been serving for many years.
The congregations in the days of the apostles were individual congregations,
and independent. If they had a serious disagreement, they went up to the older
men in Jerusalem to get an opinion. Paul went there over things having to do
with what the jewish christiains wanting the gentile christians to abide by the
mosiac law.
There is a huge problem right now in the headquarters. I hear they changed the
baptism oath to include an oath to the organization. That is no where in the
bible. zip zero
BTW--if the wtbs gets sued and loses, and if the members are baptized to the
organization, will that make them libel in the lawsuite for any funds awarded?
I got lots of questions and no answers.
I am sick at heart about what is taking place today.
thank you
Linda
"FHLA56" <fhl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030924003316...@mb-m05.aol.com...
> hello,
>
> Perhaps someone here can answer this question. The Watchtower Bible and
Tract
> Society is a stock company, which means, it also pays dividends. Sooo-who
gets
> that money? How is it handled? How much do they pay the board of
directors?
>
> BTW--The society is in the progress, I hear, of having all KH titles put
in its
> name, also having all general fund monies at the local level sent to
them.
>
> I heard that. Perhaps someone can verify.
>
> Where is the chrater for people to read?
>
> It seems to my small way of thinking that the local KH around the world
are
> legit nonprofites, but the headquarters? How can they be, when they are
the
> publishing arm?
>
> Lots of things I do not understand.
>
> Any help will be apprecited.
>
> PS there is a web page by a currently active JW and he stated that whole
> congregations have been disfellowshiped.
where is the site?
Mark Sornson
>
> hello,
>
> Perhaps someone here can answer this question. The Watchtower Bible and Tract
> Society is a stock company, which means, it also pays dividends. Sooo-who gets
> that money? How is it handled? How much do they pay the board of directors?
The various corporations JWs use are all
legally chartered as non-profit corporations.
Thus, no one gets dividends. Your information
is erroneous.
>
> BTW--The society is in the progress, I hear, of having all KH titles put in its
> name, also having all general fund monies at the local level sent to them.
You heard wrong again. All Kingdom Hall titles
are held by the local congregations, either as
trusteeships or as non-profit corporations (where
elders are the trustees or corporation directors
and officers).
Also, aside from being just plain false, it's
stupid to have a policy of "having all general
fund monies at the local level sent to them."
That would mean that the WTS would have to
pay the utility and supply bills, and fund all
local maintainance.
The fantasy of the ex/anti-JW crowd of the WTS
controlling all the money is spinning out of control.
>
> I heard that. Perhaps someone can verify.
You heard wrong. Where did you hear that?
>
> Where is the chrater for people to read?
On file in the offices of the various states
(Pennsylvania and New York) that they have
been incorporated in.
>
> It seems to my small way of thinking that the local KH around the world are
> legit nonprofites,
Correct.
> but the headquarters? How can they be, when they are the
> publishing arm?
How can they be? By design, by intent, and by
implementation. Being 'revenue generating' isn't
a conflict with being non-profit. Non-profit means
that the 'profits' (the excess remaining after
expenses are subtracted from gross revenue) are
not put into the prockets of private individuals,
but are channeled back into the legally chartered
purpose of the organization.
>
> Lots of things I do not understand.
>
> Any help will be apprecited.
>
> PS there is a web page by a currently active JW and he stated that whole
> congregations have been disfellowshiped. he said it does not happen very
> often, but it s the first time I have ever heard of that. I cannot imagine why
> an entire congreattion would be disfellowshiped unless someone wanted them to
> abide by something that was not based on the Bible.
What is that web-page?
Either he or you are mistaken. Unless the whole congregation
was doing drugs, engaged in sexual immorality, or things
far worse, it's really an impossibility for a whole congregation
to be disfellowshipped. I've never heard of that happening.
A whole congregation can, however, be disbanded, meaning that
its elder-body is "deleted" and not replaced, and its members
are assigned to other near-by, existing congregations. That
could result in the closing and sale of the Kingdom Hall.
>
> I read there that someone said a congregation had had all its elders deleted
> except one, that people were brought in to fill the void, until new elders
> could be appointed. Dont you wonder why it is the elders were "deleted"? I
> ill bet they had been serving for many years.
I said that. Recently, in fact, in this newsgroup.
I'm flattered to have been quoted (no doubt anonymously)
as an authority. [Again, what is the URL for that site?]
I did wonder why that happened, but since it was
after I moved away from the congregation, I didn't
have the personal contacts to find out why. Some
of the elders who were deleted were since re-appointed
later and are serving to this day.
>
> The congregations in the days of the apostles were individual congregations,
> and independent. If they had a serious disagreement, they went up to the older
> men in Jerusalem to get an opinion. Paul went there over things having to do
> with what the jewish christiains wanting the gentile christians to abide by the
> mosiac law.
The fact that they all looked to a central source
for guidance (the apostles and older men in Jerusalem)
means that they were NOT "independent". That men
like Paul could assign elders like Timothy and Titus
to make appointments of elders means that there was
a common authority that all recognized.
Also, the fact that the congregations all circulated
the writings of the apostles means that they were
NOT all independently coming up with their own ideas
on how to run their congregations. (Actually,
a problem was that some were using their own
ideas to run things, and thus the inspired letters
were written to sort things out, to unify the way
the congregations were run with divine guidance.)
>
> There is a huge problem right now in the headquarters.
No there isn't. You're getting your info from
the equivalent of the tabloid press.
> I hear they changed the
> baptism oath to include an oath to the organization. That is no where in the
> bible. zip zero
For many decades (I don't know how far back in time
this particular format goes), JWs have asked baptismal
candidates two questions in public. (In private,
those candidates were asked 70-80 questions taken
from a book that is roughly equivalent to a catechism
guide in other churches.) After answering "yes" to
the two questions, they are lead off to the locker-
room to change, after which they are baptized.
Maybe 20+ years ago (I'd have to do a bit of digging to
find out when the change was made) the questions were
modified, so that the second one asked explicitly
whether they recognized that their baptism identified
them as Jehovah's Witnesses and as members of the whole
JW organization.
Evidently prior to that a few disgruntled members
attempted to claim that their baptisms (by JWs) prior
to that time were 'generic' and didn't really
associate them with JWs and put them under the authority
of the JW organization. That was really a spurious
claim, since the fact that they went to JWs to get
baptized meant that they sought to join and
acknowledged the authority of the JW organization to
baptize them. However, to close that 'loophole',
the questions were modified to make what was already
evident even more obvious.
>
> BTW--if the wtbs gets sued and loses, and if the members are baptized to the
> organization, will that make them libel in the lawsuite for any funds awarded?
The biggest flaw in that argument is that baptism
is a spiritual commitment, not a legal commitment.
Baptism doesn't assign legally binding fiscal
responsibility to members. All donations are purely
voluntary. Thus, how would the suer extract the
money from all the other members? There is no
mandatory obligation to pay anything.
[Nit: "libel" means written slander. You meant liable.]
> I got lots of questions and no answers.
Send me e-mail. My availabity for newsgroup
posts has recently diminished severely.
>
> I am sick at heart about what is taking place today.
You can make yourself sick by choosing sources
that feed you their one-sided agenda, the purpose
of which *is* to "make you sick".
-mark.
sketch
> hello,
>
> Perhaps someone here can answer this question. The Watchtower Bible and Tract
> Society is a stock company, which means, it also pays dividends. Sooo-who gets
> that money? How is it handled? How much do they pay the board of directors?
I do not know where you get your information from. The Watchtower
Bible and Tract society is NOT a publicly traded company, nor does it
have shares for sale to anyone. If it was, you could find them on one
of the stock exchanges, and look them up at the SEC or SEC website.
>
> BTW--The society is in the progress, I hear, of having all KH titles put in its
> name, also having all general fund monies at the local level sent to them.
>
> I heard that. Perhaps someone can verify.
No, all congregations ARE independent as far as funding goes. There
are certain contribution boxes within the halls where donations can be
made for a certain fund (i.e. the international building fund). Each
congregation is responsible for paying all of its bills, and most have
loans from the Society, in which they have to pay back the loan with
interest. the interest goes back into the building fund for more loans
to be given out for more Kingdon Halls to be built.
> Where is the chrater for people to read?
Charter? one is the Hebrew Scriptures (OT), the other is the Christian
Greek Scriptures (NT) also known as the bible. beyond that, I'm not
sure what you're asking.
> PS there is a web page by a currently active JW and he stated that whole
> congregations have been disfellowshiped. he said it does not happen very
> often, but it s the first time I have ever heard of that. I cannot imagine why
> an entire congreattion would be disfellowshiped unless someone wanted them to
> abide by something that was not based on the Bible.
I have not heard of whole CONGREGATIONS being disfellowshipped, but i
could see it happening. I know of congregations where large amounts of
people where disfellowshipped because they were all engaged together
in certain things (i.e. drugs, immorality, etc...) that are not in
line with bible principals.
> I read there that someone said a congregation had had all its elders deleted
> except one, that people were brought in to fill the void, until new elders
> could be appointed. Dont you wonder why it is the elders were "deleted"? I
> ill bet they had been serving for many years.
Yes, I know of 2 Congregations that had ALL of their elders removed.
They had a couple of elders from other congregations fill in for the
time being until they could get things straightened out. The reasons i
don't know, but for something that big, it must have been pretty
rough.
> The congregations in the days of the apostles were individual congregations,
> and independent. If they had a serious disagreement, they went up to the
> older men in Jerusalem to get an opinion.
if someone within the congregation had a question, they'd ask an older
one, and if they still had no answer, or there was disagreement (i.e.
circumcision), then they would go to the older ones in Jerusalem.
These older men in Jerusalem is what the Governing body is based on to
a degree.
> There is a huge problem right now in the headquarters. I hear they changed
> the
> baptism oath to include an oath to the organization. That is no where in the
> bible. zip zero
again, hogwash. where are you getting your information? The only Oath
you swear to is to giving your life to Jehovah, and that is actually
done in private. the baptism is simple a public sign of this devotion
and/r change. You do however agree to help to support the preaching
work as one of Jehovah's witnesses. This is a good part of showing
your love. Preaching is not giving an oath to a human society or
group.
>
> BTW--if the wtbs gets sued and loses, and if the members are baptized to the
> organization, will that make them libel in the lawsuite for any funds awarded?
No. As with the Catholic Church, the patrons are not held liable. They
may however be asked to give to some sort of lawsuit fund but i can
not verify that. Nothing of the sort has been asked within my
congregation and no special fund has been set up at the society for
congregational contributions either.
>
> I got lots of questions and no answers.
the squeaky wheel gets the grease....
~ ME ~
From: "Linda Lisa" <Nothin...@Watchtowerland.net>
Subject: Re: Watchtower is a stock company-where does the money go?
Date: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 12:17 AM
"FHLA56" <fhl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030924003316...@mb-m05.aol.com...
> hello,
>
> Perhaps someone here can answer this question. The Watchtower Bible and
Tract
> Society is a stock company, which means, it also pays dividends. Sooo-who
gets
> that money? How is it handled? How much do they pay the board of
directors?
** The money is mainly used to BENEFIT the WTS only. Nothing goes back to
society. Billions are spent on extravagant places like the Patterson
Complex in NY. Most of their money dealings are not shared with the rank
and file unpaid laborers.
> BTW--The society is in the progress, I hear, of having all KH titles put
in its
> name, also having all general fund monies at the local level sent to
them.
> I heard that. Perhaps someone can verify.
** Perhaps some JW can answer this one........
>
> Where is the chrater for people to read?
> It seems to my small way of thinking that the local KH around the world
are
> legit nonprofites, but the headquarters? How can they be, when they are
the
> publishing arm?
** DISHONESTY! Good lawyers. Lying. How did OJ get away with murder?
> Lots of things I do not understand.
> Any help will be apprecited.
** Have you done a Google search? Check both the pro and the anti-WTS
websites.
> PS there is a web page by a currently active JW and he stated that whole
> congregations have been disfellowshiped. he said it does not happen very
> often, but it s the first time I have ever heard of that. I cannot imagine
why
> an entire congreattion would be disfellowshiped unless someone wanted them
to
> abide by something that was not based on the Bible.
** Or on the every utterance of the GB, a group of aged, out-of-touch,
self-interested old men (no minorities and no women).
I never heard of a whole cong being DFed.
> I read there that someone said a congregation had had all its elders
deleted
> except one, that people were brought in to fill the void, until new elders
> could be appointed. Dont you wonder why it is the elders were "deleted"?
I
> ill bet they had been serving for many years.
** A "deleted" elder.......??? Do you mean DFed or disfellowshipped?
> The congregations in the days of the apostles were individual
congregations,
> and independent. If they had a serious disagreement, they went up to the
older
> men in Jerusalem to get an opinion. Paul went there over things having to
do
> with what the jewish christiains wanting the gentile christians to abide
by the
> mosiac law.
** The word "independent" is a profane word among the JWs.
> There is a huge problem right now in the headquarters. I hear they
changed the
> baptism oath to include an oath to the organization. That is no where in
the
> bible. zip zero
** Forget the bible. The GB runs the show and if it doesn't agree with the
bible.... they don't care. An oath to a Publishing House definitely is NOT
in any bible.
> BTW--if the wtbs gets sued and loses, and if the members are baptized to
the
> organization, will that make them libel in the lawsuite for any funds
awarded?
** I hope all the sexually abused JWs sue the pants off the WTS. I hope
the families they destroyed sue them for alienation of affection etc.
> I got lots of questions and no answers.
> I am sick at heart about what is taking place today.
> thank you
** Why are you sick at heart? They're no more a bunch of crooks than any
other business out there making a mint ripping off the gullible and
trusting.
--
Koketta..........
"Welcome to God's Organization. Here
is the list of correct personal decisions. You may deviate
from them if you wish, but you'll be branded as spiritually
weak, and if we don't like you we'll do (disfellowship) you for not having
the right attitude. Enjoy your freedom." (Kirll)
~~~ }<(((((o> ~~~ }<{{{{{o> ~~~ }<(((((Ô> ~~~ }<{{{{{(o>
~~~ }<{{{o>
~ ME ~
From: "~ ME ~" <windson...@THISheartoftn.net>
Subject: Watchtower is a stock company-where does the money go?
Date: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 5:01 PM
~ ME ~
~ ME ~
"Mark Sornson" <sor...@zk3.dec.com> wrote in message
news:3F719CB9...@zk3.dec.com...
> The various corporations JWs use are all
> legally chartered as non-profit corporations.
> Thus, no one gets dividends. Your information
> is erroneous.
Since when? They own stock in a TOBACCO company and at the same time claim
cigarettes kill and ban their victims from smoking.
They own stock in a Co that manufactures ARMS for the Armed Services, then
psychologically CASTRATES their male victims into no serving in the armed
forces... lets get HONEST here Mark! BOTH are for-profit companies.
What else do they own stock in? How can we all find out? It is a secret?
~ ME ~
"sketch" <lsc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:835ef528.03092...@posting.google.com...
> No, all congregations ARE independent as far as funding goes. There
> are certain contribution boxes within the halls where donations can be
> made for a certain fund (i.e. the international building fund). Each
> congregation is responsible for paying all of its bills, and most have
> loans from the Society, in which they have to pay back the loan with
> interest. the interest goes back into the building fund for more loans
> to be given out for more Kingdon Halls to be built.
** And THIS is all bible based? Any scripture this is based on?
> > Where is the chrater for people to read?
> Charter? one is the Hebrew Scriptures (OT), the other is the Christian
> Greek Scriptures (NT) also known as the bible. beyond that, I'm not
> sure what you're asking.
** They're asking what this "loan and building fund" is based on? Which
scripture if any? If not on scripture than what?
> > PS there is a web page by a currently active JW and he stated that whole
> > congregations have been disfellowshiped. .........
> I have not heard of whole CONGREGATIONS being disfellowshipped, but i
> could see it happening. I know of congregations where large amounts of
> people where disfellowshipped because they were all engaged together
> in certain things (i.e. drugs, immorality, etc...) that are not in
> line with bible principals.
** A WHOLE congregation of drug addicts????? Get serious! What kind of
immorality? They smoked cigarettes? Someone had a child out of wedlock?
A couple lived together out of wedlock? The women were "servicing, as
Jabriol calls it" the men in the backrooms? What is meant by immorality?
> > I read there that someone said a congregation had had all its elders
deleted
> > except one, that people were brought in to fill the void, until new
elders
> > could be appointed. Dont you wonder why it is the elders were
"deleted"? I
> > ill bet they had been serving for many years.
> Yes, I know of 2 Congregations that had ALL of their elders removed.
> They had a couple of elders from other congregations fill in for the
> time being until they could get things straightened out. The reasons i
> don't know, but for something that big, it must have been pretty
> rough.
** Like what? Why was it kept a SECRET? Did they happen to disagree with
some WTS teaching or belief?
> if someone within the congregation had a question, they'd ask an older
> one, and if they still had no answer, or there was disagreement (i.e.
> circumcision), then they would go to the older ones in Jerusalem.
> These older men in Jerusalem is what the Governing body is based on to
> a degree.
** And these older men, the GB are so behind the times it's incredible.
They're still living in the past. They also have no degrees in theology nor
can they read or write Greek, Hebrew or any of the ancient languages..
They're not qualified to settle disputes.
> > There is a huge problem right now in the headquarters. I hear they
changed
> > the
> > baptism oath to include an oath to the organization. That is no where
in the
> > bible. zip zero
> again, hogwash. where are you getting your information? The only Oath
> you swear to is to giving your life to Jehovah, and that is actually
> done in private.
** And in order to GIVE your life to Jehovah that means you must SERVE the
WTS from then on, right? THAT itself is not biblical!
the baptism is simple a public sign of this devotion
> and/r change. You do however agree to help to support the preaching
> work as one of Jehovah's witnesses.
** Jesus NEVER claimed you needed to support any Publishing Company, cult
or sect to be saved!!!!
This is a good part of showing
> your love. Preaching is not giving an oath to a human society or
> group.
** What is the WTS????? It's a human society running a huge Publishing
House and Land Purchasing complex. That is unless they sold all that land
and all those printing presses.........
> > I got lots of questions and no answers.
>
> the squeaky wheel gets the grease....
** But it doesn't always get GOOD grease.......
Barb Hoy
>
>
> > There is a huge problem right now in the headquarters. I hear they
changed
> > the
> > baptism oath to include an oath to the organization. That is no where
in the
> > bible. zip zero
>
> again, hogwash. where are you getting your information? The only Oath
> you swear to is to giving your life to Jehovah, and that is actually
> done in private.
Sketchy don't lie....it isn't nice. **wagging finger at little Sketch**
here are the baptismal questions that you answer in PUBLIC before they dunk
you in the water....both versions:
The baptismal questions from the Aug. 1, 1966 Watchtower (p. 465) were:
(1) Have you recognized yourself before Jehovah God as a sinner who needs
salvation, and have you acknowledged to him that this salvation proceeds
from him, the Father, through his Son Jesus Christ?
(2) On the basis of this faith in God and in his provision for salvation,
have you dedicated yourself unreservedly to God to do his will henceforth as
he reveals it to you through Jesus Christ and through the Bible under the
enlightening power of the holy spirit?
The newest baptismal questions were set forth in the June 1, 1985 (p. 30)
Watchtower:
(1) On the basis of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, have you repented of your
sins and dedicated yourself to Jehovah to do his will?
(2) Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as one
of Jehovah's Witnesses in association with God's spirit-directed
organization?
Barb
Frank
> legally chartered as non-profit corporations.
> Thus, no one gets dividends. Your information
> is erroneous.
>
> >
> > BTW--The society is in the progress, I hear, of having all KH titles put
in its
> > name, also having all general fund monies at the local level sent to
them.
>
> You heard wrong again. All Kingdom Hall titles
> are held by the local congregations, either as
> trusteeships or as non-profit corporations (where
> elders are the trustees or corporation directors
> and officers).
Mark, just curious.. If its all handled locally, then how does the GB get
their money to operate? Through rag sales or from some other way?? Someone
has to pay for the Brooklyn facility??
Mark Sornson
Frank, the point of my reply was the address the
spurious allegation that the WTS had some
scheme in place to force congregations to send
in ALL the money collected in the contribution
boxes by the local congregations.
At present, all Kingdom Halls have 'donation boxes'
for the following funds:
* local contributions (utilities, upkeep, mortgate)
* Society's World Wide Work
* Society's Kingdom Hall Building Fund
Some congregations also keep a forth box for
specific local projects [e.g. for major renovations,
a new Kingdom Hall, other?]. My congregation
shares a Hall with two others and is saving for
our own building in our 'territory'.
"Local contributions" pay for the above-mentioned
local expenses. If there is a mortgage, that
is a loan from the Society, so money goes to the WTS
(back into its Kingdom Hall Building Fund which the
local congregation borrowed from).
People may also donate extra that is ear-marked
for the Society's Kingdom Hall building fund, which
helps make money available for other congregations
to borrow. [I suppose some money could be given
in outright grants, but I've never heard of any
specific instances -- though if there are any, it's
likely that they are direct grants given to overseas
congregations, where the laws permit the transfer
of such funds, and local members have very small
incomes.]
The 'World Wide Work' fund was established when
the donation arrangement replaced the original
arrangment of charging a small fixed price for all
literature. For the most part, that is the money
that people think is 'going to the GB.' It
really doesn't go directly to the Governing Body,
but instead is simply handled by the corporations
which print the literature and disburse donated
funds as needed. Governing Body members are like
all other 'Bethel' workers, and receive only a modest
monthly allowance (plus an annual sum for personal
expenses that is about $400 per person).
The branch facilities (for the USA) in Brooklyn,
Walkhill, and Patterson are all funded by donations
to the 'World Wide Work'. Most of those donations
come in monthly from the local congregations. However,
some individual members may send in extra, or may
do things like will money to the Society, or set up
trust funds which remit regular revenue streams to
the Society. I know there are funds like that, but
I don't personally know anyone who set one up. There
aren't very many rich JWs with the means to do so.
The WTS also always sends a thank you letter (every
month, acknowledging donations received), and never
says, "You didn't send in enough money."
-mark.
~ Lilly White Watchtower ~
"Barb Hoy" <barb...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:Nhpcb.3428$iT4.2...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
> Sketchy don't lie....it isn't nice. **wagging finger at little Sketch**
It's unreal how they LIE? But then they see everyone but each other as
either a swine, an apostate or a potential victim for the WTS to prey upon.
Imagine taking a vow to a Publishing House!!!
Mark Sornson
> here are the baptismal questions that you answer in PUBLIC before they dunk
> you in the water....both versions:
>
> The baptismal questions from the Aug. 1, 1966 Watchtower (p. 465) were:
>
> (1) Have you recognized yourself before Jehovah God as a sinner who needs
> salvation, and have you acknowledged to him that this salvation proceeds
> from him, the Father, through his Son Jesus Christ?
>
> (2) On the basis of this faith in God and in his provision for salvation,
> have you dedicated yourself unreservedly to God to do his will henceforth as
> he reveals it to you through Jesus Christ and through the Bible under the
> enlightening power of the holy spirit?
>
> The newest baptismal questions were set forth in the June 1, 1985 (p. 30)
> Watchtower:
>
> (1) On the basis of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, have you repented of your
> sins and dedicated yourself to Jehovah to do his will?
>
> (2) Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as one
> of Jehovah's Witnesses in association with God's spirit-directed
> organization?
Thanks Barb.
New-1 simplies old-1 and includes the point from old-2
about having dedicated oneself to God. The new-2 simply
makes plain what the point of public baptism by JWs is
all about, that the person is identifying themself as
one of JWs, and is associating themself with the JW
organization. That is really what was implied by old-2,
for that is what JWs have always understood what it means
to 'do God's will' in our time.
Before a person answers these questions in public,
they are interviewed by the elders to answer ~80
questions on the basics of JW faith and practice.
The book the questions have been taken from has
changed over the years, but the point has always been
the same, to make sure 1) that the person knows
and believes what JWs do, and 2) that the person
really wants to become one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
-mark.
sketch
> > No, all congregations ARE independent as far as funding goes. There
> > are certain contribution boxes within the halls where donations can be
> > made for a certain fund (i.e. the international building fund). Each
> > congregation is responsible for paying all of its bills, and most have
> > loans from the Society, in which they have to pay back the loan with
> > interest. the interest goes back into the building fund for more loans
> > to be given out for more Kingdon Halls to be built.
>
> ** And THIS is all bible based? Any scripture this is based on?
which part? paying back loans and payng back with interest is a bible
principle, as is personal responsibility. something that is far
lacking today.
> > Charter? one is the Hebrew Scriptures (OT), the other is the Christian
> > Greek Scriptures (NT) also known as the bible. beyond that, I'm not
> > sure what you're asking.
>
> ** They're asking what this "loan and building fund" is based on? Which
> scripture if any? If not on scripture than what?
how were the early synogagues (sp?) built back then? when a jewish
"government" was in place, then taxes paid for it, but when not under
a jewish king (i.e. the romans), then certainly NOT by the occupying
governments, but by people's contributions and the temple tax (which
is no longer charged, FYI). so there IS a PRECEDENCE for this "fund".
As for helping the "poor" (in this case it would be the spitiually
poor), treating others kindly and so on? there are many people in the
world that are spirtually "poor", and that need help in other ways.
there are several versus in the bible about this.
>
> > > PS there is a web page by a currently active JW and he stated that whole
> > > congregations have been disfellowshiped. .........
>
> > I have not heard of whole CONGREGATIONS being disfellowshipped, but i
> > could see it happening. I know of congregations where large amounts of
> > people where disfellowshipped because they were all engaged together
> > in certain things (i.e. drugs, immorality, etc...) that are not in
> > line with bible principals.
>
> ** A WHOLE congregation of drug addicts????? Get serious! What kind of
> immorality? They smoked cigarettes? Someone had a child out of wedlock?
> A couple lived together out of wedlock? The women were "servicing, as
> Jabriol calls it" the men in the backrooms? What is meant by immorality?
First off, dont confuse honest hearted JWs with Jabbs. i'm sure you
know what it is if you know and believe the bible.....Immorality is
pretty much anything that goes against biblical principal. Yes,
"sleeping" with someone that you arent married to is immoral, taking
illegal drugs is as well as it violates both the body and the law. The
specific incident that i know of involved some ministerial servants
smoking pot and also sleeping with some of the sisters in the hall. it
didnt happen just once either, so it was basically an instant DFing -
I only know because i knew one of them personally... there were a
total of 7 people DF'd, and another 2 or 3 that were reproved....
giving birth to a child out of wedlock is not immoral, CONCEIVING it
out of wedlock is....
> > > I read there that someone said a congregation had had all its elders
> deleted
> > > except one, that people were brought in to fill the void, until new
> elders
> > > could be appointed. Dont you wonder why it is the elders were
> "deleted"? I
> > > ill bet they had been serving for many years.
>
> > Yes, I know of 2 Congregations that had ALL of their elders removed.
> > They had a couple of elders from other congregations fill in for the
> > time being until they could get things straightened out. The reasons i
> > don't know, but for something that big, it must have been pretty
> > rough.
>
> ** Like what? Why was it kept a SECRET? Did they happen to disagree with
> some WTS teaching or belief?
i dont know. in fact, a vast majority of the time, when someone is
deleted, steps down, reproved or disfellowshipped, the reason isnt
known by the general congregation. and in the end, it is really not
important. If it was, then the people involved would let others know,
one way or another.
>
> > if someone within the congregation had a question, they'd ask an older
> > one, and if they still had no answer, or there was disagreement (i.e.
> > circumcision), then they would go to the older ones in Jerusalem.
> > These older men in Jerusalem is what the Governing body is based on to
> > a degree.
>
> ** And these older men, the GB are so behind the times it's incredible.
> They're still living in the past. They also have no degrees in theology nor
> can they read or write Greek, Hebrew or any of the ancient languages..
> They're not qualified to settle disputes.
only ONE of the 12 apostles was considered "educated", and he was
considered to be going against everything he was taught. the rest were
lay-people. jesus himself was a "common" carpenter. now, whether the
current GB knows greek or hebrew, i dont personally know, but what i
DO know, is that the NWT DOES stand up to critisism. now you will
always find someone who is starkly against it, simply because it puts
the name Jehoavah in it, thereby disproving the trinity doctrine, or
for whatever reason, but for any one critisism, there is also a
praise. tit for tat. unbiased research will show you the truth. you
just have to be willing to accept it for what it is, and what it says.
> > > There is a huge problem right now in the headquarters. I hear they
> changed
> > > the
> > > baptism oath to include an oath to the organization. That is no where
> in the
> > > bible. zip zero
>
> > again, hogwash. where are you getting your information? The only Oath
> > you swear to is to giving your life to Jehovah, and that is actually
> > done in private.
>
> ** And in order to GIVE your life to Jehovah that means you must SERVE the
> WTS from then on, right? THAT itself is not biblical!
did i say anything like that? you're putting words in my mouth. thats
like saying that since I am an American, and since the american
president is a republican, then obviously, i HAVE to be a
republican... any "support" you give to the society is purely
voluntary. just as the 1st century congregations, the seperate
congregations act individually, but still under the guidance of "the
older men of Jerusalem" (or, New York). accepting guidance is NOT
pledging an OATH or giving your life to something. you took guidance
from your teachers in school. do you even remember their names let
alone give an OATH to them?
> the baptism is simple a public sign of this devotion
> > and/r change. You do however agree to help to support the preaching
> > work as one of Jehovah's witnesses.
>
> ** Jesus NEVER claimed you needed to support any Publishing Company, cult
> or sect to be saved!!!!
nor does the bible or the witnesses. You've been talking to Barb a bit
too long. If you dont want to give to the society, then dont. it
really IS just that easy.
> This is a good part of showing
> > your love. Preaching is not giving an oath to a human society or
> > group.
>
> ** What is the WTS????? It's a human society running a huge Publishing
> House and Land Purchasing complex. That is unless they sold all that land
> and all those printing presses.........
again, tell me how preaching about JEHOVAH is giving an OATH to the
WTS? did the 1st century christians go preaching because they gave an
oath to the older men of Jerusalem? no. yet they DID go preaching with
information SUPPLIED to them by the older men of Jerusalem...
> > > I got lots of questions and no answers.
> >
> > the squeaky wheel gets the grease....
>
> ** But it doesn't always get GOOD grease.......
not much of a handyMAN or mechanic are you?
sketch
Thank you for proving to everyone that there is no OATH to the
organization.
simply because you IDENTIFY with a certain group does NOT mean an
OATH... or else most people would be swearing OATHS to political
parties, senior classes in highschool, RACE, people with RED HAIR and
so on when they really just simply IDENTIFY with them... and you say
JWs twist words... if you honestly believe that those questions about
identifying with the WTS equate an OATH to the WTS, then you truly are
a fool.
Terry/Anti
>
>
snip
The baptism is not just a baptism. It's a DEVOTION AND baptism. You are
devoting yourself to the WT. I would say that's a little stronger than an
oath.
Gramps
Move the @ ahead of hot to email me.
Barb Hoy
> >
> > The newest baptismal questions were set forth in the June 1, 1985 (p.
30)
> > Watchtower:
> >
> > (1) On the basis of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, have you repented of
your
> > sins and dedicated yourself to Jehovah to do his will?
> >
> > (2) Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as
one
> > of Jehovah's Witnesses in association with God's spirit-directed
> > organization?
> >
> > Barb
>
> Thank you for proving to everyone that there is no OATH to the
> organization.
what does the word "dedication" mean?
dedication
n 1: complete and wholehearted fidelity 2: a ceremony in which something (as
a building) is dedicated to some goal or purpose 3: a message that makes a
pledge [syn: commitment] 4: an inscription (as in a book or musical work)
dedicating it to someone or something 5: the act of binding yourself
(intellectually or emotionally) to a course of action; "his long commitment
to public service"; "they felt no loyalty to a losing team" [syn:
commitment, allegiance, loyalty]
Barb
~ Lilly White Watchtower ~
> JWs twist words... if you honestly believe that those questions about
> identifying with the WTS equate an OATH to the WTS, then you truly are
================
You are the fool! In case you MISSED it the first time - here it is again!
Thanks for proving that like other JWs, you parrot the every utterance of
the GB,.... and what you are told to parrot:
--> What does the word "dedication" mean?
dedication
n 1: complete and wholehearted fidelity 2: a ceremony in which something (as
a building) is dedicated to some goal or purpose 3: a message that makes a
pledge [syn: commitment] 4: an inscription (as in a book or musical work)
dedicating it to someone or something 5: the act of binding yourself
(intellectually or emotionally) to a course of action; "his long commitment
to public service"; "they felt no loyalty to a losing team" [syn:
commitment, allegiance, loyalty]
--
Koketta..........
"Welcome to God's (Communistic) Organization. Here
~ Lilly White Watchtower ~
> > > are certain contribution boxes within the halls where donations can be
> > > made for a certain fund (i.e. the international building fund). Each
> > > congregation is responsible for paying all of its bills, and most have
> > > loans from the Society, in which they have to pay back the loan with
> > > interest. the interest goes back into the building fund for more loans
> > > to be given out for more Kingdon Halls to be built.
> >
> > ** And THIS is all bible based? Any scripture this is based on?
>
> which part? paying back loans and payng back with interest is a bible
> principle, as is personal responsibility. something that is far
> lacking today.
## Start with borrowing money from a central Publishing House (or scroll
house in Jesus day) to build buildings of worship when Jesus never did
that - but went from one place to another to preach. Seems he did most if
not all of his preaching and teaching OUTDOORS. Notice he didn't drag
around book (scroll) bags and look for donations for said scrolls - to send
to a central Printing/Publishing/Scroll House somewhere......
> > > Charter? one is the Hebrew Scriptures (OT), the other is the Christian
> > > Greek Scriptures (NT) also known as the bible. beyond that, I'm not
> > > sure what you're asking.
> >
> > ** They're asking what this "loan and building fund" is based on?
Which
> > scripture if any? If not on scripture than what?
> how were the early synogagues (sp?) built back then? when a jewish
> "government" was in place, then taxes paid for it, but when not under
> a jewish king (i.e. the romans), then certainly NOT by the occupying
> governments, but by people's contributions and the temple tax (which
> is no longer charged, FYI). so there IS a PRECEDENCE for this "fund".
## Synogagues? I thought we were talking JESUS and Christianity here? The
old "ways" were no longer being followed. Besides the WTS rejects
everything else, why not that as well?
> As for helping the "poor" (in this case it would be the spitiually
> poor), treating others kindly and so on? there are many people in the
> world that are spirtually "poor", and that need help in other ways.
> there are several versus in the bible about this.
## People's stomachs need food more than they need WTS magazines in these
nations. First feed them - then push your beliefs and rags on them.
> > ** A WHOLE congregation of drug addicts????? Get serious! What kind of
> > immorality? They smoked cigarettes? Someone had a child out of
wedlock?
> > A couple lived together out of wedlock? The women were "servicing, as
> > Jabriol calls it" the men in the backrooms? What is meant by
immorality?
>
> First off, dont confuse honest hearted JWs with Jabbs. i'm sure you
> know what it is if you know and believe the bible.....Immorality is
> pretty much anything that goes against biblical principal.
## Sorry, but that MEANS almost everything and anything human beings enjoy
and love to do! Even things proven to be natural and normal were seen as
"sins" in those ancient, ignorant and unenlightened times. Yet truly
horrible things were seen by your god as natural and healthy such as:
Forced marriage and child bearing on young virgin women, keeping more than
one wife, keeping concubines, genocide when others had different beliefs,
killing children for teasing old bald men etc. Surely you AGREE these
things are SINS against the people involved. Your god saw nothing WRONG
with these abominations.
Yes,
> "sleeping" with someone that you arent married to is immoral,
## Since we now have birth control that doesn't matter anymore. Also being
married is no guarantee the couple will stay together all their lives.
People's personal lives, their sex lives, is no ones business but their own.
taking
> illegal drugs is as well as it violates both the body and the law.
## Which illegal drugs was the bible talking about? What was available back
then besides wine?
The
> specific incident that i know of involved some ministerial servants
> smoking pot and also sleeping with some of the sisters in the hall. it
> didnt happen just once either, so it was basically an instant DFing -
## Now THAT is pretty surprising!
> I only know because i knew one of them personally... there were a
> total of 7 people DF'd, and another 2 or 3 that were reproved....
> giving birth to a child out of wedlock is not immoral, CONCEIVING it
> out of wedlock is....
## But THAT is no one's business! I hate welfare as much as the next
person, but you can't force senseless ancient morals on todays people. Who
would pay attention to the moral dictates of a god who would kill kids for
teasing an old bald man? Or who would see nothing wrong with forced
marriages no matter how the women/girls felt?
> ** And these older men, the GB are so behind the times it's incredible.
> > They're still living in the past. They also have no degrees in theology
nor
> > can they read or write Greek, Hebrew or any of the ancient languages..
> > They're not qualified to settle disputes.
>
> only ONE of the 12 apostles was considered "educated", and he was
> considered to be going against everything he was taught. the rest were
> lay-people. jesus himself was a "common" carpenter. now, whether the
> current GB knows greek or hebrew, i dont personally know,
** They don't as far as the JWs I knew/know are concerned. Therefore they
haven't the KNOWLEDGE or educational background to interpret the ancient
writings. But according to Mark's post anyone who read the bible is a
MINISTER even though they have no background in theology.
but what i
> DO know, is that the NWT DOES stand up to critisism. now you will
> always find someone who is starkly against it, simply because it puts
> the name Jehoavah in it, thereby disproving the trinity doctrine,
** The Trinity isn't the problem. Many people don't buy into that nonsense
either.
or
> for whatever reason, but for any one critisism, there is also a
> praise. tit for tat. unbiased research will show you the truth. you
> just have to be willing to accept it for what it is, and what it says.
** What kind of research are you talking about? I don't believe in the
Trinity or the virgin birth.
> > ** And in order to GIVE your life to Jehovah that means you must SERVE
the
> > WTS from then on, right? THAT itself is not biblical!
> did i say anything like that?
** What ELSE does it mean? Serving the WTS by pushing their publications is
MANDATORY for a JW.
you're putting words in my mouth. thats
> like saying that since I am an American, and since the american
> president is a republican, then obviously, i HAVE to be a
> republican... any "support" you give to the society is purely
> voluntary.
** SINCE WHEN? Have they stopped the MANDATORY door to door work? Only
those who are dying to do this do it nowadays? And don't give me the crap
all JWs just love having the doors slammed in their face, have nothing
better to do etc. I knew more than a few who DESPISED pioneering and all
those endless, redundant,boring meetings.
just as the 1st century congregations, the seperate
> congregations act individually, but still under the guidance of "the
> older men of Jerusalem" (or, New York).
** None of the KHs act independently - all step to the beat of the WTS......
The Nolalu Barn Owl
>the NWT DOES stand up to critisism. now you will
>always find someone who is starkly against it, simply because it puts
>the name Jehoavah in it, thereby disproving the trinity doctrine, or
>for whatever reason,
> simply because it puts
>the name Jehoavah in it, thereby disproving the trinity doctrine, or
>for whatever reason,
> thereby disproving the trinity doctrine, or
Oh? REALLY!
--
Regards
Gordie
sketch
hence the words "In ASSOCIATION" meaning:
"The act of associating or the state of being associated."
"An organized body of people who have an interest, activity, or
purpose in common; a society. "
good to know that you can read.... of course, you only see what you
want.
sketch
> "sketch" <lsc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:835ef528.03092...@posting.google.com...
> .. and you say
> > JWs twist words... if you honestly believe that those questions about
> > identifying with the WTS equate an OATH to the WTS, then you truly are
> > a fool....
> ================
> You are the fool! In case you MISSED it the first time - here it is again!
> Thanks for proving that like other JWs, you parrot the every utterance of
> the GB,.... and what you are told to parrot:
>
> --> What does the word "dedication" mean?
>
> dedication
>
> n 1: complete and wholehearted fidelity 2: a ceremony in which something (as
> a building) is dedicated to some goal or purpose 3: a message that makes a
> pledge [syn: commitment] 4: an inscription (as in a book or musical work)
> dedicating it to someone or something 5: the act of binding yourself
> (intellectually or emotionally) to a course of action; "his long commitment
> to public service"; "they felt no loyalty to a losing team" [syn:
> commitment, allegiance, loyalty]
I find that quite funny since you are calling ME a parrot, yet you
just cut and pasted Barb's rant as your reply..... Lilly want a
cracker?
sketch
> > > ** And THIS is all bible based? Any scripture this is based on?
> >
> > which part? paying back loans and payng back with interest is a bible
> > principle, as is personal responsibility. something that is far
> > lacking today.
>
> ## Start with borrowing money from a central Publishing House (or scroll
> house in Jesus day) to build buildings of worship when Jesus never did
> that - but went from one place to another to preach. Seems he did most if
> not all of his preaching and teaching OUTDOORS.
true, he did preaching work outside, but he also preached in a lot of
synogagues. he WAS after all, JEWISH...
> Notice he didn't drag
> around book (scroll) bags and look for donations for said scrolls - to send
> to a central Printing/Publishing/Scroll House somewhere......
no, scrolls were hand copied back then and very expensive. the bound
book wasnt invented until the 2nd century? and since then, bibles have
been made more affordable and in a lot of cases, free.
> > how were the early synogagues (sp?) built back then? when a jewish
> > "government" was in place, then taxes paid for it, but when not under
> > a jewish king (i.e. the romans), then certainly NOT by the occupying
> > governments, but by people's contributions and the temple tax (which
> > is no longer charged, FYI). so there IS a PRECEDENCE for this "fund".
>
> ## Synogagues? I thought we were talking JESUS and Christianity here? The
> old "ways" were no longer being followed. Besides the WTS rejects
> everything else, why not that as well?
Jesus was a JEW. hello? that precedence had no bearing on religious
docrine. it was a good way to spread out the expenses so that no one
was more overburdened than others. the temple tax was mandatory.
today, contributions are not.
> > As for helping the "poor" (in this case it would be the spitiually
> > poor), treating others kindly and so on? there are many people in the
> > world that are spirtually "poor", and that need help in other ways.
> > there are several versus in the bible about this.
>
> ## People's stomachs need food more than they need WTS magazines in these
> nations. First feed them - then push your beliefs and rags on them.
the US sends thousands of tons of food to the poor and starving every
year, and most of it rots on the docks because warlords use it for
power. that will not change until Jehovah steps in.
> > First off, dont confuse honest hearted JWs with Jabbs. i'm sure you
> > know what it is if you know and believe the bible.....Immorality is
> > pretty much anything that goes against biblical principal.
>
> ## Sorry, but that MEANS almost everything and anything human beings enjoy
> and love to do!
that doesnt make it right. Jeffery Damher loved to kill and eat young
men and boys. was it okay for him to do that since he "LOVED to do
it"? your line of reasoning doesnt allow for a line to be drawn when a
line NEEDS to be drawn, and the line will NEVER satisfy everyone.
> Even things proven to be natural and normal were seen as
> "sins" in those ancient, ignorant and unenlightened times. Yet truly
> horrible things were seen by your god as natural and healthy such as:
> Forced marriage and child bearing on young virgin women, keeping more than
> one wife, keeping concubines, genocide when others had different beliefs,
> killing children for teasing old bald men etc. Surely you AGREE these
> things are SINS against the people involved. Your god saw nothing WRONG
> with these abominations.
Jehovah created us. He gave us law... it was his right to punish of we
break the law. Do you know the exact circumstances of that incident?
no, you only know what is in those versus. a reasonable person would
have to assume that much more had happened or there were mitigating
circumstances. I do not consider myself to be in a position to
question God's actions when i do not have all details.
> Yes,
> > "sleeping" with someone that you arent married to is immoral,
>
> ## Since we now have birth control that doesn't matter anymore. Also being
> married is no guarantee the couple will stay together all their lives.
> People's personal lives, their sex lives, is no ones business but their own.
considering Jehovah created "marriage", isnt it HIS business?
> taking
> > illegal drugs is as well as it violates both the body and the law.
>
> ## Which illegal drugs was the bible talking about? What was available back
> then besides wine?
illegal means "Against the law". say it with me.....
We are told to follow the law of "Ceasar" or the proper authorities as
long as their laws do not conflict with Jehovah's. If you have not
seen someone on a drug high, then i encourage you to do a ride-along
with your local EMS provider.
> > I only know because i knew one of them personally... there were a
> > total of 7 people DF'd, and another 2 or 3 that were reproved....
> > giving birth to a child out of wedlock is not immoral, CONCEIVING it
> > out of wedlock is....
>
> ## But THAT is no one's business!
so, its okay for a person to preach about following the law of God AND
at the same time willing and openly flaunt it by NOT following it?
That not how its supposed to be. You impeached your last president for
something that wasn't our business...
> I hate welfare as much as the next
> person, but you can't force senseless ancient morals on todays people. Who
> would pay attention to the moral dictates of a god who would kill kids for
> teasing an old bald man? Or who would see nothing wrong with forced
> marriages no matter how the women/girls felt?
>
> > ** And these older men, the GB are so behind the times it's incredible.
> > > They're still living in the past. They also have no degrees in theology
> nor
> > > can they read or write Greek, Hebrew or any of the ancient languages..
> > > They're not qualified to settle disputes.
> >
> > only ONE of the 12 apostles was considered "educated", and he was
> > considered to be going against everything he was taught. the rest were
> > lay-people. jesus himself was a "common" carpenter. now, whether the
> > current GB knows greek or hebrew, i dont personally know,
>
> ** They don't as far as the JWs I knew/know are concerned. Therefore they
> haven't the KNOWLEDGE or educational background to interpret the ancient
> writings. But according to Mark's post anyone who read the bible is a
> MINISTER even though they have no background in theology.
The Jews (that I know of) today do not believe in writing or even
SAYING the name of God as part of their worship. yet, its in the OT
over 7,000 TIMES. he obviously wanted it in there for a reason. I know
people today that have been speaking english for 70 or 80 years, that
dont know what a "dangling participle" is. how about a "predicate
nominative". I work in the computer field and i see lots of people
with a lot of letters behind their name. I wouldnt trust half of them
toeven log into my system. letters, certifications, and degrees are
NOT the same as actual KNOWLEDGE. Albert Einstein is an example of
that...
> > for whatever reason, but for any one critisism, there is also a
> > praise. tit for tat. unbiased research will show you the truth. you
> > just have to be willing to accept it for what it is, and what it says.
>
> ** What kind of research are you talking about? I don't believe in the
> Trinity or the virgin birth.
do you even believe in the bible? christian or hebrew? if not, then
this discussion is pointless...
> > > ** And in order to GIVE your life to Jehovah that means you must SERVE
> the
> > > WTS from then on, right? THAT itself is not biblical!
>
> > did i say anything like that?
>
> ** What ELSE does it mean? Serving the WTS by pushing their publications is
> MANDATORY for a JW.
not at all. you will not get kicked out or punished for not going in
service. you maynot get any responsibilities within the congregation,
but if someone is okay with that, then its their decision. besides,
there are other ways of witnessing besides going door to door.
> you're putting words in my mouth. thats
> > like saying that since I am an American, and since the american
> > president is a republican, then obviously, i HAVE to be a
> > republican... any "support" you give to the society is purely
> > voluntary.
>
> ** SINCE WHEN? Have they stopped the MANDATORY door to door work?
in the 20+ years ive been around the WTS, door to door has never been
MANDATORY. certainly encouraged, but never a do or die thing.
Witnessing IS a do or die thing, but how you go about it your choice.
> Only
> those who are dying to do this do it nowadays? And don't give me the crap
> all JWs just love having the doors slammed in their face, have nothing
> better to do etc. I knew more than a few who DESPISED pioneering and all
> those endless, redundant,boring meetings.
i really dont like door to door work. and i really dont like getting
doors slammed in my face, and yes, i do have better things to do with
my time. but could it make a difference to someone out there? sure.
and again, there are other ways of ministering to people.
> just as the 1st century congregations, the seperate
> > congregations act individually, but still under the guidance of "the
> > older men of Jerusalem" (or, New York).
>
> ** None of the KHs act independently - all step to the beat of the WTS......
kinda like the 1st century christians getting letters from paul, and
John... and so on.... hmmmm. i see your point.
Mark Sornson
>
> "Mark Sornson" <sor...@zk3.dec.com> wrote in message
> news:3F719CB9...@zk3.dec.com...
> > The various corporations JWs use are all
> > legally chartered as non-profit corporations.
> > Thus, no one gets dividends. Your information
> > is erroneous.
> ===================
> Since when? They own stock in a TOBACCO company and at the same time claim
> cigarettes kill and ban their victims from smoking.
You really confuse things easily.
The various corporations JWs are ones like
The Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of NY, Inc.,
and The Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society of
PA, Inc. Those corporations, and all others
like it that JWs have formed to enable them to
hold property and do necessary secular/legal business,
are non-profit and do NOT pay dividends to private
individuals.
People can donate stock, just like they donate
money, to the WTS. It may choose to keep the
stock or sell it. I suppose in some cases it may
refuse to accept the donation, but I don't know
any specifics.
I've heard this rumor before that the WTS
owns stock in a tobacco company. I notice that
you haven't actually provided the name of the
company, or details of how the WTS came into
ownership of it. And you haven't said how long
they were owners (whether it was donated stock
that they sold right away).
> They own stock in a Co that manufactures ARMS for the Armed Services, then
> psychologically CASTRATES their male victims into no serving in the armed
> forces... lets get HONEST here Mark! BOTH are for-profit companies.
> What else do they own stock in? How can we all find out? It is a secret?
They don't own stock in any company that manufactures
arms for the armed services. We've been through
this falsehood before. The owner of that company
evidently put the name of the WTS on its report as
a potential recipient of ownership, but in reality
the owner of the company (a small company that does
R&D on engines) still retains full rights to the stock.
Plus, last time I looked, that small company never
made a profit, and I believe the stock is a 'penny
stock' with very little real value. Even if it
were donated to the WTS, it's likely not the sort
of stock they'd hold onto.
Other companies have bought part-ownership of this
engine company, and some of them are military
suppliers, but those other companies have nothing
to do with the WTS. Their profits don't go to
the WTS because the WTS doesn't own stock in those
companies. You are confused about how stock ownership
and profit-flow works.
For example, if I buy 50% ownership of The Cuddly
Teddy Bear Corp., and for some reason The Evil
Weapons Making Corp. buys the other 50%, I will
get profits from The Cuddly Teddy Bear Corp.,
if it makes any, but I get no profits from The
Evil Weapons Making Corp, because its business
is separate from mine. I'd have to own stock
directly in The Evil Weapons Making Corp. to
receive profits from it.
-mark.
~ Lilly White Watchtower ~
> > ===================
> > Since when? They own stock in a TOBACCO company and at the same time
claim
> > cigarettes kill and ban their victims from smoking.
>
> You really confuse things easily.
** Confuse things? If the WT Publishing House holds stock in different
companies they get dividends. If they were LOSING money you can be sure
they would sell them PRONTO!
> The various corporations JWs are ones like
> The Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of NY, Inc.,
> and The Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society of
> PA, Inc. Those corporations, and all others
> like it that JWs have formed to enable them to
> hold property and do necessary secular/legal business,
> are non-profit and do NOT pay dividends to private
> individuals.
** NO ONE said the WTS pays anyone one penny. We all know the WTS TAKES,
and never gives.
> People can donate stock, just like they donate
> money, to the WTS. It may choose to keep the
> stock or sell it. I suppose in some cases it may
> refuse to accept the donation, but I don't know
> any specifics.
** The WTS keeps money-making stock as far as anyone knows. If you have a
website to show otherwise I would love to see it. Both tobacco and "war"
products are money makers.
> I've heard this rumor before that the WTS
> owns stock in a tobacco company. I notice that
> you haven't actually provided the name of the
> company, or details of how the WTS came into
> ownership of it. And you haven't said how long
> they were owners (whether it was donated stock
> that they sold right away).
** And no one has proved they don't own stock in these companies. I checked
my JW folder and I have no URLS there at all, for anything. Where can be
BOTH go to learn just what stocks the WTS does own? Surely you either
already KNOW or can find out at your local KH.
> > They own stock in a Co that manufactures ARMS for the Armed Services,
then
> > psychologically CASTRATES their male victims into no serving in the
armed
> > forces... lets get HONEST here Mark! BOTH are for-profit companies.
> > What else do they own stock in? How can we all find out? It is a
secret?
> They don't own stock in any company that manufactures
> arms for the armed services. We've been through
> this falsehood before. The owner of that company
> evidently put the name of the WTS on its report as
> a potential recipient of ownership, but in reality
> the owner of the company (a small company that does
> R&D on engines) still retains full rights to the stock.
** See above - where do we BOTH go to find who what stocks the WTS does own?
> Plus, last time I looked, that small company never
> made a profit, and I believe the stock is a 'penny
> stock' with very little real value. Even if it
> were donated to the WTS, it's likely not the sort
> of stock they'd hold onto.
** Ok... lets find out what stock they hold - I'll watch for your reply.
> Other companies have bought part-ownership of this
> engine company, and some of them are military
> suppliers, but those other companies have nothing
> to do with the WTS. Their profits don't go to
> the WTS because the WTS doesn't own stock in those
> companies. You are confused about how stock ownership
> and profit-flow works.
** Where's the confusion? Either the WTS own stock in this co. or they do
not. Are you claiming they do NOT,... or am I to understand when stocks
make a profit these days none of the stock-holders get a dime of it? That's
odd, my dad MADE MONEY owning stock.......
> For example, if I buy 50% ownership of The Cuddly
> Teddy Bear Corp., and for some reason The Evil
> Weapons Making Corp. buys the other 50%, I will
> get profits from The Cuddly Teddy Bear Corp.,
> if it makes any, but I get no profits from The
> Evil Weapons Making Corp,
** Ok... so the WTS owns stock in the same COMPANY the evil "war" people own
stock in? Is THAT what you're saying?
because its business
> is separate from mine. I'd have to own stock
> directly in The Evil Weapons Making Corp. to
> receive profits from it.
>
> -mark.
Kath--
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent
force for atheism ever conceived." -= Isaac Asimov =-
===========================================
Mark Sornson
>
> "Mark Sornson" <sor...@zk3.dec.com> wrote in message
> news:3F7480D5...@zk3.dec.com...
> > > ===================
> > > Since when? They own stock in a TOBACCO company and at the same time
> claim
> > > cigarettes kill and ban their victims from smoking.
> >
> > You really confuse things easily.
>
> ** Confuse things? If the WT Publishing House holds stock in different
> companies they get dividends. If they were LOSING money you can be sure
> they would sell them PRONTO!
You are still confused.
The original question is whether money that the WTS
receives as revenue is used to enrich private individuals
who receive a stock dividend from the WTS. The answer
to that is no. The WTS is a non-profit corporation
that doesn't pay dividends, or in any other way pass
along profits to private individuals. All revenue
goes back into the running of the corporation (printing
literature, maintaining the buildings, maintaining the
in-house volunteer staff, etc.).
If the WTS holds stock in ANY OTHER COMPANY (because said
stock was donated, or chosen as an alternative to simply
putting money in the bank for future use), any dividends
paid by those stocks goes to the WTS operating funds, but
NOT TO PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS.
On this other matter of stocks that lose money, I'm glad to
see you recognize that basic truth. Stocks like the
Rand Engine Corp (the stock that is erroneously said to
be owned by the WTS) is not a money-generating stock.
>
> > The various corporations JWs are ones like
> > The Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of NY, Inc.,
> > and The Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society of
> > PA, Inc. Those corporations, and all others
> > like it that JWs have formed to enable them to
> > hold property and do necessary secular/legal business,
> > are non-profit and do NOT pay dividends to private
> > individuals.
>
> ** NO ONE said the WTS pays anyone one penny. We all know the WTS TAKES,
> and never gives.
Allow me to requote the question asked in the base note
to this thread:
>Perhaps someone here can answer this question. The Watchtower Bible
and Tract
>Society is a stock company, which means, it also pays dividends.
Sooo-who gets
>that money? How is it handled? How much do they pay the board of
directors?
These questions presume a falsehood, that the WBTS is
a "stock company" that "pays dividends". Even your
own rhetoric actually answers the question that the
WTS doesn't "pay" private individuals any of the "profits"
of its operation.
>
> > People can donate stock, just like they donate
> > money, to the WTS. It may choose to keep the
> > stock or sell it. I suppose in some cases it may
> > refuse to accept the donation, but I don't know
> > any specifics.
>
> ** The WTS keeps money-making stock as far as anyone knows. If you have a
> website to show otherwise I would love to see it. Both tobacco and "war"
> products are money makers.
You don't really know what stocks the WTS keeps.
>
> > I've heard this rumor before that the WTS
> > owns stock in a tobacco company. I notice that
> > you haven't actually provided the name of the
> > company, or details of how the WTS came into
> > ownership of it. And you haven't said how long
> > they were owners (whether it was donated stock
> > that they sold right away).
>
> ** And no one has proved they don't own stock in these companies. I checked
> my JW folder and I have no URLS there at all, for anything. Where can be
> BOTH go to learn just what stocks the WTS does own? Surely you either
> already KNOW or can find out at your local KH.
Um, yes they have. People have written to the WTS about
that stock, and the WTS has written back to state that
it doesn't own stock in that company. That letter was
posted on the web at one point.
The annual statements for that company actually says
that the owner of the corporation retains full voting
rights for the stock the WTS allegedly owns. What
that really means is that the WTS does NOT own the
stock, for real owners are the ones with the voting
rights. That the owner 'ear-marked' the stock for
future donation to the WTS is immaterial.
>
> > > They own stock in a Co that manufactures ARMS for the Armed Services,
> then
> > > psychologically CASTRATES their male victims into no serving in the
> armed
> > > forces... lets get HONEST here Mark! BOTH are for-profit companies.
> > > What else do they own stock in? How can we all find out? It is a
> secret?
>
> > They don't own stock in any company that manufactures
> > arms for the armed services. We've been through
> > this falsehood before. The owner of that company
> > evidently put the name of the WTS on its report as
> > a potential recipient of ownership, but in reality
> > the owner of the company (a small company that does
> > R&D on engines) still retains full rights to the stock.
>
> ** See above - where do we BOTH go to find who what stocks the WTS does own?
You see above.
>
> > Plus, last time I looked, that small company never
> > made a profit, and I believe the stock is a 'penny
> > stock' with very little real value. Even if it
> > were donated to the WTS, it's likely not the sort
> > of stock they'd hold onto.
>
> ** Ok... lets find out what stock they hold - I'll watch for your reply.
Sorry ... but you're the one making accusations.
It's up to YOU to prove them.
Innocent until proven guilty.
>
> > Other companies have bought part-ownership of this
> > engine company, and some of them are military
> > suppliers, but those other companies have nothing
> > to do with the WTS. Their profits don't go to
> > the WTS because the WTS doesn't own stock in those
> > companies. You are confused about how stock ownership
> > and profit-flow works.
>
> ** Where's the confusion? Either the WTS own stock in this co. or they do
> not.
They do not.
> Are you claiming they do NOT,... or am I to understand when stocks
> make a profit these days none of the stock-holders get a dime of it? That's
> odd, my dad MADE MONEY owning stock.......
People who claim the WTS owns stock in the Rand Cam Engine
Corp (that's not quite the right name, but it's close)
claim that because other companies also own stock in
Rand Cam, and those companies are involved in weapons
making, that means the WTS is involved in weapons making
(or the profits thereof).
Aside from the fact that the WTS does NOT own stock
on that company, even if it did, the profits the other
share-holding companies make from their separate businesses
do not cross-over into WTS pockets, because their
is no cross-over of ownership.
>
> > For example, if I buy 50% ownership of The Cuddly
> > Teddy Bear Corp., and for some reason The Evil
> > Weapons Making Corp. buys the other 50%, I will
> > get profits from The Cuddly Teddy Bear Corp.,
> > if it makes any, but I get no profits from The
> > Evil Weapons Making Corp,
>
> ** Ok... so the WTS owns stock in the same COMPANY the evil "war" people own
> stock in? Is THAT what you're saying?
That's what OTHER people are saying (the ones who
are trying to make the WTS look bad).
The truth is that the WTS doesn't even own stock
in the company the anti-JW crowd says it does.
However, my example was simply to illustrate that
even if the WTS really DID own stock in that company,
it wouldn't be 'guilty by assocation' because
the ownership of stock by one company is independent
from ownership of stock by any other company.
-mark.
~ Lilly White Watchtower ~
> > house in Jesus day) to build buildings of worship when Jesus never did
> > that - but went from one place to another to preach. Seems he did most
if
> > not all of his preaching and teaching OUTDOORS.
> true, he did preaching work outside, but he also preached in a lot of
> synogagues. he WAS after all, JEWISH...
$$ This I know (he was a Jew). But what about the old Mosaic Laws you
claim you JWs no longer follow? Where do you drop the MLs and pick up the
new ones?
> > Notice he didn't drag
> > around book (scroll) bags and look for donations for said scrolls - to
send
> > to a central Printing/Publishing/Scroll House somewhere......
> no, scrolls were hand copied back then and very expensive. the bound
> book wasnt invented until the 2nd century? and since then, bibles have
> been made more affordable and in a lot of cases, free.
$$ That wasn't the point - Jesus taught without the bible, scrolls or
"teaching aids" from some particular group claiming to be Jehovah's ONLY
visible people - or anything even similar. What the JWs do is UNBIBLICAL.
Just because these books can be produced cheaply these days and are money
makers does not make them biblical.
> > ## Synogagues? I thought we were talking JESUS and Christianity here?
The
> > old "ways" were no longer being followed. Besides the WTS rejects
> > everything else, why not that as well?
>
> Jesus was a JEW. hello?
$$ Uh,.. HELLO.... do you still keep concubines? Do you still kill off
whole cities of people who believe differently than you do? Do you still
impregnant your dead brothers widow or stone disobedient kids to death at
your villages gate?
that precedence had no bearing on religious
> docrine. it was a good way to spread out the expenses so that no one
> was more overburdened than others. the temple tax was mandatory.
> today, contributions are not.
$$ We seem to be talking about 2 different issues here...... aside from the
ML and Jesus fresh new approach are you claiming he was supported by forced
taxes?
> > ## People's stomachs need food more than they need WTS magazines in
these
> > nations. First feed them - then push your beliefs and rags on them.
>
> the US sends thousands of tons of food to the poor and starving every
> year, and most of it rots on the docks because warlords use it for
> power. that will not change until Jehovah steps in.
$$ Most of it? MOST OF IT? Do you watch TV or read anything except the
WTS rags and books?
> > ## Sorry, but that MEANS almost everything and anything human beings
enjoy
> > and love to do!
> that doesnt make it right.
$$ That all depends. As long as no gets hurt it's no one else's business
what people do for fun (dancing, camping, hunting, parties, cruises,
horse-back riding and more.)
Jeffery Damher loved to kill and eat young
> men and boys. was it okay for him to do that since he "LOVED to do
> it"?
$$ This is absurd.
your line of reasoning doesnt allow for a line to be drawn when a
> line NEEDS to be drawn, and the line will NEVER satisfy everyone.
$$ Let me repeat... As long as no gets hurt it's no one else's business
what people do for fun (dancing, camping, hunting, parties, cruises,
horse-back riding and more.) Let's also add unmarried adults living
together, dating those of other religions - and even marrying them.
Refusing to shun those the WTS deems apostates etc.
> > Even things proven to be natural and normal were seen as
> > "sins" in those ancient, ignorant and unenlightened times. Yet truly
> > horrible things were seen by your god as natural and healthy such as:
> > Forced marriage and child bearing on young virgin women, keeping more
than
> > one wife, keeping concubines, genocide when others had different
beliefs,
> > killing children for teasing old bald men etc. Surely you AGREE these
> > things are SINS against the people involved. Your god saw nothing WRONG
> > with these abominations.
> Jehovah created us.
$$ Which Jehovah? It seems all the religions, all as serious as yours have
their own forms of god. Maybe one of their god's created us. You are aware
that the study of ancient life and evolution is disproving a magical
mythical "creation" aren't you? Even the Pope doesn't believe the creation
myth anymore. Less and less enlightened religions do.
He gave us law... it was his right to punish of we
> break the law.
$$ PUNISH US by killing us off in horrible ways?
Do you know the exact circumstances of that incident?
> no, you only know what is in those versus. a reasonable person would
> have to assume that much more had happened or there were mitigating
> circumstances.
$$ What mitigating circumstances? There was NOTHING about the kids trying
to kill him, beat him or rob him. Maybe the WTS bible is very DIFFERENT
than real bibles that reasonable thinking people use?
I do not consider myself to be in a position to
> question God's actions when i do not have all details.
$$ Read a NON-WTS bible from cover to cover and you will have all the
details the WTS doesn't want you to have. :-) You can pick up a real
bible at any Mall for less than $10.00. The Gideon Society gives them away
for free.
> > Yes,
> > > "sleeping" with someone that you arent married to is immoral,
> > ## Since we now have birth control that doesn't matter anymore. Also
being
> > married is no guarantee the couple will stay together all their lives.
> > People's personal lives, their sex lives, is no ones business but their
own.
> considering Jehovah created "marriage", isnt it HIS business?
$$ Why should it be? Marriage is no guarantee of anything - 40% or more of
marriages fail. Many last, but the couple are miserable until the day they
die. With all the pedophiles attacking children in the KHs, the churches
and in the streets, with all the wars, the murders, the robberies do you
actually think a god would care if two consenting adults in love lived
together? Give it a rest already! No one needs such a petty, prudish god.
> > taking
> > > illegal drugs is as well as it violates both the body and the law.
> >
> > ## Which illegal drugs was the bible talking about? What was available
back
> > then besides wine?
>
> illegal means "Against the law". say it with me.....
$$ HELLO.... what's legal in one country is illegal in another.....
HELLO!!!!
> We are told to follow the law of "Ceasar" or the proper authorities as
> long as their laws do not conflict with Jehovah's.
$$ Which Jehovah laws? The ML or the new goodies Jesus taught? Make up
your mind? Do you have multiple wives as Jehovah encouraged or one wife as
Jesus taught? How would you feel about keeping a few young virgin
concubines "for your own use" as the bible phrased it - or getting your
brother's wife pregnant if he dies????
If you have not
> seen someone on a drug high, then i encourage you to do a ride-along
> with your local EMS provider.
$$ I AM an EMS, since 1974. Now,.... lets repeat this: What's illegal in
one country is legal in another. Also common-law-couples are sometimes the
happiest couples around. Neither marriage nor celibacy should be forced on
people. These aren't the dark ages.
> > > I only know because i knew one of them personally... there were a
> > > total of 7 people DF'd, and another 2 or 3 that were reproved....
> > > giving birth to a child out of wedlock is not immoral, CONCEIVING it
> > > out of wedlock is....
> >
> > ## But THAT is no one's business!
> so, its okay for a person to preach about following the law of God AND
> at the same time willing and openly flaunt it by NOT following it?
$$ They flaunted it and no one noticed? They should have been more
discreet, like the JW pedophiles. Or they should have left the WTS on their
own? How would people like that even get involved with a religious org?
Most druggies would be the last people to be interested in any religion.
> That not how its supposed to be. You impeached your last president for
> something that wasn't our business...
$$ I wasn't the one to impeach him - I couldn't care less if he was a
lying cheat taking advantage of a stupid power-mongering young lady (who
became rich because of this affair). I didn't vote for him and didn't like
him much. His private sex-life is his own business. If his own wife
doesn't care why should we? His biggest mistake was lying about it.
> > ** I hate welfare as much as the next
> > person, but you can't force senseless ancient morals on todays people.
Who
> > would pay attention to the moral dictates of a god who would kill kids
for
> > teasing an old bald man? Or who would see nothing wrong with forced
> > marriages no matter how the women/girls felt?
> > ** They don't as far as the JWs I knew/know are concerned. Therefore
they
> > haven't the KNOWLEDGE or educational background to interpret the ancient
> > writings. But according to Mark's post anyone who read the bible is a
> > MINISTER even though they have no background in theology.
>
> The Jews (that I know of) today do not believe in writing or even
> SAYING the name of God as part of their worship. yet, its in the OT
> over 7,000 TIMES. he obviously wanted it in there for a reason.
$$ No one can possibly know what a god wanted. No one can know exactly
when, and know/prove who wrote the OT. What about the scrolls the catholics
chose to exclude from the bible? Why is it the JWs never mention them?
What's in those scrolls?
I know
> people today that have been speaking english for 70 or 80 years, that
> dont know what a "dangling participle" is. how about a "predicate
> nominative". I work in the computer field and i see lots of people
> with a lot of letters behind their name. I wouldnt trust half of them
> toeven log into my system. letters, certifications, and degrees are
> NOT the same as actual KNOWLEDGE. Albert Einstein is an example of
> that...
$$ That still doesn't make the GB any MORE honest or knowledgeable, or
CORRECT than anyone else who read or studied the bible by themselves. They
have NOTHING that the rest of society doesn't have, as far as understanding
the bible's dry reading.
Lets not forget (from above) - Who would pay attention to the moral dictates
of a god who would kill kids for
teasing an old bald man? Or who would see nothing wrong with forced
marriages no matter how the women/girls felt?
> > ** What kind of research are you talking about? I don't believe in the
> > Trinity or the virgin birth.
>
> do you even believe in the bible? christian or hebrew? if not, then
> this discussion is pointless...
$$ Do I believe a god was unable to write his own scrolls yet create a
whole Universe? No.... if there is a god he/she/it sure isn't the ignorant
(doesn't know bacteria cause Leprosy) anti-woman (keep them barefoot,
pregnant and silent), saw slavery as ok, killing machine (by floods,
bears, diseases, childbirth) written about in the bible by ancient
superstitious men. He would be imprisoned for life in a Mental Institution
for Homicidal Maniacs these days. Most thinking people can't get past the
dirty trick he/she/it pulled in the Garden of Eden for starters.........
> > ** What ELSE does it mean? Serving the WTS by pushing their
publications is
> > MANDATORY for a JW.
> not at all. you will not get kicked out or punished for not going in
> service. you maynot get any responsibilities within the congregation,
> but if someone is okay with that, then its their decision. besides,
> there are other ways of witnessing besides going door to door.
$$ Well,... there's been NEW LIGHT at the WTS Publishing House! As of the
mid 80s you were required to go out there and find new recruits (ie "door to
door and store to store," as one JW jokingly put it). No choice was
involved unless you were physically unable due to both legs in casts, being
in a wheelchair, in a hospital or on your death-bed.
> > ** SINCE WHEN? Have they stopped the MANDATORY door to door work?
>
> in the 20+ years ive been around the WTS, door to door has never been
> MANDATORY. certainly encouraged, but never a do or die thing.
> Witnessing IS a do or die thing, but how you go about it your choice.
$$ Like I said - NEW LIGHT. So what other ways are the JWs witnessing these
days? I don't see them in the Malls, on the streets in town.... the
parks... nowhere. I haven't had one at my door in probably 2 years or more.
> i really dont like door to door work. and i really dont like getting
> doors slammed in my face, and yes, i do have better things to do with
> my time. but could it make a difference to someone out there? sure.
> and again, there are other ways of ministering to people.
$$ How? I really want to know. I used to see them going from house to
house here, occasionally a few would be in the Mall handing out old issues
of the mags. Haven't seen there there in several years now.
> > ** None of the KHs act independently - all step to the beat of the
WTS......
> kinda like the 1st century christians getting letters from paul, and
> John... and so on.... hmmmm. i see your point.
Linda Lou.......
THE LIST OF AMAZING JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES' CLAIMS,
BELIEFS & PREDICTIONS........
Prepared by PB may be found at the following websites:-
http://www.freeminds.org/history/part1.htm
http://www1.tip.nl/~t661020/wtcitaten/part1.htm
http://localsonly.wilmington.net/jmalik/TheList.zip
http://www.concordance.com/watchtower.htm
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Barb Hoy
"sketch" <lsc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:835ef528.03092...@posting.google.com...
>
Barb Hoy
the dictionary. you need your meds sketchy....
"sketch" <lsc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:835ef528.03092...@posting.google.com...
>
>
~ Lilly White Watchtower ~
!
>
> You are still confused.
>
> The original question is whether money that the WTS
> receives as revenue is used to enrich private individuals
> who receive a stock dividend from the WTS.
** Uh, YOU are really confused - no one mentioned the dividends going to
INDIVIDUALS at the WTS.
The answer
> to that is no. The WTS is a non-profit corporation
> that doesn't pay dividends,
** No one said the WST PAID dividends - read the posts again.
or in any other way pass
> along profits to private individuals. All revenue
> goes back into the running of the corporation (printing
> literature, maintaining the buildings, maintaining the
> in-house volunteer staff, etc.).
** Again .....No one said the WST PAID dividends - read the posts again.
> If the WTS holds stock in ANY OTHER COMPANY (because said
> stock was donated, or chosen as an alternative to simply
> putting money in the bank for future use), any dividends
> paid by those stocks goes to the WTS operating funds, but
> NOT TO PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS.
** No one said it went to certain individuals.
> > The various corporations JWs are ones like
> > > The Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of NY, Inc.,
> > > and The Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society of
> > > PA, Inc. Those corporations, and all others
> > > like it that JWs have formed to enable them to
> > > hold property and do necessary secular/legal business,
> > > are non-profit and do NOT pay dividends to private
> > > individuals.
** Who said dividends went to individuals? Forming huge multi billion
dollar Corps are NOT BIBLICAL and therefor a big fat SIN! Jesus had nothing
to do with huge businesses, nor did he encourage other so get involved in
such things.
> > ** NO ONE said the WTS pays anyone one penny. We all know the WTS
TAKES,
> > and never gives.
>
> Allow me to requote the question asked in the base note
> to this thread:
>
> >Perhaps someone here can answer this question. The Watchtower Bible
> and Tract
> >Society is a stock company, which means, it also pays dividends.
> Sooo-who gets
> >that money? How is it handled? How much do they pay the board of
> directors?
** I wasn't the one who asked that question - read the thread again.
> These questions presume a falsehood, that the WBTS is
> a "stock company" that "pays dividends". Even your
> own rhetoric actually answers the question that the
> WTS doesn't "pay" private individuals any of the "profits"
> of its operation.
** I wasn't the one who asked that question - read the thread again.
> ** The WTS keeps money-making stock as far as anyone knows. If you have
a
> > website to show otherwise I would love to see it. Both tobacco and
"war"
> > products are money makers.
>
> You don't really know what stocks the WTS keeps.
** That's why I asked you to tell us what stocks they do own.
> > ** And no one has proved they don't own stock in these companies. I
checked
> > my JW folder and I have no URLS there at all, for anything. Where can
be
> > BOTH go to learn just what stocks the WTS does own? Surely you either
> > already KNOW or can find out at your local KH.
> Um, yes they have. People have written to the WTS about
> that stock, and the WTS has written back to state that
> it doesn't own stock in that company. That letter was
> posted on the web at one point.
** What co's do they own stock in? Where is the info to be found?
> The annual statements for that company actually says
> that the owner of the corporation retains full voting
> rights for the stock the WTS allegedly owns. What
> that really means is that the WTS does NOT own the
> stock, for real owners are the ones with the voting
> rights. That the owner 'ear-marked' the stock for
> future donation to the WTS is immaterial.
** What co's do they own stock in? Where is the info to be found? Just
answer the question without rambling on and on....
.
> ** See above - where do we BOTH go to find who what stocks the WTS does
own?
>
> You see above.
** Where above?
> > ** Ok... lets find out what stock they hold - I'll watch for your
reply.
>
> Sorry ... but you're the one making accusations.
> It's up to YOU to prove them.
** You're the JW here and you're claiming you haven't a CLUE what stock
they own? What are you hiding?
> Innocent until proven guilty.
** Of what?
You are confused about how stock ownership
> > > and profit-flow works.
> >
> > ** Where's the confusion? Either the WTS own stock in this co. or
they do
> > not.
>
> They do not.
** Ok... lets find out what stock they hold - I'll watch for your reply.
> The truth is that the WTS doesn't even own stock
> in the company the anti-JW crowd says it does.
** Ok... lets find out what stock they do hold. Surely a JW such as
yourself would know what website would have that information for the JWs to
check - I'll watch for your reply.
--
Koketta..........
"Welcome to God's Organization. Here
is the list of correct personal decisions. You may deviate
from them if you wish, but you'll be branded as spiritually
weak, and if we don't like you we'll do (disfellowship) you for not having
the right attitude. Enjoy your freedom." (Kirll)
~~~ }<(((((o> ~~~ }<{{{{{o> ~~~ }<(((((Ô> ~~~ }<{{{{{(o>
~~~ }<{{{o>
~ Lilly White Watchtower ~
> >
> > dedication
> >
> > n 1: complete and wholehearted fidelity 2: a ceremony in which something
(as
> > a building) is dedicated to some goal or purpose 3: a message that makes
a
> > pledge [syn: commitment] 4: an inscription (as in a book or musical
work)
> > dedicating it to someone or something 5: the act of binding yourself
> > (intellectually or emotionally) to a course of action; "his long
commitment
> > to public service"; "they felt no loyalty to a losing team" [syn:
> > commitment, allegiance, loyalty]
>
>
>
> I find that quite funny since you are calling ME a parrot, yet you
> just cut and pasted Barb's rant as your reply..... Lilly want a
> cracker?
Dictionary's rant? A book rants? LOL!!!! Hey, I didn't want you to miss
the dictionary's er,..."rant."
Now.... all together one more time:
dedication - >
n 1: complete and wholehearted fidelity 2: a ceremony in which something
(as
a building) is dedicated to some goal or purpose 3: a message that makes a
pledge [syn: commitment] 4: an inscription (as in a book or musical work)
dedicating it to someone or something 5: the act of binding yourself
(intellectually or emotionally) to a course of action; "his long commitment
to public service"; "they felt no loyalty to a losing team" [syn:
commitment, allegiance, loyalty]
sketch wanna cracker? sketch wanna few crumbs from the GB's table...?
sketch wanna lick the GB's shoes and kiss their (_|_) ....... LOL!!!! :D
Do you understand what DEDICATION means now? Or will you try and toss up
another smoke screen? :-)
--
Koketta..........
"Welcome to God's Organization. Here
~ Lilly White Watchtower ~
> where did I rant??? I only posted the baptismal oath and a definition from
> the dictionary. you need your meds sketchy....
> "sketch" <lsc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:835ef528.03092...@posting.google.com...
> > I find that quite funny since you are calling ME a parrot, yet you
> > just cut and pasted Barb's rant as your reply..... Lilly want a
> > cracker?
================
Sketch was trying to say the Jehovah's Witness baptismal blather an
dedication was "the rant."
I had to repost it because he seemed to have missed it the first time.
Notices the smoke screen he tossed up about parrots?
What a loser.....
Iris Gardenz......
The JWs keep saying it (Armageddon) is imminent, just a matter of time, only
a matter of
weeks or months from the predicted date.... 1874(+40), 1878(+40), 1910,
1914, 1915, 1916, 1917, 1918, 1922, 1925, 1940, 1945, 1975, 1999/2000...
(PB)
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Barb Hoy
"~ Lilly White Watchtower ~" <windson...@THISheartoftn.net> wrote in
>
> "Barb Hoy" <barb...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:Np3db.4232$iT4.3...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
> > where did I rant??? I only posted the baptismal oath and a definition
from
> > the dictionary. you need your meds sketchy....
> =======================>
> > "sketch" <lsc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:835ef528.03092...@posting.google.com...
> > > I find that quite funny since you are calling ME a parrot, yet you
> > > just cut and pasted Barb's rant as your reply..... Lilly want a
> > > cracker?
>
> ================
> Sketch was trying to say the Jehovah's Witness baptismal blather an
> dedication was "the rant."
Oh, I caught that...
funny how that is! and the "rant" was right from the "organization's" own
mouth.
> I had to repost it because he seemed to have missed it the first time.
> Notices the smoke screen he tossed up about parrots?
> What a loser.....
sketchy's just imitating his mother....the WTBS.
Barb
Mark Sornson
>
> news:3F74AF2C...@zk3.dec.com...
> !
> >
> > You are still confused.
> >
> > The original question is whether money that the WTS
> > receives as revenue is used to enrich private individuals
> > who receive a stock dividend from the WTS.
>
> ** Uh, YOU are really confused - no one mentioned the dividends going to
> INDIVIDUALS at the WTS.
No ... people who believe the WTS "pays dividends"
typically believe that the dividends go to private
individuals (for that is what dividends in for-profit
companies do -- they pay profits to enrich the pockets
of the shareholders).
>
> The answer
> > to that is no. The WTS is a non-profit corporation
> > that doesn't pay dividends,
>
> ** No one said the WST PAID dividends - read the posts again.
The someone who said it was the person who posted
the base note:
> Perhaps someone here can answer this question. The Watchtower Bible and Tract
> Society is a stock company, which means, it also pays dividends.
Read that post for yourself. It's right there.
>
> or in any other way pass
> > along profits to private individuals. All revenue
> > goes back into the running of the corporation (printing
> > literature, maintaining the buildings, maintaining the
> > in-house volunteer staff, etc.).
>
> ** Again .....No one said the WST PAID dividends - read the posts again.
See above. The note that started this thread said it.
>
> > If the WTS holds stock in ANY OTHER COMPANY (because said
> > stock was donated, or chosen as an alternative to simply
> > putting money in the bank for future use), any dividends
> > paid by those stocks goes to the WTS operating funds, but
> > NOT TO PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS.
>
> ** No one said it went to certain individuals.
The question in the base-note was:
> Sooo-who gets that money?
It was based on the assumption that certain
individuals were paid dividends (as is done
with a for-profit company).
>
> > > The various corporations JWs are ones like
> > > > The Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of NY, Inc.,
> > > > and The Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society of
> > > > PA, Inc. Those corporations, and all others
> > > > like it that JWs have formed to enable them to
> > > > hold property and do necessary secular/legal business,
> > > > are non-profit and do NOT pay dividends to private
> > > > individuals.
>
> ** Who said dividends went to individuals? Forming huge multi billion
> dollar Corps are NOT BIBLICAL and therefor a big fat SIN!
Things that are sins are non-Biblical, but just because
something is non-Biblical doesn't mean it is a sin.
To "sin" literally means to "miss the mark" (the original
word in Hebrew is actually an archery term, signifying
that one has missed a target or mark that one is aiming
at). More generically it means to act against some
explicit standard.
There's nothing in the Bible that prohibits creating
corporations that may end up handling large amounts
of money.
> Jesus had nothing
> to do with huge businesses, nor did he encourage other so get involved in
> such things.
Jesus had nothing to do with warfare, but you seem to
feel that he has encouraged people to get involved with
that. Therefore, what Jesus "had nothing to do with"
doesn't really seem to count for all that much with
you (when it suits you).
In reality, Jesus commissioned his disciples to preach
his teachings to the entire world. He even likened
their doing so to a group of slaves whose master gave
them certain amounts of money and told them to "do
business" with them until he returned. The slaves who
doubled their masters money were commended; but the
slave who burried the single coin given him in the ground
(instead of doing the least thing, of putting it into
the bank to gain interest) was condemned. There's nothing
in Jesus' commission that prohibits his disciples from
making good use of money to carry out his command.
In fact, Jesus had his apostles maintain a money box
(from which Judas stole), the early congregations
clearly handled money since they were able to put
together emergency relief donations, provide material
support for apostles like Paul, and they were evidently
falsely accused by some of "peddling of the word of
God" (2Cor 2:17 NASB), which suggests that they did
have to handle money in the course of providing copies
of the Scriptures for others.
>
> > > ** NO ONE said the WTS pays anyone one penny. We all know the WTS
> TAKES,
> > > and never gives.
> >
> > Allow me to requote the question asked in the base note
> > to this thread:
> >
> > >Perhaps someone here can answer this question. The Watchtower Bible
> > and Tract
> > >Society is a stock company, which means, it also pays dividends.
> > Sooo-who gets
> > >that money? How is it handled? How much do they pay the board of
> > directors?
>
> ** I wasn't the one who asked that question - read the thread again.
Believe it or not, I know that YOU didn't ask this
question. Someone else did. [There are people besides
you who post questions to this newsgroup.] My
answers were focused on answering the questions in
the base note.
>
> > These questions presume a falsehood, that the WBTS is
> > a "stock company" that "pays dividends". Even your
> > own rhetoric actually answers the question that the
> > WTS doesn't "pay" private individuals any of the "profits"
> > of its operation.
>
> ** I wasn't the one who asked that question - read the thread again.
See above.
>
> > ** The WTS keeps money-making stock as far as anyone knows. If you have
> a
> > > website to show otherwise I would love to see it. Both tobacco and
> "war"
> > > products are money makers.
> >
> > You don't really know what stocks the WTS keeps.
>
> ** That's why I asked you to tell us what stocks they do own.
You are the one who feels you have to know, so you
have to do your own homework.
>
> > > ** And no one has proved they don't own stock in these companies. I
> checked
> > > my JW folder and I have no URLS there at all, for anything. Where can
> be
> > > BOTH go to learn just what stocks the WTS does own? Surely you either
> > > already KNOW or can find out at your local KH.
>
> > Um, yes they have. People have written to the WTS about
> > that stock, and the WTS has written back to state that
> > it doesn't own stock in that company. That letter was
> > posted on the web at one point.
>
> ** What co's do they own stock in? Where is the info to be found?
If you do some clever googling, I'm sure you
can come up with the letter the WTS wrote about
NOT owning stock in the Rand Cam Engine Corp.
However, the WTS doesn't generally make its private
business public, so you'll have to do your own
sleuthing, if this question is important to you.
>
> > The annual statements for that company actually says
> > that the owner of the corporation retains full voting
> > rights for the stock the WTS allegedly owns. What
> > that really means is that the WTS does NOT own the
> > stock, for real owners are the ones with the voting
> > rights. That the owner 'ear-marked' the stock for
> > future donation to the WTS is immaterial.
>
> ** What co's do they own stock in? Where is the info to be found? Just
> answer the question without rambling on and on....
Find out for yourself.
>
> .
> > ** See above - where do we BOTH go to find who what stocks the WTS does
> own?
> >
> > You see above.
>
> ** Where above?
Find out for yourself.
>
> > > ** Ok... lets find out what stock they hold - I'll watch for your
> reply.
> >
> > Sorry ... but you're the one making accusations.
> > It's up to YOU to prove them.
>
> ** You're the JW here and you're claiming you haven't a CLUE what stock
> they own? What are you hiding?
I'm not hiding anything.
I'm a private individual who a) happens to be a JW
and b) happens to know a few details about some of the
more outrageous false claims made against the WTS.
I don't claim to know all of their business.
I do know, however, that the WTS has written that its
general policy is to keep its investment portfolios
reasonably free from conflicts with Bible principles.
If people donate questionable stocks to it, if the
WTS accepts the donation in the first place, it most
likely doesn't hold on to them for any length of time.
Therefore, I DO "have a clue" about the types of
stock that they are likely to hold onto or get rid
of (if donated).
>
> > Innocent until proven guilty.
>
> ** Of what?
Of whatever it is that you are accusing them of.
>
> You are confused about how stock ownership
> > > > and profit-flow works.
> > >
> > > ** Where's the confusion? Either the WTS own stock in this co. or
> they do
> > > not.
> >
> > They do not.
>
> ** Ok... lets find out what stock they hold - I'll watch for your reply.
"Lets"? As in "Let us"? As in you and somone else?
By all means, please do your own homework, you and
your buddies. Don't ask me to do your homework for
you. If you want to know this stuff, you find out
by doing the work yourself.
>
> > The truth is that the WTS doesn't even own stock
> > in the company the anti-JW crowd says it does.
>
> ** Ok... lets find out what stock they do hold. Surely a JW such as
> yourself would know what website would have that information for the JWs to
> check - I'll watch for your reply.
It seems typical that you only watch for what
you hope other people will find out for you.
It's utterly ironic that you go on and on about
the GB telling JWs everything they 'need to know'
but you expect JWs (like me) to do your own
homework for you.
-mark.
~ Lee Lancealotti ~
> ~ Lilly White Watchtower ~ wrote:
> > ** Uh, YOU are really confused - no one mentioned the dividends going to
> > INDIVIDUALS at the WTS.
> No ... people who believe the WTS "pays dividends"
> typically believe that the dividends go to private
> individuals (for that is what dividends in for-profit
> companies do -- they pay profits to enrich the pockets
> of the shareholders).
** And if the WTS is a shareholder - the WTS would get the $$$.
> It was based on the assumption that certain
> individuals were paid dividends (as is done
> with a for-profit company).
** That's NOT how I understood the post.
> > ** Who said dividends went to individuals? Forming huge multi billion
> > dollar Corps are NOT BIBLICAL and therefor a big fat SIN!
> Things that are sins are non-Biblical,
** Exactly - and the WTS is a sin since it's non biblical. Jesus ran nor
did he have anyone else run a Scroll business.
> To "sin" literally means to "miss the mark" (the original
> word in Hebrew is actually an archery term, signifying
> that one has missed a target or mark that one is aiming
> at). More generically it means to act against some
> explicit standard.
** You missed the book in the NT about Jesus then.... he didn't look to
make money to buy real estate and hire men to copy scrolls to peddle or use
to teach.
> There's nothing in the Bible that prohibits creating
> corporations that may end up handling large amounts
> of money.
** Gee, then why did the WTS keep harping on the Catholic Church and what
they have???? Surely you remember how the WTS mags put down other religions
and churches.
> Jesus had nothing to do with warfare, but you seem to
> feel that he has encouraged people to get involved with
> that.
** No one said he did - read about his loving war-mongering father Jehovah
who the JWs jabber about endlessly. What do you think Jesus would do if
some one attacked his mother? Would he stand there thumping his scrolls or
protect her? We know Jehovah does nothing in cases like that. Remember the
devout Lillilids?
Therefore, what Jesus "had nothing to do with"
> doesn't really seem to count for all that much with
> you (when it suits you).
** When does it suit me?
> In reality, Jesus commissioned his disciples to preach
> his teachings to the entire world. He even likened
> their doing so to a group of slaves whose master gave
> them certain amounts of money and told them to "do
> business" with them until he returned. The slaves who
> doubled their masters money were commended; but the
> slave who burried the single coin given him in the ground
> (instead of doing the least thing, of putting it into
> the bank to gain interest) was condemned.
** Yet the WTS makes a PROFIT when it lends it's victims money. They must
pay interest. And why did Jesus not stop slavery?
There's nothing
> in Jesus' commission that prohibits his disciples from
> making good use of money to carry out his command.
** The WTS doesn't make good use of money - nothing is done for anyone but
themselves, and for their own enrichment as you know - not one free clinic
or school in a poor nation. Yet the JWs will take the last coin from one of
these destitute people to send to the wicked WTS in NY.
===== snip same old apologist BS for the wicked WTS.
--
Koketta..........
"Welcome to God's Organization. Here
is the list of correct personal decisions. You may deviate
from them if you wish, but you'll be branded as spiritually
weak, and if we don't like you we'll do (disfellowship) you for not having
the right attitude. Enjoy your freedom." (Kirll)
~~~ }<(((((o> ~~~ }<{{{{{o> ~~~ }<(((((Ô> ~~~ }<{{{{{(o>
~~~ }<{{{o>
Mark Sornson
>
> "Mark Sornson" <sor...@zk3.dec.com> wrote in message
> news:3F789848...@zk3.dec.com...
> > ~ Lilly White Watchtower ~ wrote:
> > > ** Uh, YOU are really confused - no one mentioned the dividends going to
> > > INDIVIDUALS at the WTS.
> ===================
> > No ... people who believe the WTS "pays dividends"
> > typically believe that the dividends go to private
> > individuals (for that is what dividends in for-profit
> > companies do -- they pay profits to enrich the pockets
> > of the shareholders).
>
> ** And if the WTS is a shareholder - the WTS would get the $$$.
If the WTS is a shareholder of itself? What are you
asking?
The non-profit corporations that JWs have created
do not, as far as I know, have "shares" (at least
not any more -- the corporations that Russell started
that still exist have had their charters ammended to
eliminate the notion of "shares"). They exist to allow
JWs as a group to own property and capital assets related
to our Bible-education work, and to deal with money that
comes in from donations.
So, the WTS has always 'gotten the $$$' -- the question
is, where does that money go? The answer is a) not to
private individuals for personal enrichment and b) to
the organization to allow us to produce and distribute
Bibles and Bible-related literature (and other media).
>
> > It was based on the assumption that certain
> > individuals were paid dividends (as is done
> > with a for-profit company).
>
> ** That's NOT how I understood the post.
Then perhaps you need to change your understanding.
>
> > > ** Who said dividends went to individuals? Forming huge multi billion
> > > dollar Corps are NOT BIBLICAL and therefor a big fat SIN!
>
> > Things that are sins are non-Biblical,
>
> ** Exactly - and the WTS is a sin since it's non biblical. Jesus ran nor
> did he have anyone else run a Scroll business.
Just because something isn't explicitly 'in the
Bible' doesn't mean it is a sin. You're just
making up definitions arbitrarily to suit yourself.
A "sin" is an error or mistake as measured against
some specified standard. There's nothing in the
Bible that prohibits Christians from being business-like
(i.e., efficient stewards) when dealing with capital
assets that are dedicated to spreading the Bible's
message.
>
> > To "sin" literally means to "miss the mark" (the original
> > word in Hebrew is actually an archery term, signifying
> > that one has missed a target or mark that one is aiming
> > at). More generically it means to act against some
> > explicit standard.
>
> ** You missed the book in the NT about Jesus then.... he didn't look to
> make money to buy real estate and hire men to copy scrolls to peddle or use
> to teach.
Jesus taught in synagogues that were forms of
real estate that were purchased by men, and he
read from scrolls that were purchased from
scroll makers and copied by professional scribes.
After Jesus' death, his disciples were so active in
scroll-making that they invented (or popularized) the
codex, which is the forerunner of the modern book.
Prior to the time of the codex, however, the
Christians certainly did create and copy Biblical
scrolls. The Bible doesn't say much about the
'business end' of scroll creation, but scrolls
weren't free. Someone had to pay for them.
>
> > There's nothing in the Bible that prohibits creating
> > corporations that may end up handling large amounts
> > of money.
>
> ** Gee, then why did the WTS keep harping on the Catholic Church and what
> they have???? Surely you remember how the WTS mags put down other religions
> and churches.
The WTS doesn't criticize other religions for forming
corporations in order to own property and capital goods
or for the purpose of handling money. Criticizing that
is stupid.
>
> > Jesus had nothing to do with warfare, but you seem to
> > feel that he has encouraged people to get involved with
> > that.
>
> ** No one said he did - read about his loving war-mongering father Jehovah
> who the JWs jabber about endlessly. What do you think Jesus would do if
> some one attacked his mother? Would he stand there thumping his scrolls or
> protect her? We know Jehovah does nothing in cases like that. Remember the
> devout Lillilids?
No one attacked Jesus' mother, but we see what
Jesus did when he was attacked, and we see what
he told his disciples to do the night he was
attacked. He told them to put their swords away.
We also know that Jesus predicted that some of
his disciples would be attacked (as a form of
persecution) and killed. He never authorized them
to pick up the sword in self-defense of themselves
or their families. As far as I know, there is
no record in early Christianity of any Christian
defending himself or his family against attack
by using physical violence.
On the matter of protecting Mary, however, the
Gospels state that on more than one occasion Mary
(and Joseph) were given divine warnings so that
they could flee to safety. Jesus later gave his
disciples a warning on when to flee to safety (between
attacks by the Romans). Jewish Christians did
not take up arms against the Romans to protect the
nation of Israel like the non-Christian Jews did.
>
> Therefore, what Jesus "had nothing to do with"
> > doesn't really seem to count for all that much with
> > you (when it suits you).
>
> ** When does it suit me?
You would know that.
>
> > In reality, Jesus commissioned his disciples to preach
> > his teachings to the entire world. He even likened
> > their doing so to a group of slaves whose master gave
> > them certain amounts of money and told them to "do
> > business" with them until he returned. The slaves who
> > doubled their masters money were commended; but the
> > slave who burried the single coin given him in the ground
> > (instead of doing the least thing, of putting it into
> > the bank to gain interest) was condemned.
>
> ** Yet the WTS makes a PROFIT when it lends it's victims money. They must
> pay interest.
A modest interest rate is hardly victimization,
particularly when it comes with the security that
the lender isn't a heartless bank that will take
away the property if the congregation falls on hard
times and has difficulty paying.
Plus, the interest charged simply goes back into
the loan fund, to allow more money to be available
to other congregations. Since building costs and
the price of land usually are always on the increase,
the modest interest charges make practical sense.
> And why did Jesus not stop slavery?
Because humanity wasn't ready to cease the practice.
Jesus set in motion an education work that would
lay the ground-work needed to truly free mankind from
all of its various sorts of enslavements.
>
> There's nothing
> > in Jesus' commission that prohibits his disciples from
> > making good use of money to carry out his command.
>
> ** The WTS doesn't make good use of money - nothing is done for anyone but
> themselves, and for their own enrichment as you know
"Their own enrichment" simply means having an expanding
ability to produce Bibles and Bible-related media.
> - not one free clinic
> or school in a poor nation.
I pay taxes so that the governments can provide
free clinics and free schools. I donate to the
WTS so that it can provide free spiritual education
to people.
If there isn't enough money to provide people with
free clinics and free secular schools, then it's the
fault of government for not using tax money wisely.
It's not the fault of religions for using their
money for the spiritual purposes which the money is
given for.
> Yet the JWs will take the last coin from one of
> these destitute people to send to the wicked WTS in NY.
JWs never "take" money from anyone. They never
have and they never will. All money JWs receive
is given voluntarily.
You never joined -- and you seem to be mad that they never
gave you any money. It's always about money with you.
-mark.
Loranna Hobbit
> ~ Lee Lancealotti ~ wrote:
> > ** And if the WTS is a shareholder - the WTS would get the $$$.
>
> If the WTS is a shareholder of itself? What are you
> asking?
## No one said the WTS sells shares of itself did they? Where?
> The non-profit corporations that JWs have created
> do not, as far as I know, have "shares" (at least
> not any more -- the corporations that Russell started
> that still exist have had their charters ammended to
> eliminate the notion of "shares"). They exist to allow
> JWs as a group to own property and capital assets related
> to our Bible-education work, and to deal with money that
> comes in from donations.
## What has this got to do with shares left to then WTS from people who
donate them?
> So, the WTS has always 'gotten the $$$' -- the question
> is, where does that money go? The answer is a) not to
> private individuals for personal enrichment and b) to
> the organization to allow us to produce and distribute
> Bibles and Bible-related literature (and other media).
## Yes, your CDs that cost less than a quarter each to produce. What is
the suggested donation price for them these days?
> Then perhaps you need to change your understanding.
# Why? Maybe you need to change yours for a change.
> > ** Exactly - and the WTS is a sin since it's non biblical. Jesus ran
nor
> > did he have anyone else run a Scroll business.
> Just because something isn't explicitly 'in the
> Bible' doesn't mean it is a sin. You're just
> making up definitions arbitrarily to suit yourself.
## What definitions am I making up? Things are either biblical or they're
not, as the JWs said many times to me - is there more NEW-LIGHT on that
subject now?
> A "sin" is an error or mistake as measured against
> some specified standard. There's nothing in the
> Bible that prohibits Christians from being business-like
> (i.e., efficient stewards) when dealing with capital
> assets that are dedicated to spreading the Bible's
> message.
## Then why was the catholic church's assets mentioned over and over and
over by the JWs and always in a negative way? Looks like the NEW-LIGHT
changed everything, eh?
> > ** You missed the book in the NT about Jesus then.... he didn't look
to
> > make money to buy real estate and hire men to copy scrolls to peddle or
use
> > to teach.
> Jesus taught in synagogues that were forms of
> real estate that were purchased by men, and he
> read from scrolls that were purchased from
> scroll makers and copied by professional scribes.
## You missed THIS: You missed the book in the NT about Jesus then.... he
didn't look to
make money to buy real estate and hire men to copy scrolls to peddle or use
to teach. He could have and he didn't, did he? He could have started an
evil empire like the wicked GB did on the free labor of it victims - Jesus
didn't victimize anyone.
> After Jesus' death, his disciples were so active in
> scroll-making that they invented (or popularized) the
> codex, which is the forerunner of the modern book.
> Prior to the time of the codex, however, the
> Christians certainly did create and copy Biblical
> scrolls. The Bible doesn't say much about the
> 'business end' of scroll creation, but scrolls
> weren't free. Someone had to pay for them.
## Of course someone paid for them. Jesus was GONE by then.
> > ** Gee, then why did the WTS keep harping on the Catholic Church and
what
> > they have???? Surely you remember how the WTS mags put down other
religions
> > and churches.
> The WTS doesn't criticize other religions for forming
> corporations in order to own property and capital goods
> or for the purpose of handling money. Criticizing that
> is stupid.
## Of course THAT is stupid because the WTS is doing it themselves! I heard
plenty about the other churches, don't deny the JWs don't bad-mouth them.
> > ** No one said he did - read about his loving war-mongering father
Jehovah
> > who the JWs jabber about endlessly. What do you think Jesus would do if
> > some one attacked his mother? Would he stand there thumping his
scrolls or
> > protect her? We know Jehovah does nothing in cases like that. Remember
the
> > devout Lillilids?
> No one attacked Jesus' mother, but we see what
> Jesus did when he was attacked,
## What if they had? When they came for him fight was useless. He was so
outnumbered he had no chance.
and we see what
> he told his disciples to do the night he was
> attacked. He told them to put their swords away.
## Of course he did - look how outnumbered they were. Their death would
have been certain. Nowhere did he tell the "nations" no to defend
themselves, to allow other countries to come in and take what they have, to
allow them to capture and rape their wives and daughters, to stand there
helplessly wringing their hands or to run for their lives.... read the NT
again.
> We also know that Jesus predicted that some of
> his disciples would be attacked (as a form of
> persecution) and killed. He never authorized them
> to pick up the sword in self-defense of themselves
> or their families.
## You're using a small number of men who were so outnumbered that death
would be certain for them.
As far as I know, there is
> no record in early Christianity of any Christian
> defending himself or his family against attack
> by using physical violence.
## Then what did they use? You mean nations that became Christian simply
allowed strangers to come in, kill, rape and pillage while smiling and doing
nothing?
> On the matter of protecting Mary, however, the
> Gospels state that on more than one occasion Mary
> (and Joseph) were given divine warnings so that
> they could flee to safety. Jesus later gave his
> disciples a warning on when to flee to safety (between
> attacks by the Romans). Jewish Christians did
> not take up arms against the Romans to protect the
> nation of Israel like the non-Christian Jews did.
## So you're telling us as a Christian nation we should just allow others
to come in and TAKE what we have - to kill us all if they so desire? We
should disband our armies and get rid of our weapons of defence? We should
be willing to hand over everything we worked for to some radical like
another Hitler or Saddam? We should allow ourselves to maybe go into
slavery if the enemy wants that? What exactly are you saying? Any why do
you keep using small numbers against whole nations back in the ancient past?
--
Karroll..........
ResLight
>
> If the WTS is a shareholder of itself? What are you
> asking?
>
> The non-profit corporations that JWs have created
> do not, as far as I know, have "shares" (at least
> not any more -- the corporations that Russell started
> that still exist have had their charters ammended to
> eliminate the notion of "shares").
Lest anyone misunderstand this: The WTS in Russell's days offered to issue
one "voting" share for each $10.00 contribution made to the Society. There
were never any stock shares issued that paid dividends to anyone. Rutherford
in taking away authority from the local congregations and centralizing
authority in the WTS headquarters, did away with voting shares I believe
some time in the early 1930s.
Agape love,
Ronald
Mark Sornson
[snips on the most pointless stuff]
> > A "sin" is an error or mistake as measured against
> > some specified standard. There's nothing in the
> > Bible that prohibits Christians from being business-like
> > (i.e., efficient stewards) when dealing with capital
> > assets that are dedicated to spreading the Bible's
> > message.
>
> ## Then why was the catholic church's assets mentioned over and over and
> over by the JWs and always in a negative way? Looks like the NEW-LIGHT
> changed everything, eh?
You're the one with asset-envy, not JWs.
> > After Jesus' death, his disciples were so active in
> > scroll-making that they invented (or popularized) the
> > codex, which is the forerunner of the modern book.
> > Prior to the time of the codex, however, the
> > Christians certainly did create and copy Biblical
> > scrolls. The Bible doesn't say much about the
> > 'business end' of scroll creation, but scrolls
> > weren't free. Someone had to pay for them.
>
> ## Of course someone paid for them. Jesus was GONE by then.
But if Jesus was there, everything would have
been free, eh?
>
> > > ** No one said he did - read about his loving war-mongering father
> Jehovah
> > > who the JWs jabber about endlessly. What do you think Jesus would do if
> > > some one attacked his mother? Would he stand there thumping his
> scrolls or
> > > protect her? We know Jehovah does nothing in cases like that. Remember
> the
> > > devout Lillilids?
>
> > No one attacked Jesus' mother, but we see what
> > Jesus did when he was attacked,
>
> ## What if they had? When they came for him fight was useless. He was so
> outnumbered he had no chance.
At the time that he was arrested, Jesus told his
disciples that if he wanted to, he could have
called upon 12 legions of angels to rescue him
(Matt 26:53).
>
> and we see what
> > he told his disciples to do the night he was
> > attacked. He told them to put their swords away.
>
> ## Of course he did - look how outnumbered they were. Their death would
> have been certain.
See Matt 26:53.
> Nowhere did he tell the "nations" no to defend
> themselves, to allow other countries to come in and take what they have, to
> allow them to capture and rape their wives and daughters, to stand there
> helplessly wringing their hands or to run for their lives.... read the NT
> again.
One of the main teachings about the Kingdom of God
is that it will remove all man-made governments of
nations and replace it with a global government ruled
by Jesus Christ. (cf. Dan 2:44)
Thus, the Bible doesn't support the notion that God
approves of the wars of the nations, but rather that
he tolerates them until his time arrives to remove
them.
>
> > We also know that Jesus predicted that some of
> > his disciples would be attacked (as a form of
> > persecution) and killed. He never authorized them
> > to pick up the sword in self-defense of themselves
> > or their families.
>
> ## You're using a small number of men who were so outnumbered that death
> would be certain for them.
Jesus told them that because of their faith and
Christian activity, some of them would face certain
death. But they were to "love their enemies"
and to "pray for those persecuting" them.
>
> As far as I know, there is
> > no record in early Christianity of any Christian
> > defending himself or his family against attack
> > by using physical violence.
>
> ## Then what did they use? You mean nations that became Christian simply
> allowed strangers to come in, kill, rape and pillage while smiling and doing
> nothing?
The nations that "became Christian" were some of
the foremost offenders in killing, raping, and
pillaging in the name of Christianity. They really
didn't 'become Christian' at all, but simply
twisted Christianity to their own man-made ends.
>
> > On the matter of protecting Mary, however, the
> > Gospels state that on more than one occasion Mary
> > (and Joseph) were given divine warnings so that
> > they could flee to safety. Jesus later gave his
> > disciples a warning on when to flee to safety (between
> > attacks by the Romans). Jewish Christians did
> > not take up arms against the Romans to protect the
> > nation of Israel like the non-Christian Jews did.
>
> ## So you're telling us as a Christian nation we should just allow others
> to come in and TAKE what we have - to kill us all if they so desire?
Like the Christian, white Europeans did to the
Native Americans?
"We" are a Christian nation, eh? Does that mean
that YOU are a Christian? If so, then that means
that like Jesus Christ did, you love his Father,
Jehovah.
But you seem to hate Jehovah. So who is this "we"
you are talking about?
> We
> should disband our armies and get rid of our weapons of defence?
Isa 2:4.
> We should
> be willing to hand over everything we worked for to some radical like
> another Hitler or Saddam?
Hitler was a Christian (in name), and his country
was Christian.
Who do you think sold weapons to Saddam and kept
him in power (when, for instance, he was at war
with Iran) until now? The Christian USA.
> We should allow ourselves to maybe go into
> slavery if the enemy wants that?
The Christian USA was founded upon the economic
power of slavery.
> What exactly are you saying? Any why do
> you keep using small numbers against whole nations back in the ancient past?
One of the major lessons of the Bible is that
small numbers against large numbers don't matter
if the small number truly as Jehovah God on its
side (and has faith and trust in Jehovah).
Everything you say demonstrates your profound lack
of faith in God, and your full trust in man and his
ability to make weapons and make war.
-mark.
Craig Christian
> If the WTS is a shareholder of itself? What are you
> asking?
After reading through this thread I am very confused. However, it
does raise questions in my mind about one thing. Perhaps the question
I have was the original issue?
If WTS does have stock in a tobacco company, either through purchasing
it themselves or through donation, then WTS IS RECEIVING dividends
from that stock since they are a stock holder.
Do you not see the hypocracy in this? They are making money from
something harmful and something that they preach against.
Can you explain?
> JWs never "take" money from anyone. They never
> have and they never will. All money JWs receive
> is given voluntarily.
Well, except in a handful of cases. I seem to remember some elders
going to jail for running an investment scheme?
Craig C.
Mark Sornson
>
> Mark Sornson <sor...@zk3.dec.com> wrote in message news:<3F79E045...@zk3.dec.com>...
>
> > If the WTS is a shareholder of itself? What are you
> > asking?
>
> After reading through this thread I am very confused. However, it
> does raise questions in my mind about one thing. Perhaps the question
> I have was the original issue?
I think the original issue was simple,
namely, whether the WTS was a "stock company"
that paid dividends to stock-holders (== private
individuals who benefit from the 'profits').
The answer to that is "no".
>
> If WTS does have stock in a tobacco company, either through purchasing
> it themselves or through donation, then WTS IS RECEIVING dividends
> from that stock since they are a stock holder.
I don't know if they do. Someone making that accusation
would have to supply proof.
I doubt they have stock in a pure tobacco company.
If they have stock in a company that has many
products but includes tobacco, that's a *slightly*
different issue. One question to ask would be
how did they get the stock and how long did they
keep it?
>
> Do you not see the hypocracy in this? They are making money from
> something harmful and something that they preach against.
>
> Can you explain?
Since you haven't actually offered proof of a
specific questional investment, there's nothing to
explain.
> > JWs never "take" money from anyone. They never
> > have and they never will. All money JWs receive
> > is given voluntarily.
>
> Well, except in a handful of cases. I seem to remember some elders
> going to jail for running an investment scheme?
That's not what I meant. JWs as individuals can
'go bad' (as Judas did), and attempt to profit from
their positions. But there's no official JW policy
or practice that takes money from people on behalf
of the organization. JW organizational policy explicitly
prohibits such exploitation.
I recall seeing news about some elders being jailed
for fraudulent investment schemes. Since the JW
organization NEVER gets involved in private business,
those were clearly private deals (gone bad).
-mark.
Mark Sornson
>
> From: "Linda Lisa" <Nothin...@Watchtowerland.net>
> Subject: Re: Watchtower is a stock company-where does the money go?
> Date: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 12:17 AM
>
> "FHLA56" <fhl...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20030924003316...@mb-m05.aol.com...
> > hello,
> >
> > Perhaps someone here can answer this question. The Watchtower Bible and
> Tract
> > Society is a stock company, which means, it also pays dividends. Sooo-who
> gets
> > that money? How is it handled? How much do they pay the board of
> directors?
>
> society.
Religions are a part of "society". Governments
take tax money from individuals in order to
provide secular services to society. Private
individuals donate to religions because they
value the 'added value' that the religions have
to offer. Although in some countries, the governments
provide certain religions a part of the 'take'
from tax money, in the USA, there is no such
direct subsidy of religion by government.
If religions are expected to take the place of
governments in dealing out secular benefits to
society, that suggests that governments are
failing to do their job, and are misusing the
money they appropriate (from taxes).
> Billions are spent on extravagant places like the Patterson
> Complex in NY. Most of their money dealings are not shared with the rank
> and file unpaid laborers.
The so-called "rank and file" do not expect the
JW organization to pay individuals, since we are
a volunteer organization. All the money is
channeled into the purpose of the JW organization,
which is to spread 'the good news of the kingdom'
to the entire world (Matt 24:14).
>
> > BTW--The society is in the progress, I hear, of having all KH titles put
> in its
> > name, also having all general fund monies at the local level sent to
> them.
> > I heard that. Perhaps someone can verify.
>
> ** Perhaps some JW can answer this one........
By now, I have answered this. KH titles are
held by the local congregations (which form
trusteeships or non-profit corporations which
hold the title). The JW parent organization
does not require all local monies to be sent in.
Each local congregation manages the money it
needs for local expenses.
> >
> > Where is the chrater for people to read?
> > It seems to my small way of thinking that the local KH around the world
> are
> > legit nonprofites, but the headquarters? How can they be, when they are
> the
> > publishing arm?
>
> ** DISHONESTY! Good lawyers. Lying. How did OJ get away with murder?
As a whole, particularly when it comes to money,
the JW organization is very honest. Although
once in a while a lone individual will go bad,
the organization as a whole is very faithful
with the money it handles.
As far as I know, the JW organization has never
been accused, let alone convicted, of financial
irregularities (accusations by crack-pots
who don't know what they are talking about
notwithstanding).
[snips on really pointless stuff]
> > I read there that someone said a congregation had had all its elders
> deleted
> > except one, that people were brought in to fill the void, until new elders
> > could be appointed. Dont you wonder why it is the elders were "deleted"?
> I
> > ill bet they had been serving for many years.
>
> ** A "deleted" elder.......??? Do you mean DFed or disfellowshipped?
"Deleted" means removed as an elder. It doesn't
necessarily mean the elder was disfellowshipped.
[snips on more really pointless stuff]
-mark.
Loranna Hobbit
> >
> > ## Then why was the catholic church's assets mentioned over and over and
> > over by the JWs and always in a negative way? Looks like the NEW-LIGHT
> > changed everything, eh?
>
> You're the one with asset-envy, not JWs.
$$ Who said they were? That wasn't the topic. The topic above was the
constant criticism of the RC Church and all it's assets by the JWs.
SNIP same old boring WTS apologist BS.
Loranna Hobbit
> I think the original issue was simple,
> namely, whether the WTS was a "stock company"
> that paid dividends to stock-holders (== private
> individuals who benefit from the 'profits').
> The answer to that is "no".
** No one seems to have seen this question you keep harping on. Everyone
knows the WTS wouldn't pay anyone anything. The question was the WTS taking
dividends from their stock in Tobacco and other questionable companies.
> > If WTS does have stock in a tobacco company, either through purchasing
> > it themselves or through donation, then WTS IS RECEIVING dividends
> > from that stock since they are a stock holder.
>
> I don't know if they do. Someone making that accusation
> would have to supply proof.
** Tell us where we can find the WTS's records so we can check for
ourselves. Surely a JW such as yourself would know where the public and
check these things - no?
> I doubt they have stock in a pure tobacco company.
> If they have stock in a company that has many
> products but includes tobacco, that's a *slightly*
> different issue. One question to ask would be
> how did they get the stock and how long did they
> keep it?
** Better to ask why the person have the WTS stock containing a
Tobabbco/firearms issue.
> > Can you explain?
>
> Since you haven't actually offered proof of a
> specific questional investment, there's nothing to
> explain.
** Where do the JWs go to see what the WTS owns and makes a profit on?
--
Seymour Greenfields....
God likes people to drink and eat blood....
Numbers 23:24 Here God tells them they will not lie down until they eat
the flesh of their prey and DRINK THE BLOOD OF THE SLAIN!!!!
---<---<---<---{@ ---<---<---<---<{@ ---<---<---<---{@ ---<---<--
-{@
Loranna Hobbit
> ~ ME ~ wrote:
>
> > Billions are spent on extravagant places like the Patterson
> > Complex in NY. Most of their money dealings are not shared with the
rank
> > and file unpaid laborers.
>
> The so-called "rank and file" do not expect the
> JW organization to pay individuals, since we are
> a volunteer organization.
## Speak for YOURSELF. There were and I'm sure there still are, JWs who
believe the WTS should allow 10% for charity work. You can't speak for the
*real* beliefs of all JWs. They would never discuss their true feeling
with a fanatic like you. You would see them as weak, going apostate or
worse.... you would rat them out for not accepting the WTS view.
All the money is
> channeled into the purpose of the JW organization,
> which is to spread 'the good news of the kingdom'
> to the entire world (Matt 24:14).
## Good news? Try reading the WT rags with an open mind - all gloom and
doom. The endless message is the same - join us and stay with us, abandon
all your friends and family, peddle our religion and magazines, give up all
your traditions and holidays or die like a dog by the hand of our god
Jehovah. The message, unless they've stopped the practice, comes complete
with burning cities, and other negative garbage.
Lucy.....
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a
will of the
type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should
survive his
physical death is also beyond my comprehension,...;
such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls."
~ Albert Einstein ~
~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~
ResLight
"Loranna Hobbit" <CrooksA...@theWickedWTs.net> wrote in message
news:3f7b...@news.isdn.net...
>
> "Mark Sornson" <sor...@zk3.dec.com> wrote in message
> news:3F7AFF3F...@zk3.dec.com...
> > I think the original issue was simple,
> > namely, whether the WTS was a "stock company"
> > that paid dividends to stock-holders (== private
> > individuals who benefit from the 'profits').
> > The answer to that is "no".
>
> ** No one seems to have seen this question you keep harping on. Everyone
> knows the WTS wouldn't pay anyone anything. The question was the WTS
taking
> dividends from their stock in Tobacco and other questionable companies.
The original question has been posted at least twice, and it has nothing to
do with the WTS taking dividends from supposed stock in tobacco, or other
companies. There is nothing the original post about tobacco.
Here is one paragraph of the original post:
[[The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society is a stock company, which means, it
also pays dividends. Sooo-who gets
that money? How is it handled? How much do they pay the board of
directors?]]
The real answer is that the WTS has always been a non-stock non-profit
corporation, and has paid dividends to no one. In Russell's day, the
evidence is overwhelming that the money was used to further the work
necessary for the purposes for which the corporation was formed. No one was
paid any salary, and all workers, including the president and the board of
directors, worked on a voluntary basis, and as far I as I know, they all --
including the president, the board of directors, and all others workers at
the WTS received the same monthly allowance of $10.
Someone after that began to make remarks in reply that the WTS was receiving
dividends from this or that stock, which was not what the original question
was about.
The original claim was made that the WTS is a "stock company", a company
that issues stock and pays dividends on that stock. The claim is false. The
WTS has never been a stock corporation. It has never issued "stocks",
although it did, under Russell, offer "voting shares" for each $10.00 that
one would contribute to the Society. This was meant to keep the Society from
being controlled by one person, and allowed the shareholders, who were
mostly Christians associated with the Bible Students movement, some say in
what was going on in the Society. In Russell's time there was a yearly
report of expenditures and receipts that was published in the Watch Tower.
I am not with the JWs, but being associated with the Bible Students, I do
have an interest in this as it pertains to Charles Taze Russell, who was the
major founder of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society.
http://reslight.addr.com/l-russell.html
Agape love,
Ronald
Mark Sornson
>
> "Mark Sornson" <sor...@zk3.dec.com> wrote in message
> news:3F7AFF3F...@zk3.dec.com...
> > I think the original issue was simple,
> > namely, whether the WTS was a "stock company"
> > that paid dividends to stock-holders (== private
> > individuals who benefit from the 'profits').
> > The answer to that is "no".
>
> ** No one seems to have seen this question you keep harping on.
That "no one" would be you.
Anyone can simply trace this note back to the
original posting to see the original question.
> Everyone
> knows the WTS wouldn't pay anyone anything.
No - some people erroneously think the WTS is
a "stock company" that pays dividends (profits)
to private individuals (stock holders). That's
why this thread exists.
> The question was the WTS taking
> dividends from their stock in Tobacco and other questionable companies.
Craig just dropped this allegation into the
discussion. However, he didn't mention which
companies were alleged to be involved, or provide
proof of stock ownership by the WTS.
No facts + no proof = no question.
>
> > > If WTS does have stock in a tobacco company, either through purchasing
> > > it themselves or through donation, then WTS IS RECEIVING dividends
> > > from that stock since they are a stock holder.
> >
> > I don't know if they do. Someone making that accusation
> > would have to supply proof.
>
> ** Tell us where we can find the WTS's records so we can check for
> ourselves. Surely a JW such as yourself would know where the public and
> check these things - no?
No.
You're the one with suspicions (and totally
unsubstantiated ones, at that). So you
must take the initiative to check them out.
[I say that knowing full well that you won't,
and that you don't really care about doing so
because you are happy just to harbor your
suspicions.
Professional journalists have a saying (with tongue
in cheek) that some stories are just too good to
check. Similarly, why ruin unfounded suspicions
with a quest for real facts?]
>
> > I doubt they have stock in a pure tobacco company.
> > If they have stock in a company that has many
> > products but includes tobacco, that's a *slightly*
> > different issue. One question to ask would be
> > how did they get the stock and how long did they
> > keep it?
>
> ** Better to ask why the person have the WTS stock containing a
> Tobabbco/firearms issue.
Better to ask which companies are actually part
of these accusations.
>
> > > Can you explain?
> >
> > Since you haven't actually offered proof of a
> > specific questional investment, there's nothing to
> > explain.
>
> ** Where do the JWs go to see what the WTS owns and makes a profit on?
Since the corporations JWs use are private, it
keeps specifics about its financial information
private. Usually, however, things like property
ownership are on file with various government
officials. I suppose things like stock ownerships
are on file with the whomever stocks are registered
with. Whether or not Joe Schmoe of Jane Pain can
simply walk up and ask the stock registries to hand
over specifics about who owns what is a research
project for you.
-mark.
Mark Sornson
>
> "Mark Sornson" <sor...@zk3.dec.com> wrote in message
> news:3F7AD769...@zk3.dec.com...
> > >
> > > ## Then why was the catholic church's assets mentioned over and over and
> > > over by the JWs and always in a negative way? Looks like the NEW-LIGHT
> > > changed everything, eh?
> >
> > You're the one with asset-envy, not JWs.
>
> $$ Who said they were? That wasn't the topic. The topic above was the
> constant criticism of the RC Church and all it's assets by the JWs.
No, the real topic was whether the WTS was a "stock
company". You're the one who threw in the off-topic
dodge about the WTS picking on the assets of the RCC.
>
> SNIP same old boring WTS apologist BS.
Gee ... I was really hoping you'd reply, since a)
my reply wasn't THAT long and b) I gave you a
BRIEF answer to every point of yours.
How about if I make it easy? Just answer these ones
(that I've tried to pick them so they wouldn't be boring):
1.
> > No one attacked Jesus' mother, but we see what
> > Jesus did when he was attacked,
>
> ## What if they had? When they came for him fight was useless. He
was so
> outnumbered he had no chance.
At the time that he was arrested, Jesus told his
disciples that if he wanted to, he could have
called upon 12 legions of angels to rescue him
(Matt 26:53).
2.
> > We also know that Jesus predicted that some of
> > his disciples would be attacked (as a form of
> > persecution) and killed. He never authorized them
> > to pick up the sword in self-defense of themselves
> > or their families.
>
> ## You're using a small number of men who were so outnumbered that
death
> would be certain for them.
Jesus told them that because of their faith and
Christian activity, some of them would face certain
death. But they were to "love their enemies"
and to "pray for those persecuting" them.
3.
> ## So you're telling us as a Christian nation we should just allow
others
> to come in and TAKE what we have - to kill us all if they so
desire?
Like the Christian, white Europeans did to the
Native Americans?
"We" are a Christian nation, eh? Does that mean
that YOU are a Christian? If so, then that means
that like Jesus Christ did, you love his Father,
Jehovah.
But you seem to hate Jehovah. So who is this "we"
you are talking about?
4.
>
We
> should disband our armies and get rid of our weapons of defence?
Isa 2:4.
5.
> We
should
> be willing to hand over everything we worked for to some radical
like
> another Hitler or Saddam?
Hitler was a Christian (in name), and his country
was Christian.
Who do you think sold weapons to Saddam and kept
him in power (when, for instance, he was at war
with Iran) until now? The Christian USA.
6.
> We should allow ourselves to maybe go
into
> slavery if the enemy wants that?
The Christian USA was founded upon the economic
power of slavery.
-mark.
Mark Sornson
>
> "Mark Sornson" <sor...@zk3.dec.com> wrote in message
> news:3F7B1684...@zk3.dec.com...
> > ~ ME ~ wrote:
> >
> > > Billions are spent on extravagant places like the Patterson
> > > Complex in NY. Most of their money dealings are not shared with the
> rank
> > > and file unpaid laborers.
> >
> > The so-called "rank and file" do not expect the
> > JW organization to pay individuals, since we are
> > a volunteer organization.
>
> ## Speak for YOURSELF. There were and I'm sure there still are, JWs who
> believe the WTS should allow 10% for charity work.
You were never a JW, and while you were hanging out
with them for 20+ years, you (according to your own
words) never gave them a dime. So you have the nerve
to say that JWs ought to give 10% to charity work?
I don't know of any JWs who believe the WTS "should
allow 10% for charity work". However, if there is
anyone who believes that, they should start by giving
their own 10% to charity work.
> You can't speak for the
> *real* beliefs of all JWs.
Only most JWs. I don't claim to speak for anyone who
is on the fringe, on the verge of falling away.
> They would never discuss their true feeling
> with a fanatic like you.
Some people only seek out others who will tell them
what they want to hear. There isn't much I can do
about that. In general, though, I have a good
rapour with all the JWs I know. Although I don't
claim to be an expert, people *do* come to me with
questions and issues. If I don't know the answer, I
gladly steer them to those I think can help.
> You would see them as weak, going apostate or
> worse.... you would rat them out for not accepting the WTS view.
People who claim to be JWs but do not 'accept the
WTS view' on major issues definitely have a problem
that they need to be honest and open about. Otherwise
they end up skulking about under false pretenses,
making neither themselves nor others happy.
>
> All the money is
> > channeled into the purpose of the JW organization,
> > which is to spread 'the good news of the kingdom'
> > to the entire world (Matt 24:14).
>
> ## Good news? Try reading the WT rags with an open mind - all gloom and
> doom. The endless message is the same - join us and stay with us, abandon
> all your friends and family, peddle our religion and magazines, give up all
> your traditions and holidays or die like a dog by the hand of our god
> Jehovah. The message, unless they've stopped the practice, comes complete
> with burning cities, and other negative garbage.
JWs draw people's attention to ALL aspects of
what the Bible says. It's up to them to apply
it or ignore it, or interpret it their own way.
Regardless of particular JW interpretations, the
fact remains that the Bible declares salvation for
those who accept it and destruction for those who
reject it, and puts the choice of end-result in
the lap of each individual.
-mark.
Loranna Hobbit
"ResLight" <resl...@reject.earthlink.net> wrote in message news:pYOeb.5626>
>
> The real answer is that the WTS has always been a non-stock non-profit
> corporation, and has paid dividends to no one. In Russell's day, the
> evidence is overwhelming that the money was used to further the work
> necessary for the purposes for which the corporation was formed. No one
was
> paid any salary, and all workers, including the president and the board of
> directors, worked on a voluntary basis, and as far I as I know, they
all --
> including the president, the board of directors, and all others workers at
> the WTS received the same monthly allowance of $10.
** And tell us how they raised families, paid health and death Ins, plus
bought groceries, paid rent/mortgages, bought clothes etc. on $10 a month -
even back then? WHO IS SUPPORTING all these unpaid people since no one can
live on even $20 or $100 a month these days.
> Someone after that began to make remarks in reply that the WTS was
receiving
> dividends from this or that stock, which was not what the original
question
> was about.....
** OK... we had a major NG server crash. I didn't see some posts
obviously.
I still don't think we're getting them all. The 2 main servers are still
down.
>
> Agape love,
> Ronald
--
Dicky.....
"Men never do evil so completely and
cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
~ Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) ~
~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~*
Loranna Hobbit
> Loranna Hobbit wrote:
> > ## Speak for YOURSELF. There were and I'm sure there still are, JWs who
> > believe the WTS should allow 10% for charity work.
>
> You were never a JW, and while you were hanging out
> with them for 20+ years, you (according to your own
> words) never gave them a dime. So you have the nerve
> to say that JWs ought to give 10% to charity work?
$$ Had this so-called false religion GAVE anything anywhere to anyone who
was needy, I may have gotten more involved. I send my donations, when money
was available to REAL charities, not the wicked Watchtower Society (a
Publishing House no less). And don't tell me that 100% of JWs believe as
you do - they don't! They just know better than to open up to a fanatic
like you. They will and do talk among themselves with like-minded friends
your publishing business/cult. When I had free time I did REAL charity
work, I didn't peddle magazines and a false religion with false hope to the
gullible.
> I don't know of any JWs who believe the WTS "should
> allow 10% for charity work".
$$ See above - no JW would ever confide such a thing to someone like you.
However, if there is
> anyone who believes that, they should start by giving
> their own 10% to charity work.
$$ Are they? You'll never know because you're the slime-ball type to rat
them out.
>
> > You can't speak
for the
> > *real* beliefs of all JWs.
>
> Only most JWs. I don't claim to speak for anyone who
> is on the fringe, on the verge of falling away.
$$ What makes you think even 99% of JWs think like you do? Did you tell us
recently they were allowed INDEPENDANT thought?
> Some people only seek out others who will tell them
> what they want to hear.
$$ So you're calling them LIARS since they aren't allowed independent
thoughts and beliefs. Make up your mind.
There isn't much I can do
> about that. In general, though, I have a good
> rapour with all the JWs I know.
$$ Probably all as mind and thought-controlled as you are. Instead of
encouraging them to go do volunteer work you are the type to PREACH to them,
shoving a mixed bag of scripture in their faces to prove the WTS's point. I
knew many like you over those 20 years. All self-interested "glory seekers"
kissing butt at the KHs and grubbing for "privileges."
Although I don't
> claim to be an expert, people *do* come to me with
> questions and issues. If I don't know the answer, I
> gladly steer them to those I think can help.
$$ Like other elders I'm sure. Or more scripture taken out of context.
Been there, they did it to me. And you don't have to be baptized to get it.
> > You would see them as weak, going apostate or
> > worse.... you would rat them out for not accepting the WTS view.
> People who claim to be JWs but do not 'accept the
> WTS view' on major issues definitely have a problem
> that they need to be honest and open about.
$$ Why FORCE any WTS beliefs on them? Why FORCE even those who don't see it
from the WTS point of view to pretend they do? Real religions don't do
this.
Otherwise
> they end up skulking about under false pretenses,
> making neither themselves nor others happy.
> > ## Good news? Try reading the WT rags with an open mind - all gloom and
> > doom. The endless message is the same - join us and stay with us,
abandon
> > all your friends and family, peddle our religion and magazines, give up
all
> > your traditions and holidays or die like a dog by the hand of our god
> > Jehovah. The message, unless they've stopped the practice, comes
complete
> > with burning cities, and other negative garbage.
> JWs draw people's attention to ALL aspects of
> what the Bible says. It's up to them to apply
> it or ignore it, or interpret it their own way.
$$ Since when? They only draw people's attention to the scripture that
backs their particular beliefs. Like someone else here said, "They jump
from one book of the bible to another book, from a scripture here to a
scripture there." Don't you realize any cult/sect and religion can do the
same and many do? You can pick scripture to even back up what Crazy Koresh
was teaching his gullible victims. If something doesn't FIT you JWs simply
claim that's "not what the writer really meant" and give it your own twist.
> Regardless of particular JW interpretations, the
> fact remains that the Bible declares salvation for
> those who accept it and destruction for those who
> reject it,
$$ As compared to what other holy books and belief system you've delved
into?
and puts the choice of end-result in
> the lap of each individual.
> -mark.
$$ And nowhere does the bible mention you must be a card carrying member of
any particular group or publishing house, org' etc. to be saved. Nowhere
does it give YOU and the WTS the right to tell people who will and will not
be saved, to "scare" them and manipulate them with gruesome pictures, and
bloody descriptions,..... into your cult.
Mark Sornson
>
> "ResLight" <resl...@reject.earthlink.net> wrote in message news:pYOeb.5626>
> >
> > The real answer is that the WTS has always been a non-stock non-profit
> > corporation, and has paid dividends to no one. In Russell's day, the
> > evidence is overwhelming that the money was used to further the work
> > necessary for the purposes for which the corporation was formed. No one
> was
> > paid any salary, and all workers, including the president and the board of
> > directors, worked on a voluntary basis, and as far I as I know, they
> all --
> > including the president, the board of directors, and all others workers at
> > the WTS received the same monthly allowance of $10.
>
> ** And tell us how they raised families, paid health and death Ins, plus
> bought groceries, paid rent/mortgages, bought clothes etc. on $10 a month -
> even back then? WHO IS SUPPORTING all these unpaid people since no one can
> live on even $20 or $100 a month these days.
All who serve at the various branch/factory ('Bethel')
sites have their material and medical needs taken care
of while there. Rooming, food, laundry, housekeeping,
medical and dental are all taken care of. I think they
do get about $100 a month, plus about $400 a year in
a lump sum for additional personal expenses. (That's in
the USA.)
[When JW critics make cracks about magazines only costing
pennies to print, or CDs only costing a quarter to make,
they forget to include the cost of taking care of the workers
who do the work to make the final product, plus the cost
of all the buildings and support machinery.]
From a cash-in-hand perspective, they don't get much, but
that is essentially what volunteering is all about. Everyone
who VOLUNTEERS knows up-front what they are volunteering
for, and knows that it isn't an easy life, or even a
'normal' life, but for them, it is a sacrifice that they
willingly give. No one is drafted to serve there.
As a general rule (I don't know specifics about
any exceptions) people do NOT raise children there.
Many who serve are unmarried, but those who are
married understand that if children come along,
they will have to return to 'regular life'.
>
> > Someone after that began to make remarks in reply that the WTS was
> receiving
> > dividends from this or that stock, which was not what the original
> question
> > was about.....
>
> ** OK... we had a major NG server crash. I didn't see some posts
> obviously.
That is not obviously to everyone else.
Try using google to catch up.
> I still don't think we're getting them all. The 2 main servers are still
> down.
>
> >
> > Agape love,
> > Ronald
Just out of curiousity, is this an actual
male named Ronald (related to Carol somehow)?
-mark.
Mark Sornson
>
> "Mark Sornson" <sor...@zk3.dec.com> wrote in message
> news:3F7C39C5...@zk3.dec.com...
> > Loranna Hobbit wrote:
> > > ## Speak for YOURSELF. There were and I'm sure there still are, JWs who
> > > believe the WTS should allow 10% for charity work.
> >
> > You were never a JW, and while you were hanging out
> > with them for 20+ years, you (according to your own
> > words) never gave them a dime. So you have the nerve
> > to say that JWs ought to give 10% to charity work?
>
> $$ Had this so-called false religion GAVE anything anywhere to anyone who
> was needy, I may have gotten more involved. I send my donations, when money
> was available to REAL charities, not the wicked Watchtower Society (a
> Publishing House no less). And don't tell me that 100% of JWs believe as
> you do - they don't! They just know better than to open up to a fanatic
> like you. They will and do talk among themselves with like-minded friends
> your publishing business/cult. When I had free time I did REAL charity
> work, I didn't peddle magazines and a false religion with false hope to the
> gullible.
Sorry, but hanging out with JWs for 20+ years
(without joining) contradicts all of the above
abusive language. You must have gotten something
positive from it.
As far as being a "fanatic" goes, I'll let people
who really know me judge me.
>
> > I don't know of any JWs who believe the WTS "should
> > allow 10% for charity work".
>
> $$ See above - no JW would ever confide such a thing to someone like you.
If it's such a big stinking deal to them, word
would leak out. I think you're just making up
this "fact" because you know that no one can
disprove your claim that you have heard some
JW say this. It's really up to you to prove it,
however.
>
> However, if there is
> > anyone who believes that, they should start by giving
> > their own 10% to charity work.
>
> $$ Are they? You'll never know because you're the slime-ball type to rat
> them out.
You really have a warped view of things.
There's nothing to "rat out". If someone has the
means to do that, more power to them.
My point is that people should not tell OTHERs what
they should do (give 10% to xyz) if they aren't
willing to do the same themselves.
That you have to stoop to name-calling really shows
what you are all about.
>
> >
> > > You can't speak
> for the
> > > *real* beliefs of all JWs.
> >
> > Only most JWs. I don't claim to speak for anyone who
> > is on the fringe, on the verge of falling away.
>
> $$ What makes you think even 99% of JWs think like you do? Did you tell us
> recently they were allowed INDEPENDANT thought?
When you are a JW, it's just not that hard to
have a general idea about what other JWs --
who are happy to be JWs -- think when it comes
to major issues that relate to how we practice
our faith and run our organization.
>
> > Some people only seek out others who will tell them
> > what they want to hear.
>
> $$ So you're calling them LIARS since they aren't allowed independent
> thoughts and beliefs. Make up your mind.
Nnnno ... I didn't say they were liars (thanks for
putting words in my mouth again). These "they"
are hypothetical people you are imagining into
existence.
>
> There isn't much I can do
> > about that. In general, though, I have a good
> > rapour with all the JWs I know.
>
> $$ Probably all as mind and thought-controlled as you are. Instead of
> encouraging them to go do volunteer work you are the type to PREACH to them,
> shoving a mixed bag of scripture in their faces to prove the WTS's point. I
> knew many like you over those 20 years. All self-interested "glory seekers"
> kissing butt at the KHs and grubbing for "privileges."
You're welcome for allowing me to help you
have a good day and think kind thoughts.
>
> Although I don't
> > claim to be an expert, people *do* come to me with
> > questions and issues. If I don't know the answer, I
> > gladly steer them to those I think can help.
>
> $$ Like other elders I'm sure. Or more scripture taken out of context.
> Been there, they did it to me. And you don't have to be baptized to get it.
I can see for myself how you 'interpret' things.
You pretty much 'do it' to yourself.
Very few people hang out with JWs for 20 years
without getting baptized. Everything you've
'suffered' was really with your own permission,
since no one forced you to associate, especially
for so long.
>
> > > You would see them as weak, going apostate or
> > > worse.... you would rat them out for not accepting the WTS view.
>
> > People who claim to be JWs but do not 'accept the
> > WTS view' on major issues definitely have a problem
> > that they need to be honest and open about.
>
> $$ Why FORCE any WTS beliefs on them? Why FORCE even those who don't see it
> from the WTS point of view to pretend they do? Real religions don't do
> this.
JW beliefs aren't forced on anyone who wants to
join; and the JW organization doesn't force our
beliefs on those who DON'T want to join (parents
'forcing' children being a different issue).
You know that, and you've always known that.
People who join say they believe. People who
don't believe don't (or shouldn't) join.
People who join and THEN say they don't believe
have fooled themselves and those who accepted
their joining as evidence that they did believe.
All so-called "real religions" have a right to
expect that those who join really do believe
the religion they are joining.
>
> Otherwise
> > they end up skulking about under false pretenses,
> > making neither themselves nor others happy.
>
> > > ## Good news? Try reading the WT rags with an open mind - all gloom and
> > > doom. The endless message is the same - join us and stay with us,
> abandon
> > > all your friends and family, peddle our religion and magazines, give up
> all
> > > your traditions and holidays or die like a dog by the hand of our god
> > > Jehovah. The message, unless they've stopped the practice, comes
> complete
> > > with burning cities, and other negative garbage.
>
> > JWs draw people's attention to ALL aspects of
> > what the Bible says. It's up to them to apply
> > it or ignore it, or interpret it their own way.
>
> $$ Since when? They only draw people's attention to the scripture that
> backs their particular beliefs.
And since we make an effort to draw people's
attention to just about everything in the Bible
at one time or another, our beliefs really do
span the entire Bible. But you can only
talk about so much of the Bible at any given
time.
> Like someone else here said, "They jump
> from one book of the bible to another book, from a scripture here to a
> scripture there."
A childish, cry-baby argument.
There are times when reading large contigous
passages are appropriate, and other times when
making logical-groupings of verses from various
places that relate to a single topic are
appropriate. Major works from "real religions"
do it ALL THE TIME.
Normal people have this ability to make the
connections. Plus, everyone can take notes
on which scriptures are cited and go check
them out for themselves, if they wonder whether
they were accurately quoted.
> Don't you realize any cult/sect and religion can do the
> same and many do?
Let each one defend their own views, I say.
> You can pick scripture to even back up what Crazy Koresh
> was teaching his gullible victims.
So? Very few people end up the way David Koresh did.
Your argument is specious (and stupid).
> If something doesn't FIT you JWs simply
> claim that's "not what the writer really meant" and give it your own twist.
Well, guess what? Everyone has the right to have
their say, right?
When JWS say, "that's not what the writer meant,"
we say why we believe that, and offer proof that
supports the meaning we think it has. No one can
do more than that. Lots of people do much less
than that, however.
>
> > Regardless of particular JW interpretations, the
> > fact remains that the Bible declares salvation for
> > those who accept it and destruction for those who
> > reject it,
>
> $$ As compared to what other holy books and belief system you've delved
> into?
No comparision is necessary. This basic two-fold
message stands out all on its own to any who read
it with a clear, focused mind.
It's a matter of personal choice to compare what
other holy books say and decide to adopt the teachings
of one over the other. Whether those choices are
the right choice is what the great stage of real
life is demonstrating.
>
> and puts the choice of end-result in
> > the lap of each individual.
> > -mark.
>
> $$ And nowhere does the bible mention you must be a card carrying member of
> any particular group or publishing house, org' etc. to be saved. Nowhere
> does it give YOU and the WTS the right to tell people who will and will not
> be saved, to "scare" them and manipulate them with gruesome pictures, and
> bloody descriptions,..... into your cult.
Do what you want, and JWs will do what they want.
If and when such a thing as "salvation" is meted
out, whomever remains will have the glorious pleasure
of saying, "I told you so."
-mark.
Craig Christian
> Craig just dropped this allegation into the
> discussion. However, he didn't mention which
> companies were alleged to be involved, or provide
> proof of stock ownership by the WTS.
Actually, Mark, I made no "allegations". Simply asked a question.
Are you referring to my statement that *if* they have stock in a
tobacco company, they ARE receiving dividends? Stock holders receive
dividends. That's the fact. Here's the original sentence:
"If WTS does have stock in a tobacco company, either through
purchasing
it themselves or through donation, then WTS IS RECEIVING dividends
from that stock since they are a stock holder."
This thread was the first I have ever heard of tobacco stock being
held by WTS. I have heard (and I believe you confirmed) that they do,
or did, own stock in a company that produces or use to produce
weapons. My memory fails me on this, but I can look up the thread
where this was discussed if you like.
My question is applicable regardless of the type of stock held. It's
impossible for WTS to keep their hands totally clean, despite what you
and I are being told. I wanted to know if you could explain why it
would be okay if they did own stock in companies such as the ones
listed above, but it's not okay for me to work at such a place. Seems
hypocritical to me. Agree?
> No facts + no proof = no question.
Interesing choice of words. It's you, Mark, that has to convince
others that you have the truth. That is your duty. You have no
facts, and you have no proof that support that WTS has the "truth".
You do have, on the other hand, plenty of conjecture and opinions.
Like the rest of us.
No facts + no proof = no truth.
Craig C.
ResLight
>
> "ResLight" <resl...@reject.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:pYOeb.5626>
> >
> > The real answer is that the WTS has always been a non-stock non-profit
> > corporation, and has paid dividends to no one. In Russell's day, the
> > evidence is overwhelming that the money was used to further the work
> > necessary for the purposes for which the corporation was formed. No one
> was
> > paid any salary, and all workers, including the president and the board
of
> > directors, worked on a voluntary basis, and as far I as I know, they
> all --
> > including the president, the board of directors, and all others workers
at
> > the WTS received the same monthly allowance of $10.
>
> ** And tell us how they raised families, paid health and death Ins, plus
> bought groceries, paid rent/mortgages, bought clothes etc. on $10 a
month -
> even back then? WHO IS SUPPORTING all these unpaid people since no one
can
> live on even $20 or $100 a month these days.
The workers were provided with room and board at the WTS headquarters. There
was no health insurance back then.
Agape love,
Ronald
~~<~~<~~{@
> >
> > SNIP same old boring WTS apologist BS.
>
> Gee ... I was really hoping you'd reply, since a)
> my reply wasn't THAT long and b) I gave you a
> BRIEF answer to every point of yours.
** You're posts start rambling and it's just the same old replies.........
we just end up going in circles. It's a waste of time.
~~<~~<~~{@
> Loranna Hobbit wrote:
> > ** And tell us how they raised families, paid health and death Ins, plus
> > bought groceries, paid rent/mortgages, bought clothes etc. on $10 a
month -
> > even back then? WHO IS SUPPORTING all these unpaid people since no one
can
> > live on even $20 or $100 a month these days.
> All who serve at the various branch/factory ('Bethel')
> sites have their material and medical needs taken care
> of while there. Rooming, food, laundry, housekeeping,
> medical and dental are all taken care of. I think they
> do get about $100 a month, plus about $400 a year in
> a lump sum for additional personal expenses. (That's in
> the USA.)
$$ Are you talking about those who LIVE there or only stay for 1 year? Do
they now have a time limit that people can stay?
> [When JW critics make cracks about magazines only costing
> pennies to print, or CDs only costing a quarter to make,
> they forget to include the cost of taking care of the workers
> who do the work to make the final product, plus the cost
> of all the buildings and support machinery.]
$$ But these things are not necessary. No other relgion has them. Do you
believe your cult would fail without all the books and magazines? Other
churches don't publish all these things and are still in business.
> From a cash-in-hand perspective, they don't get much, but
> that is essentially what volunteering is all about. Everyone
> who VOLUNTEERS knows up-front what they are volunteering
> for, and knows that it isn't an easy life, or even a
> 'normal' life, but for them, it is a sacrifice that they
> willingly give. No one is drafted to serve there.
$$ It's not a sacrifice since they aren't doing it for someone else, to
benefit someone else. They're not saving the lost, healing and treating the
sick and dying or teaching the illiterate. They're doing it because they're
told they're doing Jehovah's work.
> As a general rule (I don't know specifics about
> any exceptions) people do NOT raise children there.
> Many who serve are unmarried, but those who are
> married understand that if children come along,
> they will have to return to 'regular life'.
$$ IOW they're rejected if they have a mate and children.
> Just out of curiousity, is this an actual
> male named Ronald (related to Carol somehow)?
$$ Not that I know of......
>
> -mark.
--
Dicky.....
"Men (such as the WTSs GB) never do evil so completely and
~~<~~<~~{@
> The workers were provided with room and board at the WTS headquarters.
There
> was no health insurance back then.
And now?
ResLight
> > > Agape love,
> > > Ronald
> Just out of curiousity, is this an actual
> male named Ronald (related to Carol somehow)?
>
> -mark.
Mark,
Yes, I am an actual man named Ronald. reslight is taken from "Restoration
Light". However, do not confuse me with the person you responded to, Loranna
Hobbit. I have a website at:
http://reslight.addr.com
As far as the woman who posts as "Carol", I don't know anything about her,
except by her posts in the newgroups.
Agape love,
Ronald
~~<~~<~~{@
> Loranna Hobbit wrote:
When I had free time I did REAL charity
> > work, I didn't peddle magazines and a false religion with false hope to
the
> > gullible.
> Sorry, but hanging out with JWs for 20+ years
> (without joining) contradicts all of the above
> abusive language. You must have gotten something
> positive from it.
## What abusive language? It was pretty abusive when they would tell me my
religion was, like the catholic religion - the Whore of Babylon. They put
down every religion and ever belief system but their own. That seemed
pretty abusive to me. Something positive? Yes, several of my long-term
friends were deeply involved. How many times do I have to answer the SAME
questions from you? None of us had any idea what we were getting involved
in at first. We all thought it was just a Bible study - not an
indoctrination into some fanatical, fundamentalist cult. Like others I
found myself trapped because to tell them what I really believed would have
ended these friendships. Why? Because the JWs manipulated everyone into
giving up every friend they had who was NOT involved. Believe me,... I
know better now. I'm glad most of them ended up escaping the WTS's choke
hold. The last 2 couples I really cared about left in the 80s around the
time of the masturbation-fiasco. They had to admit the WTS was wrong, and
in no way qualified to dictate to anyone on their sex life. They started to
look into some other things I pointed out to them. There's more but you'll
just attack everything they and I believed in then...... Other people also
left the WTS afterward but I've since lost tract of most of them.
> As far as being a "fanatic" goes, I'll let people
> who really know me judge me.
## Who else really KNOWS you outside the WTS? JWs seldom if ever have real
close friends OUTside the KHs.
> > $$ See above - no JW would ever confide such a thing to someone like
you.
>
> If it's such a big stinking deal to them, word
> would leak out. I think you're just making up
> this "fact" because you know that no one can
> disprove your claim that you have heard some
> JW say this. It's really up to you to prove it,
> however.
## It's up to you to PROVE 100% of all JWs are thought-controlled and agree
with the every utterance of the WTS/GB. Clue: If they all did thousands
wouldn't leave each year of their own free will. And as you know thousands
more would if they didn't have the shunning hanging over their heads.
> > $$ Are they? You'll never know because you're the slime-ball type to
rat
> > them out.
>
> You really have a warped view of things.
## So you wouldn't rat them out? A "GOOD" JW rats out his/her friends who
don't tow the party line. Has that now changed due to New Light too?
> There's nothing to "rat out". If someone has the
> means to do that, more power to them.
> My point is that people should not tell OTHERs what
> they should do (give 10% to xyz) if they aren't
> willing to do the same themselves.
## Meaning what? That YOU know they did or did NOT give 10%.
> Nnnno ... I didn't say they were liars (thanks for
> putting words in my mouth again). These "they"
> are hypothetical people you are imagining into
> existence.
## OK,... now you're calling ME a liar so we can end this conversation here.
Mark Sornson
>
> Mark Sornson <sor...@zk3.dec.com> wrote in message news:<3F7C2A8C...@zk3.dec.com>...
>
> > Craig just dropped this allegation into the
> > discussion. However, he didn't mention which
> > companies were alleged to be involved, or provide
> > proof of stock ownership by the WTS.
>
> Actually, Mark, I made no "allegations". Simply asked a question.
> Are you referring to my statement that *if* they have stock in a
> tobacco company, they ARE receiving dividends? Stock holders receive
> dividends. That's the fact. Here's the original sentence:
OK ... a question it was (based, I presume, on
an allegation you picked up from somewhere).
"If X holds stock in Y, it receives dividends"
is a realistic statement. But as an "if" statement,
it isn't true in and of itself. "X holds stock in Y"
is what has to be proven true. Merely saying "if ..."
isn't a fact.
[Plus, not all stocks pay dividends.]
>
> "If WTS does have stock in a tobacco company, either through
> purchasing
> it themselves or through donation, then WTS IS RECEIVING dividends
> from that stock since they are a stock holder."
>
> This thread was the first I have ever heard of tobacco stock being
> held by WTS.
I've heard that alleged before, but have never
seen proof.
> I have heard (and I believe you confirmed) that they do,
> or did, own stock in a company that produces or use to produce
> weapons. My memory fails me on this, but I can look up the thread
> where this was discussed if you like.
What I 'confirmed' is that people have accused the
WTS of owning stock in a company that allegedly
produces weapons. Both aspects of that allegation
are false. The company in question doesn't produce
weapons (it produces cam engines), and the WTS never
owned any of it. [Apparently the founder of the
company, which to my knowledge has never made money,
ear-marked a percentage of his shares to go to the
WTS if he ever sold the company, but that donation
never happened.]
> My question is applicable regardless of the type of stock held. It's
> impossible for WTS to keep their hands totally clean, despite what you
> and I are being told.
As a speculation, sure, one might presume that.
But presumptions of that sort are really only
imaginings. I prefer a 'case law' approach,
meaning, tell me about a real situation and
then we can talk about it.
> I wanted to know if you could explain why it
> would be okay if they did own stock in companies such as the ones
> listed above,
As far as I know, they don't own stock in such
companies.
> but it's not okay for me to work at such a place. Seems
> hypocritical to me. Agree?
As you say, it's impossible to be 'totally clean' in
all respects. Even just driving a car contributes to
pollution. Rev 11:18 says God will 'bring to ruin those
ruining the earth'. An EXTREME interpretation of that
would be that this predicts sure destruction for everyone
who drives a car, or does anything to consume any product
that either directly or indirectly contributes to
polluting (and thus 'ruining') the earth, either in its
manufacture or in its use. An extreme interpretation
would say that anyone who is not totally free from guilt
of polluting is a hypocrite.
So ... the way *I* look at things is to ask what is
reasonable.
Since I worked in a hotel once upon a time, I'll take
that as an example.
Everyone knows that now and then hotel guests rent rooms
to engage in what would be Biblically viewed as immoral
behavior. Even the best hotels (I worked in one that was
in the Hilton Inn chain) have guests of that sort. But,
is that what the hotel is known for in the community?
The one I worked in was in an 'upstanding neighborhood'
and primarily serviced the area high-tech business
community. So, it had a good reputation. If I were
to buy hotel stock, I probably wouldn't think twice
about it.
On the other hand, about 10 miles away, there used to be
a stretch of highway that was lined with strip clubs, porno
joints, and seedy hotels that obviously 'serviced' the
clientele of those establishments. Because the 'core
business' of those hotels were really 'hardcore', the
conflict with Bible standards was clear cut. [Side note -
eventually the towns rezoned that stretch of highway
and cleared all those establishments away.]
I'd make a similar case for grocery stores. All
grocery stores sell tobacco, but they are not
'tobacco stores'. Tobacco is a small percentage
of their total business. I've known many Witnesses
who have worked for grocery stores and know that
no-one thinks twice about the matter.
On the other hand, there are a few specialty
shops that are known as 'smoke shops', basing
a major portion of their business on tobacco.
To me, there is more of a direct conflict with
the JW view on tobacco with those businesses.
Getting back to your question more directly --
talk to me about specifics that are real, not
hypothetical. Tell me which companies are
involved. Generalities mean nothing.
>
> > No facts + no proof = no question.
>
> Interesing choice of words. It's you, Mark, that has to convince
> others that you have the truth. That is your duty.
Yeah ... but there's a difference between promoting
a set of beliefs and claiming that they are based
on the Bible, and being able to provide 'counter
proof' to every accusation about every little thing,
including things that are beyond my ability to know
(like what the WTS's investment portfolio looks like).
> You have no
> facts, and you have no proof that support that WTS has the "truth".
The "facts" and "proof" that I have are the
Bible (which everyone can get a copy of) and
explanations of it. There are facts about the
Bible that can be proven to a reasonable degree
of certainty.
Being able to prove my beliefs about the Bible is
different than being able to prove that the WTS
does or does not own certain stocks. I can pick
up a Bible with my hands. I cannot pick up copies
of the WTS's investment portfolio. [However, it
is possible to research certain claims that have
hit the net, like the one about Rand Cam Engine
Corp, and find out the facts as an 'outsider'.]
> You do have, on the other hand, plenty of conjecture and opinions.
> Like the rest of us.
>
> No facts + no proof = no truth.
Pretty much like this reply of yours that
I am replying to, your reply, eh? :-)
-mark.
Mark Sornson
Sorry Ronald -- I knew that about you. I was
temporarily mislead by the quote nesting, and
Carol's habit of never signing her posts with
the same name twice (and of occasionally signing
off with male signatures, like "Mike Krobez").
I knew I was replying to a posting from Carol's
account, but just wondered if a person other than
Carol was actually doing the typing, as the
questions were almost reasonable.
-mark.
Mark Sornson
>
> "Mark Sornson" <sor...@zk3.dec.com> wrote in message
> news:3F7C2FBC...@zk3.dec.com...
> > >
> > > SNIP same old boring WTS apologist BS.
> >
> > Gee ... I was really hoping you'd reply, since a)
> > my reply wasn't THAT long and b) I gave you a
> > BRIEF answer to every point of yours.
>
> ** You're posts start rambling and it's just the same old replies.........
> we just end up going in circles. It's a waste of time.
Gee ... I sometimes wish you'd take this view about ALL
of my posts ...
But I can't help but notice that when it suits you, you
stay up late at night replying to me at great length,
happily spinning those circles. So, I really don't believe
you at all when you give me a line like this.
In fact, it strikes me that you LIKE to go around in
circles, but actually hate it when an issue goes in
a straight line, like these ones:
ResLight
news:3f7cf0c5$1...@news.isdn.net...
>
> "ResLight" <resl...@reject.earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:hN6fb.13720>
> > The workers were provided with room and board at the WTS headquarters.
> There
> > was no health insurance back then.
> =====================================
> And now?
I am not with the JWs; I am with the Bible Students. I know more about the
time of Russell than what is happening now at the WTS headquarters.
I know that about 25 years ago when I worked and lived at the LHMM "Bible
House", they took care of my medical bills. I received an allowance every
month, but I don't remember now how much it was.
Agape love,
Ronald
Mark Sornson
[snips on rant]
> > As far as being a "fanatic" goes, I'll let people
> > who really know me judge me.
>
> ## Who else really KNOWS you outside the WTS? JWs seldom if ever have real
> close friends OUTside the KHs.
What, do you want a list of non-JWs who know me
so you can check up on me?
My real point is that your judgment of me isn't
one I feel any need to worry about.
>
> > > $$ See above - no JW would ever confide such a thing to someone like
> you.
> >
> > If it's such a big stinking deal to them, word
> > would leak out. I think you're just making up
> > this "fact" because you know that no one can
> > disprove your claim that you have heard some
> > JW say this. It's really up to you to prove it,
> > however.
>
> ## It's up to you to PROVE 100% of all JWs are thought-controlled and agree
> with the every utterance of the WTS/GB. Clue: If they all did thousands
> wouldn't leave each year of their own free will. And as you know thousands
> more would if they didn't have the shunning hanging over their heads.
It's up to you to prove your claims like this one,
that there are JWs who feel the WTS ought to be spending
10% on charity. As far as I can tell, you're just
making stuff up as you go at this point.
>
> > > $$ Are they? You'll never know because you're the slime-ball type to
> rat
> > > them out.
> >
> > You really have a warped view of things.
>
> ## So you wouldn't rat them out? A "GOOD" JW rats out his/her friends who
> don't tow the party line. Has that now changed due to New Light too?
Claiming that a JW giving 10% of their own money
to a charity of their choosing is something to
"rat out" is one of the dumbest things I've ever
heard. You're just wildly flailing with random
thoughts. You need to take a break.
>
> > There's nothing to "rat out". If someone has the
> > means to do that, more power to them.
> > My point is that people should not tell OTHERs what
> > they should do (give 10% to xyz) if they aren't
> > willing to do the same themselves.
>
> ## Meaning what? That YOU know they did or did NOT give 10%.
Meaning what the words I wrote plainly say -- that
people who make big-mouth claims of what OTHERS should
do should being doing those things themselves.
Otherwise, it's just another case of do-what-I-say-but-
not-as-I-do.
>
> > Nnnno ... I didn't say they were liars (thanks for
> > putting words in my mouth again). These "they"
> > are hypothetical people you are imagining into
> > existence.
>
> ## OK,... now you're calling ME a liar
I'd be willing to believe that you actually
believe your made-up accusations, and that you
really can't tell the difference between truth
and your imagined fictions any more.
> so we can end this conversation here.
We can end the conversation here? Really?
Oh thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you!!!
-mark.
davers
cr...@metronet.com says...
:: "If WTS does have stock in a tobacco company, either through
:: purchasing
:: it themselves or through donation, then WTS IS RECEIVING dividends
:: from that stock since they are a stock holder."
Actually, Craig, they do NOT own the stock in question, they are
'beneficiaries' of a trust which owns the stock. It is my supposition
that the stock in question, Altria, came to be the property of the trust
after Phillip Morris acquired company's such as Kraft Foods.
This was published when an opponent to Jehovah's witnesses published the
private tax returns of the trust on the Internet.
I can understand the existence of Altria stock as the personal,
conscientious business of the trustee and trustor. What I cannot
understand is the small petty disposition of individuals who would post
such private material on the web.
davers
--
Always remember that you are unique!...
Just like everybody else!
Craig Christian
> Actually, Craig, they do NOT own the stock in question, they are
> 'beneficiaries' of a trust which owns the stock. It is my supposition
> that the stock in question, Altria, came to be the property of the trust
> after Phillip Morris acquired company's such as Kraft Foods.
In that case, my original question is still valid. In fact, I have a
real live example since Mark seems to be hung up on not being able to
answer hypothetical questions.
When I was active, an elder worked for Texas Instruments. TI, did
some military contracts. His department manufactured some type of
component that was used in military applications, but it was also used
in other devices. So, his conscience allowed him to continuing
working there. Raytheon came in a bought all of TI military
contracts. In the aquisition, his department was moved under
Raytheon. He quit as was expected.
So, in these examples, my question is, why is it okay to the
benficiary of a company that makes military devices (or tobacco), but
it is not okay to work for one? Am I the only person that sees the
hypocracy in this?
Just answer the question, Mark.
> I can understand the existence of Altria stock as the personal,
> conscientious business of the trustee and trustor. What I cannot
> understand is the small petty disposition of individuals who would post
> such private material on the web.
Welcome to the information age.
Craig C.
Mark Sornson
>
> davers <daver...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.19e81021b...@news.west.cox.net>...
>
> > Actually, Craig, they do NOT own the stock in question, they are
> > 'beneficiaries' of a trust which owns the stock. It is my supposition
> > that the stock in question, Altria, came to be the property of the trust
> > after Phillip Morris acquired company's such as Kraft Foods.
>
> In that case, my original question is still valid. In fact, I have a
> real live example since Mark seems to be hung up on not being able to
> answer hypothetical questions.
Cf. Matt 22:23-32. Jesus could answer hypotheticals
that were purposely framed to present a problem, but
I don't claim the ability or authority to answer
hypotheticals conclusively, like Jesus did.
>
> When I was active, an elder worked for Texas Instruments. TI, did
> some military contracts. His department manufactured some type of
> component that was used in military applications, but it was also used
> in other devices. So, his conscience allowed him to continuing
> working there. Raytheon came in a bought all of TI military
> contracts. In the aquisition, his department was moved under
> Raytheon. He quit as was expected.
>
> So, in these examples, my question is, why is it okay to the
> benficiary of a company that makes military devices (or tobacco), but
> it is not okay to work for one? Am I the only person that sees the
> hypocracy in this?
You answered your own question.
Initially, the product that elder worked on had a
general non-military application in addition to a
military one, and his employment by TI was, to his
conscience, sufficiently civilian. The non-military
uses of the product he worked on made it 'OK' for
him.
[If I am a farmer who grows apples, and my market is
broad, but includes the government, which buys my
apples to make pies for the military, that might be
OK because the government is only one customer of
many, and it bears the responsibility of how it puts
my product to use. On the other hand, if the military
buys my farm and wants to keep me on as an employee,
that would be different, as the connection would be
too direct.]
When his department was sold and came to work entirely
on military-related products (or his product became
100% military), the loss of general application AND
the closer connection with 'military money' made his
conscience tell him to find other work.
Since the Bible doesn't contain an explicit list of
rules about employment or a lengthy list of real
situations involving employment from which we might
derive precedents, each one has to answer for himself
what is a reasonable application of Bible principles.
One example that does come to mind, however -- that I
admit may seem a bit of a stretch -- involves the Syrian
army chief Naaman, who was cured of leprosy by Elisha.
After his cure, he came to the conclusion:
"Now I know that there is no God in
all the world except in Israel." (2Ki 5:15 NIV)
and sought out Elisha to give him gifts of thanks.
After Elisha refused the gifts, Naaman asked him
for this request:
"But may the LORD forgive your servant for this
one thing: When my master enters the temple of
Rimmon to bow down and he is leaning on my arm
and I bow there also-when I bow down in the temple
of Rimmon, may the LORD forgive your servant for
this." (v.18 NIV)
After realizing that Jehovah ("the LORD") was the
only God, he knew that while serving his master (the
Syrian king) by aiding him at the "temple of Rimmon,"
he would be caught up in the motions of false worship
(bowing down), as part of his obligation to attend
to the king. Evidently Elisha granted him a 'dispensation'
because all he answered was by saying:
"Go in peace." (v.19 NIV)
We could argue that Naaman was being a hypocrite for
not resigning from the king's service in order to avoid
getting caught in idolatrous rites, but that isn't
the conclusion that Elisha drew. Instead, he took all
the circumstances into consideration and drew a
reasonable and merciful conclusion.
>
> Just answer the question, Mark.
Are you asking or demanding, Craig?
If you are asking, you forget to say "please."
And, are you looking for answers that will help you
draw reasonable and merciful conclusions?
-mark.
Terry/Anti
Mat 8:13 And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast
believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the
selfsame hour.
Did Jesus say that the servant could not aid the centurion any more? I
don't think so. I think he said, because he believed, the centurion would
sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
Gramps
Move the @ ahead of hot to email me.
davers
::
:: > Actually, Craig, they do NOT own the stock in question, they are
:: > 'beneficiaries' of a trust which owns the stock. It is my supposition
:: > that the stock in question, Altria, came to be the property of the trust
:: > after Phillip Morris acquired company's such as Kraft Foods.
::
::
:: In that case, my original question is still valid. In fact, I have a
:: real live example since Mark seems to be hung up on not being able to
:: answer hypothetical questions.
What was your original question?
::
:: When I was active, an elder worked for Texas Instruments. TI, did
:: some military contracts. His department manufactured some type of
:: component that was used in military applications, but it was also used
:: in other devices. So, his conscience allowed him to continuing
:: working there. Raytheon came in a bought all of TI military
:: contracts. In the aquisition, his department was moved under
:: Raytheon. He quit as was expected.
::
:: So, in these examples, my question is, why is it okay to the
:: benficiary of a company that makes military devices (or tobacco), but
:: it is not okay to work for one? Am I the only person that sees the
:: hypocracy in this?
After reading Marks reply, I believe your concern has been addressed.
Rand Cam produces a rotary engine. They contract with companies to use
their proprietary design in various applications, some of which are
military. Rand Cam is not a 'bomb factory'.
It is hypocritical to present themselves as bearers of 'truth' to their
former associates by fabricating lies. It is a lie to publicly assert
that Rand cam is a bomb factory, it is a lie to publicly assert that The
Society owns a bomb factory.
http://www.regtech.com/newsRelease.php?news_id=11
The Rand Cam stock has monetary value. They were donated for the monetary
benefit they provide. That is really all there is to the 'great
conspiracy'.
:: Just answer the question, Mark.
I am not Mark, I am davers.
Rather than being concerned with business which is not your business, you
might consider courtesy, Please.
::
::
:: > I can understand the existence of Altria stock as the personal,
:: > conscientious business of the trustee and trustor. What I cannot
:: > understand is the small petty disposition of individuals who would post
:: > such private material on the web.
::
::
:: Welcome to the information age.
There were rights to privacy which were violated, do you support/applaud
that?
Craig Christian
> What was your original question?
Read the thread.
> After reading Marks reply, I believe your concern has been addressed.
Not really. I get lost in the hundreds of lines that could be reduced
to "yes" or "no".
> I am not Mark, I am davers.
My response was to both of you. This line, obviously, was to Mark.
> Rather than being concerned with business which is not your business, you
> might consider courtesy, Please.
:) If you don't care for my posting style, then butt-out. The
business I am speaking of is 1) a matter of public record and 2)
involves rules and regulations that encompass JW's worldwide.
Both of which, davers, is the business of ANYONE currently involved or
that has been involved/affected in the past.
> There were rights to privacy which were violated, do you support/applaud
> that?
Based on what I understand, the holdings of any corporation are a
matter of public record (in most cases). I'm all for privacy, but not
when that privacy adversly affects people.
My original issue still stands. IMO, it IS hypocritical for WTS to
MAKE MONEY from a stock or investment that has roots in a corporation
that they will not allow their members to be employed by. I'm more
convinced now than before after the reasoning skills used by those
defending the JW stand in this discussion.
Craig C.
Mark Sornson
> > And, are you looking for answers that will help you
> > draw reasonable and merciful conclusions?
> >
> > -mark.
>
> Mat 8:13 And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast
> believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the
> selfsame hour.
>
> Did Jesus say that the servant could not aid the centurion any more? I
> don't think so.
That really wasn't the issue of the moment.
Although the man was a Roman Centurion, Jesus
said of him
Verily I say unto you, I have not found
so great faith, no, not in Israel. (v.10 KJV)
Jesus later said to his own apostles (on the
night of his death):
I have yet many things to say unto you,
but ye cannot bear them now. (John 16:12 KJV)
so it stands to reason that if he wanted to,
Jesus could have lectured the centurion on
things that HE could not "bear" at that earlier
time, as well. But again, Jesus was always
reasonable and merciful, and he didn't demand of
people more than they were able to give at
the moment. And no concessions of that sort
negated the need to respond to things Jesus
later taught, either directly or through his
apostles (after his death), as they preached the
good news and what Jesus commanded them.
> I think he said, because he believed, the centurion would
> sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
Not quite. He said (when speaking to those
with him, and not just to the centurion):
And I say unto you, That many shall come from the
east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham,
and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out
into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and
gnashing of teeth. (v.11,12 KJV)
Jesus was predicting that in the future, "many" would
put faith in him who, like the centurion, were not
natural Jews ("children of the kingdom"), but would
be from the Gentile nations (east and west). They
would have the privilege of replacing unfaithful
Jews "in the kingdom of heaven."
The centurion may have been in line for that privilege,
but the Bible doesn't say more about him, to confirm
that he joined those who had those privileges after
Jesus' death and resurrection.
[Side note: If you read the parallel account in Luke 7,
you'll see that the centurion didn't actually approach
Jesus in person, but rather sent "the elders of the
Jews" (7:3 KJV) to make the request for his servant in
his behalf. That fact makes Jesus' statement more
hard-hitting, as it bore witness against the Jewish elders
who were NOT putting the same kind of faith in him
that the centurion was.]
-mark.
Mark Sornson
> My original issue still stands. IMO, it IS hypocritical for WTS to
> MAKE MONEY from a stock or investment that has roots in a corporation
> that they will not allow their members to be employed by. I'm more
> convinced now than before after the reasoning skills used by those
> defending the JW stand in this discussion.
The only company you mentioned by name that I
can recall is TI (Texas Instruments). Is that
the company you are saying the WTS "makes money"
on from a stock investment? Or is it some other
company?
What company does the WTS make money on from a
stock investment that it allegedly "will not allow
their members to be employed by." As far as I
know, there is no master list of companies that
JWs are forbidden to work for.
-mark.
Terry/Anti
The implication was that the centurion would sit down with Abraham, and
Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. He said nothing like being in
the military would prevent him from sitting down with Abraham, and Isaac,
and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. John 16:12 has absolutely nothing to
do with Mat 8:13. As for Luke 7, his omission doesn't make Mathew a liar.
I think this makes clear that serving in the military, or even assisting the
military, does not bar one from sitting down with Abraham, and Isaac, and
Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
Your remark, "Since the Bible doesn't contain an explicit list of rules
about employment or a lengthy list of real situations involving employment
from which we might derive precedents", inspired me to bring up Mat 8:13.
Mark Sornson
>
> The implication was that the centurion would sit down with Abraham, and
> Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
Possibly -- but the account doesn't explicitly
guarantee the future of that centurion. It only
talks more generally about "many" who would have
such a future.
> He said nothing like being in
> the military would prevent him from sitting down with Abraham, and Isaac,
> and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
But he also didn't tell that centurion to go make
disciples of all the nations, teaching them to
observe all that Jesus commanded him, either, but
Jesus did tell that to his apostles. As a Roman,
Jesus' message wasn't initially targeted toward
him (and other non-Jews).
> John 16:12 has absolutely nothing to
> do with Mat 8:13.
John 16:12 simply informs us that while he was on
earth, Jesus didn't tell his closest followers
everything they would eventually need to know.
That leaves the door wide-open to the truth that
people like that centurion would eventually need
to know more than they knew at first.
> As for Luke 7, his omission doesn't make Mathew a liar.
My point wasn't to make Matthew a liar (it didn't
occur to me that you'd think that, but given that
you look for something bad in everything I say,
I suppose I should have anticipated this), but
only to point out that the truth that in reality
Jesus didn't talk directly to the centurion, thus
Jesus didn't promise him directly that he would
be in the Kingdom with Abraham and etc.
In Bible days it was common for people in authority
to speak via representatives, and thus be treated
as if present by proxy. So Matthew wasn't a liar
for omitting the detail that the centurion
actually sent Jewish elders rather than having
approached Jesus himself.
> I think this makes clear that serving in the military, or even assisting the
> military, does not bar one from sitting down with Abraham, and Isaac, and
> Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
Having had a past of military service doesn't bar
one from such a privilege.
History shows that up until 180 A.D. (C.E.), no
Christian served in the military of any nation.
Even after that time, for many years, military
service was viewed by many Christians as
incompatible with Christianity. 'Church rules'
even called for the expulsion of those who
joined the military after they joined the
'church'. It took several centuries before
there was enough amalgamation of the pagan state
with Christianity for military service to have
lost its stigma among Christians.
> Your remark, "Since the Bible doesn't contain an explicit list of rules
> about employment or a lengthy list of real situations involving employment
> from which we might derive precedents", inspired me to bring up Mat 8:13.
I inspired you to look up a scripture, eh? Fancy that.
Again, Jesus' point in Matt 8 wasn't to give a
thumbs-up to the profession of military service,
but rather to give the Jews (and the Jewish leadership
in particular) advance warning that many privileges
that they hoped for -- to receive favor and rulership
in the kingdom of the Messiah -- would go to non-Jews
because of a lack of faith among Jews.
-mark.
Terry/Anti
> Terry/Anti wrote:
>
> >
> > The implication was that the centurion would sit down with Abraham, and
> > Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
>
> Possibly -- but the account doesn't explicitly
> guarantee the future of that centurion. It only
> talks more generally about "many" who would have
> such a future.
>
Many who would have so great a faith.
> > He said nothing like being
in
> > the military would prevent him from sitting down with Abraham, and
Isaac,
> > and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
>
> But he also didn't tell that centurion to go make
> disciples of all the nations, teaching them to
> observe all that Jesus commanded him, either, but
> Jesus did tell that to his apostles. As a Roman,
> Jesus' message wasn't initially targeted toward
> him (and other non-Jews).
>
I think Jesus' message was initially targeted toward him (and other
non-Jews) as well as Jews. I don't think Jesus came to start new religions.
I think he came to initiate a new covenant with the old one.
> > John 16:12 has absolutely nothing
to
> > do with Mat 8:13.
>
> John 16:12 simply informs us that while he was on
> earth, Jesus didn't tell his closest followers
> everything they would eventually need to know.
>
> That leaves the door wide-open to the truth that
> people like that centurion would eventually need
> to know more than they knew at first.
>
All the centurion (and other non-Jews) as well as Jews and we have to know,
is to have so great faith.
> > As for Luke 7, his omission doesn't make Mathew a
liar.
>
> My point wasn't to make Matthew a liar (it didn't
> occur to me that you'd think that, but given that
> you look for something bad in everything I say,
> I suppose I should have anticipated this), but
> only to point out that the truth that in reality
> Jesus didn't talk directly to the centurion, thus
> Jesus didn't promise him directly that he would
> be in the Kingdom with Abraham and etc.
>
I thought maybe you needed two witnesses.
> In Bible days it was common for people in authority
> to speak via representatives, and thus be treated
> as if present by proxy. So Matthew wasn't a liar
> for omitting the detail that the centurion
> actually sent Jewish elders rather than having
> approached Jesus himself.
>
There is a cotradiction there isn't there? Who do you think was an eye
witness?
> > I think this makes clear that serving in the military, or even assisting
the
> > military, does not bar one from sitting down with Abraham, and Isaac,
and
> > Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
>
> Having had a past of military service doesn't bar
> one from such a privilege.
>
Nor does being in military service
> History shows that up until 180 A.D. (C.E.), no
> Christian served in the military of any nation.
> Even after that time, for many years, military
> service was viewed by many Christians as
> incompatible with Christianity. 'Church rules'
> even called for the expulsion of those who
> joined the military after they joined the
> 'church'. It took several centuries before
> there was enough amalgamation of the pagan state
> with Christianity for military service to have
> lost its stigma among Christians.
>
Christianity isn't what Jesus came to establish.
> > Your remark, "Since the Bible doesn't contain an explicit list of rules
> > about employment or a lengthy list of real situations involving
employment
> > from which we might derive precedents", inspired me to bring up Mat
8:13.
>
> I inspired you to look up a scripture, eh? Fancy that.
>
If you want a pat on the back for causing me to enter centurion into the
search engine of my Bible software, have at it.
> Again, Jesus' point in Matt 8 wasn't to give a
> thumbs-up to the profession of military service,
Nor a thumbs-down.
> but rather to give the Jews (and the Jewish leadership
> in particular) advance warning that many privileges
> that they hoped for -- to receive favor and rulership
> in the kingdom of the Messiah -- would go to non-Jews
> because of a lack of faith among Jews.
>
> -mark.
I'll agree with the last part of your statement.
Mark Sornson
>
> "Mark Sornson" <sor...@zk3.dec.com> wrote in message
> news:3F831499...@zk3.dec.com...
> > Terry/Anti wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > The implication was that the centurion would sit down with Abraham, and
> > > Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
> >
> > Possibly -- but the account doesn't explicitly
> > guarantee the future of that centurion. It only
> > talks more generally about "many" who would have
> > such a future.
> >
>
> Many who would have so great a faith.
Faith isn't a mere abstraction - there's always a
concrete something one needs to have faith in.
>
> > > He said nothing like being
> in
> > > the military would prevent him from sitting down with Abraham, and
> Isaac,
> > > and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
> >
> > But he also didn't tell that centurion to go make
> > disciples of all the nations, teaching them to
> > observe all that Jesus commanded him, either, but
> > Jesus did tell that to his apostles. As a Roman,
> > Jesus' message wasn't initially targeted toward
> > him (and other non-Jews).
> >
>
> I think Jesus' message was initially targeted toward him (and other
> non-Jews) as well as Jews. I don't think Jesus came to start new religions.
> I think he came to initiate a new covenant with the old one.
No - not really.
When Jesus sent his apostles out (right after he
chose them), Matthew says:
These twelve Jesus sent out after instructing them:
"Do not go in the way of the Gentiles, and do not
enter any city of the Samaritans but rather go to
the lost sheep of the house of Israel. ..." (Matt 10:5,6 NASB)
Later, when confronted with a Phoenecian woman
seeking a cure for her daughter, Jesus told her
bluntly:
"I was sent only to the lost sheep of the
house of Israel." (Matt 15:24 NASB)
After she pleaded further with him, Jesus did
cure her daughter, but his statement here was true
about his general policy and activity -- his
primary target was the Jews ("the house of Israel").
Jesus' dealing with Samaritans and Gentiles were
the exceptions (though he did have some important
dealings with Samaritans, including the woman at
the well, who was the first person he revealed
the fact that he was the Messiah to directly).
Jesus told the Samaritan woman that the Samaritans:
"worship what you do not know" (John 4:24 NASB)
As a people, their was much ignorance about true
worship that they needed to overcome. The same
was true, and even moreso, about Gentiles (such
as Roman soldiers, no matter how favorably disposed
they were).
Also, Jesus definitely did come to start something
new. His teachings were the "new wine" that was
being put into "new wineskins" (Matt 9:17; Mark 2:22;
Luke 5:37) -- the new wineskin being a new form
of worship, based not upon and around what was
visible (cf. John 4:21), but upon what was invisible,
"spirit and truth" (John 4:23).
This teaching that true worship would not be based
upon and in visible temples (of Jews or pagans)
definitely was a new religious teaching, and the
start of a new form of worship.
>
> > > John 16:12 has absolutely nothing
> to
> > > do with Mat 8:13.
> >
> > John 16:12 simply informs us that while he was on
> > earth, Jesus didn't tell his closest followers
> > everything they would eventually need to know.
> >
> > That leaves the door wide-open to the truth that
> > people like that centurion would eventually need
> > to know more than they knew at first.
> >
>
> All the centurion (and other non-Jews) as well as Jews and we have to know,
> is to have so great faith.
"So great faith" in what?
And, since you are agnostic (is that still true?),
can you really say that YOU have "so great faith"
and can define it for others?
>
> > > As for Luke 7, his omission doesn't make Mathew a
> liar.
> >
> > My point wasn't to make Matthew a liar (it didn't
> > occur to me that you'd think that, but given that
> > you look for something bad in everything I say,
> > I suppose I should have anticipated this), but
> > only to point out that the truth that in reality
> > Jesus didn't talk directly to the centurion, thus
> > Jesus didn't promise him directly that he would
> > be in the Kingdom with Abraham and etc.
> >
>
> I thought maybe you needed two witnesses.
Sorry, but that's a matter that has an entirely
different application.
[It primarily has to do with people making
accusations of wrong-doing against others, in
order to prove them guilty and mete out
punishment of some sort upon them. It doesn't
have to do with recording history -- although
having two witnesses to historical events isn't
a bad thing.]
>
> > In Bible days it was common for people in authority
> > to speak via representatives, and thus be treated
> > as if present by proxy. So Matthew wasn't a liar
> > for omitting the detail that the centurion
> > actually sent Jewish elders rather than having
> > approached Jesus himself.
> >
>
> There is a cotradiction there isn't there? Who do you think was an eye
> witness?
As I've explained, Matthew's account was in harmony
with cultural customs of the day; he didn't do
any harm to the basic facts of the account by
omiting the detail that the Roman sent representatives
to speak for him. The point about him having more
faith than natural Jews is still preserved.
You may choose to believe what you want to believe.
>
> > > I think this makes clear that serving in the military, or even assisting
> the
> > > military, does not bar one from sitting down with Abraham, and Isaac,
> and
> > > Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
> >
> > Having had a past of military service doesn't bar
> > one from such a privilege.
> >
>
> Nor does being in military service
Isaiah and Micah both prophesied that in the
"last days" (NIV) God's people would 'beat their
swords into plowshares' and 'learn war no more'
(Isa 2:2-4; Micah 4:1-4).
That doesn't sound like being in military
service to me. (Also cf. Rev 19:17-18.)
>
> > History shows that up until 180 A.D. (C.E.), no
> > Christian served in the military of any nation.
> > Even after that time, for many years, military
> > service was viewed by many Christians as
> > incompatible with Christianity. 'Church rules'
> > even called for the expulsion of those who
> > joined the military after they joined the
> > 'church'. It took several centuries before
> > there was enough amalgamation of the pagan state
> > with Christianity for military service to have
> > lost its stigma among Christians.
> >
>
> Christianity isn't what Jesus came to establish.
Says ... you. That's not what the writers of the
NT say.
>
> > > Your remark, "Since the Bible doesn't contain an explicit list of rules
> > > about employment or a lengthy list of real situations involving
> employment
> > > from which we might derive precedents", inspired me to bring up Mat
> 8:13.
> >
> > I inspired you to look up a scripture, eh? Fancy that.
> >
>
> If you want a pat on the back for causing me to enter centurion into the
> search engine of my Bible software, have at it.
Enter Ps 46:9 into your Bible software.
>
> > Again, Jesus' point in Matt 8 wasn't to give a
> > thumbs-up to the profession of military service,
>
> Nor a thumbs-down.
Luke 6:27-36.
----
Historical side note: Jews were exempt from Roman
military service. Roman military service was
idolatrous, thus no faithful Jew would serve in
the military of Rome (or of any other nation, for
there was no 'separation of church and state' --
the military of all Gentile nations did the bidding
of the states which were themselves religious
entities). Since the first Christians were Jews,
they were also exempt from military service.
Jewish politicians who sided with Rome for the
sake of their own personal power (like the Herods)
played a dangerous game that bordered on blasphemy,
again because the Roman state was idolatrous.
[The Jewish leaders who brought Jesus to Pilate
refused to enter Pilate's residence, because doing
so would have ceremonially defiled them, since
Pilate, as a Roman official, was by definition
an idolator.]
Alliance with Rome was always a love-hate thing,
with hate always very near the surface. When
the hate boiled over into rebellion later in
the first century, it led to the Roman campaigns
that culminated in the destruction of Jerusalem
in 70 AD/CE. Jesus predicted that destruction;
but rather than tell his disciples to join in
the fighting, he told them to flee to the mountains
when they had the chance (Luke 21:20-24).
In the NT era, no Christian served in either the
Roman or the Jewish miltary.
>
> > but rather to give the Jews (and the Jewish leadership
> > in particular) advance warning that many privileges
> > that they hoped for -- to receive favor and rulership
> > in the kingdom of the Messiah -- would go to non-Jews
> > because of a lack of faith among Jews.
> >
> > -mark.
>
> I'll agree with the last part of your statement.
Today, lack of faith in God translates into man
putting his faith in weapons of war.
-mark.
~ This One ~
>
>Today, lack of faith in God translates into man
>putting his faith in weapons of war.
>
>-mark.
How can anyone have faith in this god when he allowed 6,000,000 innocent
people to be killed by the Nazis? Why have faith in a useless god?
Me~
davers
::
:: >
:: >Today, lack of faith in God translates into man
::
::
::
Carol,
Jehovah, in harmony with the choice made by Adam and Eve, allowed mankind
what they wanted, self determination. The consequences of not submitting
to Jehovah's lead, to his sovereignty, is the reason such things occur.
Humans do evil to each other by their own personal choice.
davers
Terry/Anti
> Terry/Anti wrote:
> >
> > "Mark Sornson" <sor...@zk3.dec.com> wrote in message
> > news:3F831499...@zk3.dec.com...
> > > Terry/Anti wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > The implication was that the centurion would sit down with Abraham,
and
> > > > Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
> > >
> > > Possibly -- but the account doesn't explicitly
> > > guarantee the future of that centurion. It only
> > > talks more generally about "many" who would have
> > > such a future.
> > >
> >
> > Many who would have so great a faith.
>
> Faith isn't a mere abstraction - there's always a
> concrete something one needs to have faith in.
>
Study the Bible. It repeats over and over what to have faith in.
Act 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be
saved, and thy house.
Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that
believeth not shall be damned.
Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt
believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be
saved.
I'll bet you can find more if you study a BIBLE.
That's what I said.
> Jesus' dealing with Samaritans and Gentiles were
> the exceptions (though he did have some important
> dealings with Samaritans, including the woman at
> the well, who was the first person he revealed
> the fact that he was the Messiah to directly).
> Jesus told the Samaritan woman that the Samaritans:
>
> "worship what you do not know" (John 4:24 NASB)
>
> As a people, their was much ignorance about true
> worship that they needed to overcome. The same
> was true, and even moreso, about Gentiles (such
> as Roman soldiers, no matter how favorably disposed
> they were).
>
> Also, Jesus definitely did come to start something
> new. His teachings were the "new wine" that was
> being put into "new wineskins" (Matt 9:17; Mark 2:22;
> Luke 5:37) -- the new wineskin being a new form
> of worship, based not upon and around what was
> visible (cf. John 4:21), but upon what was invisible,
> "spirit and truth" (John 4:23).
>
> This teaching that true worship would not be based
> upon and in visible temples (of Jews or pagans)
> definitely was a new religious teaching, and the
> start of a new form of worship.
>
He was a start Of a new covenant with the old religion.
Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am
not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or
one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments,
and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of
heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called
great in the kingdom of heaven.
> >
> > > > John 16:12 has absolutely
nothing
> > to
> > > > do with Mat 8:13.
> > >
> > > John 16:12 simply informs us that while he was on
> > > earth, Jesus didn't tell his closest followers
> > > everything they would eventually need to know.
> > >
> > > That leaves the door wide-open to the truth that
> > > people like that centurion would eventually need
> > > to know more than they knew at first.
> > >
> >
> > All the centurion (and other non-Jews) as well as Jews and we have to
know,
> > is to have so great faith.
>
> "So great faith" in what?
That Jesus is the Savior.
>
> And, since you are agnostic (is that still true?),
> can you really say that YOU have "so great faith"
> and can define it for others?
>
It's true. No. Being an agnostic does not prevent me from reading and
studying and understanding the Bible.
> >
> > > > As for Luke 7, his omission doesn't make Mathew a
> > liar.
> > >
> > > My point wasn't to make Matthew a liar (it didn't
> > > occur to me that you'd think that, but given that
> > > you look for something bad in everything I say,
> > > I suppose I should have anticipated this), but
> > > only to point out that the truth that in reality
> > > Jesus didn't talk directly to the centurion, thus
> > > Jesus didn't promise him directly that he would
> > > be in the Kingdom with Abraham and etc.
> > >
> >
> > I thought maybe you needed two witnesses.
>
> Sorry, but that's a matter that has an entirely
> different application.
>
That's a matter of my bad sense of humor again.
> [It primarily has to do with people making
> accusations of wrong-doing against others, in
> order to prove them guilty and mete out
> punishment of some sort upon them. It doesn't
> have to do with recording history -- although
> having two witnesses to historical events isn't
> a bad thing.]
>
> >
> > > In Bible days it was common for people in authority
> > > to speak via representatives, and thus be treated
> > > as if present by proxy. So Matthew wasn't a liar
> > > for omitting the detail that the centurion
> > > actually sent Jewish elders rather than having
> > > approached Jesus himself.
> > >
> >
> > There is a cotradiction there isn't there? Who do you think was an eye
> > witness?
>
> As I've explained, Matthew's account was in harmony
> with cultural customs of the day; he didn't do
> any harm to the basic facts of the account by
> omiting the detail that the Roman sent representatives
> to speak for him. The point about him having more
> faith than natural Jews is still preserved.
>
> You may choose to believe what you want to believe.
>
I think you said Luke's account was in harmony with cultural customs of the
day. I think Matthew was more likely an eye witness. I choose to believe
Matthew rather than Luke. Luke's information is second third or forth hand.
>
> >
> > > > I think this makes clear that serving in the military, or even
assisting
> > the
> > > > military, does not bar one from sitting down with Abraham, and
Isaac,
> > and
> > > > Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
> > >
> > > Having had a past of military service doesn't bar
> > > one from such a privilege.
> > >
> >
> > Nor does being in military service
>
> Isaiah and Micah both prophesied that in the
> "last days" (NIV) God's people would 'beat their
> swords into plowshares' and 'learn war no more'
> (Isa 2:2-4; Micah 4:1-4).
>
> That doesn't sound like being in military
> service to me. (Also cf. Rev 19:17-18.)
>
That's when God's kingdom has come. For now the order is.
Joe 3:10 Beat your plowshares into swords and your pruninghooks into spears:
let the weak say, I am strong.
> >
> > > History shows that up until 180 A.D. (C.E.), no
> > > Christian served in the military of any nation.
> > > Even after that time, for many years, military
> > > service was viewed by many Christians as
> > > incompatible with Christianity. 'Church rules'
> > > even called for the expulsion of those who
> > > joined the military after they joined the
> > > 'church'. It took several centuries before
> > > there was enough amalgamation of the pagan state
> > > with Christianity for military service to have
> > > lost its stigma among Christians.
> > >
> >
> > Christianity isn't what Jesus came to establish.
>
> Says ... you. That's not what the writers of the
> NT say.
>
> >
> > > > Your remark, "Since the Bible doesn't contain an explicit list of
rules
> > > > about employment or a lengthy list of real situations involving
> > employment
> > > > from which we might derive precedents", inspired me to bring up Mat
> > 8:13.
> > >
> > > I inspired you to look up a scripture, eh? Fancy that.
> > >
> >
> > If you want a pat on the back for causing me to enter centurion into the
> > search engine of my Bible software, have at it.
>
> Enter Ps 46:9 into your Bible software.
>
When his kingdom comes.
> >
> > > Again, Jesus' point in Matt 8 wasn't to give a
> > > thumbs-up to the profession of military service,
> >
> > Nor a thumbs-down.
>
> Luke 6:27-36.
This is while witnessing.
Until his kingdom comes, his instructions are "Beat your plowshares into
swords and your pruninghooks into spears: let the weak say, I am strong."
Mark Sornson
Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked.
A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows
to please his sinful nature, from that
nature will reap destruction; the one who
sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit
will reap eternal life. Let us not become
weary in doing good, for at the proper time
we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.
Gal 6:7-9 NIV
Although the above has specific application
to individuals, it also applies to humanity
in general. The killings wrought by the Nazis
(and other bad-guys) are the result of man (in
general) reaping what he has sown. WWII was
only WWI part 2 -- the hatreds that exploded
into mass killings by the Nazis were stoked
long before the Nazis came to power.
Such large-scale pathological behavior on the order
of the Nazi killings doesn't just happen overnight.
It is the result of a lengthy incubation, the combined
result of many smaller evils perpetrated one at a time.
If you want God to be 'useful' -- to stop man from
doing harm on such a large scale, how much interference
into your personal life are you going to willingly submit
to, as God stops evil on the small scale, so that it
doesn't build up to the large scale?
You cannot accuse God of not interfering when he
should when it comes to others and at the same time
refuse to allow him to interfere in your own life.
For now, God chooses to allow man to run the earth
without divine interference. He will not do so forever,
however. That is the message of the Bible (and JWs).
But, for now, in advance of that divine fiat, God is
educating people, so that they make choices to refuse
to contribute to evil of the sort that led to the Nazi
killings.
How do you prove that you aren't unwittingly
contributing to the next mass killing of millions
by radical political forces that come to power
by legitimate means (for Hitler and the Nazis were
legally elected), as they promise glory and prosperity
to the people?
-mark.
Mark Sornson
OK - believe in/on Jesus Christ, that he was
raised from the dead. Is that all?
Since you are agnostic, you apparantly don't have
faith in him, for that would require belief in God
and that he was raised from the dead by God. So, your
study of the Bible hasn't moved you to a real and
active faith, but only an intellectual knowledge about
faith. Do you really know something that requires
action if you aren't active in it? [Can you know
the piano if you don't play it? Studying the keys,
strings, hammers, and body of a piano sort of misses
the point if you cannot play it.]
I've preserved your quote above, but I'll isolate it here.
You said:
I think Jesus' message was initially targeted toward
him (and other non-Jews) as well as Jews.
The scriptures I quoted above prove that Jesus' message
was NOT "initially targeted" toward the Roman and other
non-Jews. However, Jesus was willing to make a few
exceptions in demonstrated cases of faith by non-Jews.
Non-Jews weren't explicitly targeted until Peter was
sent by divine intervention to Cornelius (another Roman
centurion -- probably a retired one).
Using a little more up-to-date language, the
NASB says:
"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or
the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but
to fulfill. "For truly I say to you, until heaven
and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or
stroke shall pass from the Law until all is
accomplished."
Jesus came to "fulfill" the Law and Prophets. He
guaranteed that that fulfillment would be "accomplished".
You are obviously arguing that that accomplishment
is in the future.
Just before he died, Jesus was given sour wine to
drink.
"When he had received the drink, Jesus said,
"It is finished." With that, he bowed his
head and gave up his spirit."" (John 19:30 NIV)
What was "finished" was his fulfilment of the Law
and the Prophets.
The fact that the council ruling of Acts 15
did not make the Old Covenant fully binding
upon non-Jewish Christians is proof that the
Old Covenant, the "old religion," was no longer
an obligation for Christians to keep.
Even Jewish Christians stopped following all
of the requirements of the Law (which the letters
of Paul demonstrate).
> > > > > John 16:12 has absolutely
> nothing
> > > to
> > > > > do with Mat 8:13.
> > > >
> > > > John 16:12 simply informs us that while he was on
> > > > earth, Jesus didn't tell his closest followers
> > > > everything they would eventually need to know.
> > > >
> > > > That leaves the door wide-open to the truth that
> > > > people like that centurion would eventually need
> > > > to know more than they knew at first.
> > > >
> > >
> > > All the centurion (and other non-Jews) as well as Jews and we have to
> know,
> > > is to have so great faith.
> >
> > "So great faith" in what?
>
> That Jesus is the Savior.
OK -- but what is he saving mankind from?
Does that salvation not include saving mankind
from the evils that lead to human warfare?
Please explain to me how two people at war with
each other can both profess true faith in
Jesus the Savior. If they both profess Jesus
as the Savior -- which is all you seem to think
they need to do -- then they'd be spiritual
brothers, right? Well, how can spiritual
brothers literally kill each other in a political
conflict?
> > And, since you are agnostic (is that still true?),
> > can you really say that YOU have "so great faith"
> > and can define it for others?
> >
>
> It's true. No. Being an agnostic does not prevent me from reading and
> studying and understanding the Bible.
Again, you can read about and study about playing
the piano, but if you don't actually do it, you
don't really understand playing the piano to the
full.
Understanding the Bible includes coming to know
the main characters of the Bible, God being the
foremost one. If you don't believe that God
exists, it's certainly not true that you understand
him and what he says through the Bible -- at least,
not to the full.
> > > > > As for Luke 7, his omission doesn't make Mathew a
> > > liar.
> > > >
> > > > My point wasn't to make Matthew a liar (it didn't
> > > > occur to me that you'd think that, but given that
> > > > you look for something bad in everything I say,
> > > > I suppose I should have anticipated this), but
> > > > only to point out that the truth that in reality
> > > > Jesus didn't talk directly to the centurion, thus
> > > > Jesus didn't promise him directly that he would
> > > > be in the Kingdom with Abraham and etc.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I thought maybe you needed two witnesses.
> >
> > Sorry, but that's a matter that has an entirely
> > different application.
> >
>
> That's a matter of my bad sense of humor again.
Way bad.
I agree that Luke was not an eye-witness. However,
he opens his gospel with a personal note to Theophilus,
and says that he:
"investigated everything carefully from
the beginning" (Luke 1:3 NASB)
There is no reason to doubt the details of his
investigation, including this one.
If Matthew's gospel is written in chronological
order, then Matthew wasn't an eye-witness to this
miracle, either, for this miracle is recorded in
Matt 8:5-13, but Matthew doesn't record himself
being called to be a follower of Jesus until the
next chapter, 9:9-13. Matthew also records things
about Jesus' early life that he wasn't an eye-witness
to (Matt 1:18-2:23), so we certainly can't argue
that Matthew didn't get some of his information from
other people.
If they were BOTH not eye-witnesses to this event,
then the discrepency between the accounts is all
the more likely due to the cultural custom of people
speaking through representatives, and thus the
lack of obligation to always include the detail
about representatives being used.
> > > > > I think this makes clear that serving in the military, or even
> assisting
> > > the
> > > > > military, does not bar one from sitting down with Abraham, and
> Isaac,
> > > and
> > > > > Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
> > > >
> > > > Having had a past of military service doesn't bar
> > > > one from such a privilege.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Nor does being in military service
> >
> > Isaiah and Micah both prophesied that in the
> > "last days" (NIV) God's people would 'beat their
> > swords into plowshares' and 'learn war no more'
> > (Isa 2:2-4; Micah 4:1-4).
> >
> > That doesn't sound like being in military
> > service to me. (Also cf. Rev 19:17-18.)
> >
>
> That's when God's kingdom has come. For now the order is.
> Joe 3:10 Beat your plowshares into swords and your pruninghooks into spears:
> let the weak say, I am strong.
I have to admit that I was more than a little amused
(in a good way) about your use of this verse, mostly
because I had forgotten about it, and didn't even
have a 'mental memory index' about it. So I was more
than a little interested in actually looking it up.
[Basically I admit that it was a clever find on your
part.]
Naturally, I looked up the verse and read the entire
chapter. I'd like to suggest that you do the same.
Jehovah isn't encouraging the nations to go to war
with each other, and thus maintain their military
might as part of maintaining the status quo of nations
doing their own thing, as history marks time until it
is time for the Kingdom of God to be set up. Joel
3:10 is part of a challenge that Jehovah God makes
to ALL the nations who are NOT counted as being his
people. Joel 3 is a prophetic depiction of Jehovah's
saving his chosen people, but bringing the opposing
nations to adverse judgment.
Hence, Jehovah dares the "heathen" (v.11 KJV) or
ungodly "nations" (NIV, NASB), or "Gentiles", to
muster all of their military might together, as
proof that human might, at its mightiest, cannot
stand against the His adverse judgment.
Since you like the KJV, here's what it next says:
Let the heathen be wakened, and come up to
the valley of Jehoshaphat: for there will I
sit to judge all the heathen round about.
Put ye in the sickle, for the harvest is ripe:
come, get you down; for the press is full, the
fats overflow; for their wickedness is great.
Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision:
for the day of the LORD is near in the valley
of decision. (v.12-14)
Those who were told to beat their "plowshares into
swords" are the "heathen", whose "wickedness is
great" (v.13). They are about to be layed low in
"the valley of decision" by divine judgement.
Why are you defending the military might of those
whose "wickedness is great"?
If people are not willing to "learn war no more"
before his kingdom comes, how, exactly, will his
kingdom succeed, if everyone who enters into it
is as warlike and hate-filled the moment after it
is established as they are the moment-before?
In Matt 25:31-46, the "sheep" are the ones who
are preserved to enter into his kingdom. By
definition, "sheep" are peaceful.
> > > > Again, Jesus' point in Matt 8 wasn't to give a
> > > > thumbs-up to the profession of military service,
> > >
> > > Nor a thumbs-down.
> >
> > Luke 6:27-36.
>
> This is while witnessing.
So, one moment, a Christian can love his enemies
while witnessing to them because of the command of
Christ to do so, but the next moment he can be
killing his enemy because his human military
commanding officer tells him to.
I guess we should hope that a Christian will never
witness to a person that he might one day have to
kill in military service because they are a member
of an enemy nation.
God's instructions to his worshippers are found
at Isa 2:1-4, that before his kingdom comes --
in the period of time that precedes that coming,
called "the last days" -- they are to beat their
swords into plowshares and learn war no more.
His instructions to the nations in Joel are to
the "heathen" whose "wickedness is great", daring
them to show their puny human strength to their
utmost before he destroys them for being wicked.
Why are you encouraging people to join with
those whose "wicked is great" in God's eyes?
-mark.
Terry/Anti
I had a teacher in high scool who liked to say "Practice makes perfect.
Practice something wrong and you will be perfectly wrong."
Jesus came, primarily, to make a new covenant with the old religion. That
did not exclude non Jews from benefiting from it. Even now, there are
converts to Judaism.
> Non-Jews weren't explicitly targeted until Peter was
> sent by divine intervention to Cornelius (another Roman
> centurion -- probably a retired one).
>
Why, because it fits your scenario?
What was finished was the human phase of the prophecy. We still have allot
of prophesy to fulfill.
BTW, what do you think happened to his spirit when he gave it up.
> The fact that the council ruling of Acts 15
> did not make the Old Covenant fully binding
> upon non-Jewish Christians is proof that the
> Old Covenant, the "old religion," was no longer
> an obligation for Christians to keep.
>
> Even Jewish Christians stopped following all
> of the requirements of the Law (which the letters
> of Paul demonstrate).
>
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or
one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
> > > > > > John 16:12 has absolutely
> > nothing
> > > > to
> > > > > > do with Mat 8:13.
> > > > >
> > > > > John 16:12 simply informs us that while he was on
> > > > > earth, Jesus didn't tell his closest followers
> > > > > everything they would eventually need to know.
> > > > >
> > > > > That leaves the door wide-open to the truth that
> > > > > people like that centurion would eventually need
> > > > > to know more than they knew at first.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > All the centurion (and other non-Jews) as well as Jews and we have
to
> > know,
> > > > is to have so great faith.
> > >
> > > "So great faith" in what?
> >
> > That Jesus is the Savior.
>
> OK -- but what is he saving mankind from?
> Does that salvation not include saving mankind
> from the evils that lead to human warfare?
>
In the age to come, yes.
> Please explain to me how two people at war with
> each other can both profess true faith in
> Jesus the Savior. If they both profess Jesus
> as the Savior -- which is all you seem to think
> they need to do -- then they'd be spiritual
> brothers, right? Well, how can spiritual
> brothers literally kill each other in a political
> conflict?
>
They were instructed to obey their government.
>
> > > And, since you are agnostic (is that still true?),
> > > can you really say that YOU have "so great faith"
> > > and can define it for others?
> > >
> >
> > It's true. No. Being an agnostic does not prevent me from reading and
> > studying and understanding the Bible.
>
> Again, you can read about and study about playing
> the piano, but if you don't actually do it, you
> don't really understand playing the piano to the
> full.
>
> Understanding the Bible includes coming to know
> the main characters of the Bible, God being the
> foremost one. If you don't believe that God
> exists, it's certainly not true that you understand
> him and what he says through the Bible -- at least,
> not to the full.
>
I do not believe that it's necessary to believe God exists to understand the
Bible. By that reasoning novels would not exist.
>
> > > > > > As for Luke 7, his omission doesn't make
Mathew a
> > > > liar.
> > > > >
> > > > > My point wasn't to make Matthew a liar (it didn't
> > > > > occur to me that you'd think that, but given that
> > > > > you look for something bad in everything I say,
> > > > > I suppose I should have anticipated this), but
> > > > > only to point out that the truth that in reality
> > > > > Jesus didn't talk directly to the centurion, thus
> > > > > Jesus didn't promise him directly that he would
> > > > > be in the Kingdom with Abraham and etc.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I thought maybe you needed two witnesses.
> > >
> > > Sorry, but that's a matter that has an entirely
> > > different application.
> > >
> >
> > That's a matter of my bad sense of humor again.
>
> Way bad.
>
I wouldn't say that.
He had to be an apostle to be a witness? Maybe what he witnessed is what
convinced him to become an apostle. It's possible that Matthew the details
of the story from Christ's own mouth. Matthew's account is certainly less
likely to be in err than Luke's.
Later, it's late. Time to hit the hay.
Gramps
Move the @ ahead of hot to email me.
Mark Sornson
> > Since you are agnostic, you apparantly don't have
> > faith in him, for that would require belief in God
> > and that he was raised from the dead by God. So, your
> > study of the Bible hasn't moved you to a real and
> > active faith, but only an intellectual knowledge about
> > faith. Do you really know something that requires
> > action if you aren't active in it? [Can you know
> > the piano if you don't play it? Studying the keys,
> > strings, hammers, and body of a piano sort of misses
> > the point if you cannot play it.]
> >
>
> I had a teacher in high scool who liked to say "Practice makes perfect.
> Practice something wrong and you will be perfectly wrong."
That's a clever saying, but it really isn't
proof of how anything will turn out. People
who are wrong at one point (even if because of
practice) can correct the wrong. In some
cases, "practice" helps them discern that
they need to make a correction.
"Practice" also implies doing something, and not
just sitting on the side-lines kibbitzing.
> > The scriptures I quoted above prove that Jesus' message
> > was NOT "initially targeted" toward the Roman and other
> > non-Jews. However, Jesus was willing to make a few
> > exceptions in demonstrated cases of faith by non-Jews.
> >
>
> Jesus came, primarily, to make a new covenant with the old religion. That
> did not exclude non Jews from benefiting from it. Even now, there are
> converts to Judaism.
Jesus didn't put a stop to Judaism in a literal sense,
and neither did God, hence it's continuation to this day.
People who convert TO Judaism, however, adopt a belief
that Jesus is/was NOT the Messiah that the Jews are
waiting for. That indicates that the "old religion"
to this day shows no interest in any complicity with
the "new covenant". Your own example proves that
Christianity is really a new religion, for Judaism
admits no modification by the "new covenant".
Jews who become Christian become apostate in Jewish
eyes. Christians who become Jewish become apostate
in Christian eyes, since Judaism repudiates the
tenet that Jesus is the Messiah.
As far as I know, so-called "Messianic Jews" aren't
considered to be Jewish from a religious standpoint
by Jewish religious authorities (though their
ethnic Jewishishness remains).
>
> > Non-Jews weren't explicitly targeted until Peter was
> > sent by divine intervention to Cornelius (another Roman
> > centurion -- probably a retired one).
> >
>
> Why, because it fits your scenario?
"My scenario" has nothing to do with it. It's
part of the Bible record, that the Jewish disciples
of Christ didn't actively begin evangelizing people
of the nations (non-Jews) until Peter was sent
to Cornelius.
It took divine intervention (visions from God) to
get him to do so, since Jews did not normally
associate with non-Jews, particularly when it
came to worship.
> > What was "finished" was his fulfilment of the Law
> > and the Prophets.
> >
>
> What was finished was the human phase of the prophecy. We still have allot
> of prophesy to fulfill.
I do agree with this. Another "human phase" that
came to an end was the "phase" of defining true
worship according to the Mosaic Law.
> BTW, what do you think happened to his spirit when he gave it up.
"Spirit" has a couple of meanings related to human
life. Both the Greek and Hebrew words translated
"spirit" also literally mean "wind" and "breath".
So, they stand for the 'breath of life' in living
beings, and they stand for the animating force of
life.
When a living being dies, whether human or animal,
the "spirit" that is breath (or breathing) ceases,
and the "spirit" that is the life force that animates
the body dissipates.
In Luke, Jesus said that he entrusted his spirit
to his Father -- so that meant that his future life's
prospects were in God's hands (so to speak). Jesus
was made alive again when God resurrected him.
>
> > The fact that the council ruling of Acts 15
> > did not make the Old Covenant fully binding
> > upon non-Jewish Christians is proof that the
> > Old Covenant, the "old religion," was no longer
> > an obligation for Christians to keep.
> >
> > Even Jewish Christians stopped following all
> > of the requirements of the Law (which the letters
> > of Paul demonstrate).
> >
>
> Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or
> one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
But you already agree that a "jot" or "tittle" has
now passed away from the Law, since you have already
agreed that the system of animal sacrifices (that
was a MAJOR part of the Law) was made obsolete by
Christ's sacrifice. So, unless you want to go back to
claiming that God is still placing (some) humans
under obligation to keep the sacrifices of the Mosaic
Law, you cannot keep quoting this verse at me
over and over again.
So which is it? Is the entire Law still in force (so that
not "one jot or one tittle" shall be said to have already
passed away), or not? If not, then this verse doesn't
mean what you say it means.
> >
> > OK -- but what is he saving mankind from?
> > Does that salvation not include saving mankind
> > from the evils that lead to human warfare?
> >
>
> In the age to come, yes.
So for now, it's bloody mayhem as usual eh?
In "this age", Christian may kill Christian
with impunity, following the orders of opposing
political leaders, and Christ simply looks down
from heaven with approving smiles.
>
> > Please explain to me how two people at war with
> > each other can both profess true faith in
> > Jesus the Savior. If they both profess Jesus
> > as the Savior -- which is all you seem to think
> > they need to do -- then they'd be spiritual
> > brothers, right? Well, how can spiritual
> > brothers literally kill each other in a political
> > conflict?
> >
>
> They were instructed to obey their government.
Whose authority is superior? That of human
governments or that of Jesus Christ? Jesus
Christ gave his disciples a "new commandment",
that they "love one another" (John 13:34).
In fact, he said:
as I have loved you, that ye also
love one another. (13:34b KJV)
Please explain to me how political conflicts
that set humans (including 'Christians') to
killing one another is a demonstration of
the love that Christ showed his disciples.
When obeying human governments means breaking
Christ's commandment, which authority is man
to follow?
> > Understanding the Bible includes coming to know
> > the main characters of the Bible, God being the
> > foremost one. If you don't believe that God
> > exists, it's certainly not true that you understand
> > him and what he says through the Bible -- at least,
> > not to the full.
> >
>
> I do not believe that it's necessary to believe God exists to understand the
> Bible. By that reasoning novels would not exist.
If you treat the Bible as fiction, as a novel is
fiction, then you really aren't "understanding"
anything. In fact, interpretation of fiction is
notoriously ambiguous. Schools and teachers exist
to analyize the ambiguities of fictional works
and to extoll the value of pulling out new
interpretations from such works just for the sake
of being able to ponder something new.
If you are going to say that the Bible is like
a novel, then JW interpretation is JUST as valid
as your own interpretation. There is no "absolute
truth" to fiction.
> > > > > > > As for Luke 7, his omission doesn't make
> Mathew a
> > > > > liar.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My point wasn't to make Matthew a liar (it didn't
> > > > > > occur to me that you'd think that, but given that
> > > > > > you look for something bad in everything I say,
> > > > > > I suppose I should have anticipated this), but
> > > > > > only to point out that the truth that in reality
> > > > > > Jesus didn't talk directly to the centurion, thus
> > > > > > Jesus didn't promise him directly that he would
> > > > > > be in the Kingdom with Abraham and etc.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I thought maybe you needed two witnesses.
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, but that's a matter that has an entirely
> > > > different application.
> > > >
> > >
> > > That's a matter of my bad sense of humor again.
> >
> > Way bad.
> >
>
> I wouldn't say that.
But you have to allow that others might.
Maybe - but there's no proof that Luke's account
isn't what Matthew witnessed.
The miracle took place in Capernaum, and that's
where Matthew was called. But since the Bible
record doesn't say who was there, you can only
guess that Matthew was an eye-witness.
Since Matthew was called by Jesus when he was
"seated at the tax office", in all likelihood,
that's where he was when the miracle happened.
Matthew may have heard about it, but the fact
that he omits the detail is greater evidence
that he was NOT an eye-witness, for it's the
sort of detail that would come from an eye-witness.
Luke says that he investigated things thoroughly,
so he no-doubt interviewed eye-witnesses.
> It's possible that Matthew the details
> of the story from Christ's own mouth.
Now you're speculating -- and for no good purpose.
Why are you going out of your way to dismiss
the additional facts that Luke presents? Why
do you insist on calling Luke a liar (or his
account a fabrication)?
> Matthew's account is certainly less
> likely to be in err than Luke's.
No it isn't.
Besides you, who says that Luke's account is in error?
Usenet newsgroups don't have to be real-time.
Let me know when you read the whole chapter.
-mark.
[snips on the quotes you didn't reply to, re Joel 3.]
Terry/Anti
> Terry/Anti wrote:
>
snip
> >
> > That's when God's kingdom has come. For now the order is.
> > Joe 3:10 Beat your plowshares into swords and your pruninghooks into
spears:
> > let the weak say, I am strong.
>
> I have to admit that I was more than a little amused
> (in a good way) about your use of this verse, mostly
> because I had forgotten about it, and didn't even
> have a 'mental memory index' about it. So I was more
> than a little interested in actually looking it up.
> [Basically I admit that it was a clever find on your
> part.]
>
> Naturally, I looked up the verse and read the entire
> chapter. I'd like to suggest that you do the same.
>
Read the book. Joel comes off as the Jewish equivalent of a JW.
I'm not. I'm defending the rights of the virtuous to defend themselves.
Hopefully, when his kingdom comes, people with have no need to defend
themselves. Until that time, be thankful for those with the courage to
defend your right to be a pacifist. I think you do them a grave injustice
calling them warlike and hate filled.
>
> > > > > Again, Jesus' point in Matt 8 wasn't to give a
> > > > > thumbs-up to the profession of military service,
> > > >
> > > > Nor a thumbs-down.
> > >
> > > Luke 6:27-36.
> >
> > This is while witnessing.
>
> So, one moment, a Christian can love his enemies
> while witnessing to them because of the command of
> Christ to do so, but the next moment he can be
> killing his enemy because his human military
> commanding officer tells him to.
>
Unlikely.
> I guess we should hope that a Christian will never
> witness to a person that he might one day have to
> kill in military service because they are a member
> of an enemy nation.
>
You can witness to them in the hopes of preventing war, but if it comes to
kill or be killed, kill.
>
>
> > > Historical side note: Jews were exempt from Roman
> > > military service. Roman military service was
> > > idolatrous, thus no faithful Jew would serve in
> > > the military of Rome (or of any other nation, for
> > > there was no 'separation of church and state' --
> > > the military of all Gentile nations did the bidding
> > > of the states which were themselves religious
> > > entities). Since the first Christians were Jews,
> > > they were also exempt from military service.
> > >
I imagine there may have been another reason that they were exempt. Kind of
like why we don't try to recruit the Talibond (SP) into our military
service.
> > > Jewish politicians who sided with Rome for the
> > > sake of their own personal power (like the Herods)
> > > played a dangerous game that bordered on blasphemy,
> > > again because the Roman state was idolatrous.
> > > [The Jewish leaders who brought Jesus to Pilate
> > > refused to enter Pilate's residence, because doing
> > > so would have ceremonially defiled them, since
> > > Pilate, as a Roman official, was by definition
> > > an idolator.]
> > >
> > > Alliance with Rome was always a love-hate thing,
> > > with hate always very near the surface. When
> > > the hate boiled over into rebellion later in
> > > the first century, it led to the Roman campaigns
> > > that culminated in the destruction of Jerusalem
> > > in 70 AD/CE. Jesus predicted that destruction;
> > > but rather than tell his disciples to join in
> > > the fighting, he told them to flee to the mountains
> > > when they had the chance (Luke 21:20-24).
> > >
That sounds like it's about the end times.
> > > In the NT era, no Christian served in either the
> > > Roman or the Jewish miltary.
> > >
Prove it.
I'm not. I'm defending the rights of the virtuous to defend themselves.
Terry/Anti
while I prefer to put more stock into Jesus and his pals.
Gramps
Move the @ ahead of hot to email me.
"Mark Sornson" <sor...@zk3.dec.com> wrote in message
news:3F8F10F7...@zk3.dec.com...
Vero
"Mark Sornson" <sor...@zk3.dec.com> skrev i melding
news:3F8BF191...@zk3.dec.com...
You're hoping for God to kill billions of people, and you not
included, you're believing in another genocide in your advance,
one that takes away all the others that you hate, because it's
hate driven. YOu only want your religion to be right and for
all the others to be taken away in a massive murder campaign
by your God, so that you and the others in your wanna be
right org can survive. You are an even bigger idiot.
Vero
>
> -mark.
Vero
"Terry/Anti" <Grandp...@mail.com> skrev i melding
news:vp0d0el...@corp.supernews.com...
> In a nutshell. It appears that you put more stock into Paul and his
buddies,
> while I prefer to put more stock into Jesus and his pals.
wrong, he's into the WT and it's buddies, all the other things are just
annoying stuff that he has to jab about to make sure he survives
harmagheddon.
V
Mark Sornson
>
> In a nutshell. It appears that you put more stock into Paul and his buddies,
> while I prefer to put more stock into Jesus and his pals.
In a nutshell, I include "Paul and his buddies"
in with "Jesus and his pals."
Whom, in your opinion, are "Jesus and his pals"?
-mark.
Mark Sornson
>
> "Terry/Anti" <Grandp...@mail.com> skrev i melding
> news:vp0d0el...@corp.supernews.com...
> > In a nutshell. It appears that you put more stock into Paul and his
> buddies,
> > while I prefer to put more stock into Jesus and his pals.
>
> wrong, he's into the WT and it's buddies, all the other things are just
> annoying stuff that he has to jab about to make sure he survives
> harmagheddon.
JWs and the WTS didn't write the Bible or
invent "Armageddon" (Har-Megedon), or the
notion that it is something one survives
by God's grace/favor. JWs are in favor of
seeing everyone survive it. But people have
to make the choice on their own to put
themselves in God's favor.
Why aren't you doing what you think you need
to do to "make sure" you survive it?
-mark.
Vero
> Vero wrote:
> >
> > "Terry/Anti" <Grandp...@mail.com> skrev i melding
> > news:vp0d0el...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > In a nutshell. It appears that you put more stock into Paul and his
> > buddies,
> > > while I prefer to put more stock into Jesus and his pals.
> >
> > wrong, he's into the WT and it's buddies, all the other things are just
> > annoying stuff that he has to jab about to make sure he survives
> > harmagheddon.
>
> JWs and the WTS didn't write the Bible or
> invent "Armageddon" (Har-Megedon), or the
> notion that it is something one survives
> by God's grace/favor. JWs are in favor of
> seeing everyone survive it. But people have
> to make the choice on their own to put
> themselves in God's favor.
>
how nice of you to want to include others in surviving
Armagheddon. Is that new light, that you don't have to
be sworn into the Org with unbiblical 100's and what not
questions first?
> Why aren't you doing what you think you need
> to do to "make sure" you survive it?
What makes you think I don't? oh because you think
that you do, all else don't. See that's what your GB
teaches you guys, and it is called misinformation.
But you're conditioned to swallow anything that comes
down the pike from Brooklyn/Patterson, so no wonder.
The GB and the rest of you might be the first to get
the axe in Armagheddon, thinking you're doing what's
right but aren't. Jesus will say 'go away from me you
who do wrong'. It won't help that you think you did
all you should in his name. Weird how that verse fits
on the JW's so well. They are the only ones thinking
they're systematically doing right, and thinking only
*them* will survive, and not the others. Makes me
wonder if that's whom he was referring to. Because
only God knowes who's really the sheeplike amongst
us, and he doesn't check the JW ranking files to find
them. Being a JW is as far as possibly could be a
savior to anybody. Sadly for you sorry ass son.
Vero
>
> -mark.
Mark Sornson
[snips]
> >
> > Naturally, I looked up the verse and read the entire
> > chapter. I'd like to suggest that you do the same.
> >
>
> Read the book. Joel comes off as the Jewish equivalent of a JW.
Well, fancy that. How do you supposed Joel managed
to make himself sound like a JW? Talk about prophetic!
OK -- but Joel 3 says nothing about the virtuous
defending themselves (especially with military
might). In Joel 3, those who are invited to "defend
themselves" with military might are actually the
"heathen" whose "wickedness is great".
> >
> > If people are not willing to "learn war no more"
> > before his kingdom comes, how, exactly, will his
> > kingdom succeed, if everyone who enters into it
> > is as warlike and hate-filled the moment after it
> > is established as they are the moment-before?
> >
> > In Matt 25:31-46, the "sheep" are the ones who
> > are preserved to enter into his kingdom. By
> > definition, "sheep" are peaceful.
> >
>
> Hopefully, when his kingdom comes, people with have no need to defend
> themselves. Until that time, be thankful for those with the courage to
> defend your right to be a pacifist. I think you do them a grave injustice
> calling them warlike and hate filled.
JWs aren't pacifists, even though we are peaceful.
We are peaceful because we believe that Jesus
Christ has commanded his disciples to be peaceful,
leaving vengeance (with violence) up to God (and
Christ, with his angels).
Not all who take up military arms are hate filled
(at least, not at first), but it's naive to ignore
the truth that during war-time government propoganda
creates a dehumanizing image of "the enemy", to help
potential soldiers (and the folks back home) accept
killing on a large-scale.
By definition, military training is meant to
make soldiers warlike - to condition their bodies,
minds, and skills to the task at hand, to make
war.
>
> >
> > > > > > Again, Jesus' point in Matt 8 wasn't to give a
> > > > > > thumbs-up to the profession of military service,
> > > > >
> > > > > Nor a thumbs-down.
> > > >
> > > > Luke 6:27-36.
> > >
> > > This is while witnessing.
> >
> > So, one moment, a Christian can love his enemies
> > while witnessing to them because of the command of
> > Christ to do so, but the next moment he can be
> > killing his enemy because his human military
> > commanding officer tells him to.
> >
>
> Unlikely.
But only unlikely because few trained as soldiers
and put into battle would be likely to be evangelists
for Christ.
> > I guess we should hope that a Christian will never
> > witness to a person that he might one day have to
> > kill in military service because they are a member
> > of an enemy nation.
> >
>
> You can witness to them in the hopes of preventing war, but if it comes to
> kill or be killed, kill.
I see. Where did Jesus or his "pals" say that?
"Paul and his buddies" definitely didn't say that.
> > > > Historical side note: Jews were exempt from Roman
> > > > military service. Roman military service was
> > > > idolatrous, thus no faithful Jew would serve in
> > > > the military of Rome (or of any other nation, for
> > > > there was no 'separation of church and state' --
> > > > the military of all Gentile nations did the bidding
> > > > of the states which were themselves religious
> > > > entities). Since the first Christians were Jews,
> > > > they were also exempt from military service.
> > > >
>
> I imagine there may have been another reason that they were exempt. Kind of
> like why we don't try to recruit the Talibond (SP) into our military
> service.
With all due respect, I'd like to suggest that you
not rely on your imagination, but to study history
instead.
It is true that the US military doesn't recruit from
the Taliban, but it did once ally itself with the
Afghan fighters (who later became its enemies) to
help them repel/throw-out the Soviet Russians.
The US military also accepts Muslims. Needless to
say, that has caused some concern of late.
But getting back to New Testament times, Romans were
a foreign occupation force in Israel. A few individuals
notwithstanding, they were NOT "the good guys".
>
> > > > Jewish politicians who sided with Rome for the
> > > > sake of their own personal power (like the Herods)
> > > > played a dangerous game that bordered on blasphemy,
> > > > again because the Roman state was idolatrous.
> > > > [The Jewish leaders who brought Jesus to Pilate
> > > > refused to enter Pilate's residence, because doing
> > > > so would have ceremonially defiled them, since
> > > > Pilate, as a Roman official, was by definition
> > > > an idolator.]
> > > >
> > > > Alliance with Rome was always a love-hate thing,
> > > > with hate always very near the surface. When
> > > > the hate boiled over into rebellion later in
> > > > the first century, it led to the Roman campaigns
> > > > that culminated in the destruction of Jerusalem
> > > > in 70 AD/CE. Jesus predicted that destruction;
> > > > but rather than tell his disciples to join in
> > > > the fighting, he told them to flee to the mountains
> > > > when they had the chance (Luke 21:20-24).
> > > >
>
> That sounds like it's about the end times.
There was an 'end time' for ancient Israel.
However, Israelites didn't learn to be "pacifists".
Instead, Israel as a whole took up arms in revolt
against Rome. Its armed revolt is what lead
to its defeat. The Christians in Palestine, most
of whom were probably Jewish, didn't take up arms
to defend Israel against Rome, but instead stayed
out of the conflict, and fled when they got a
break.
According to Isa 2:1-4, in "the end times", which
precede the coming of God's Kingdom, people who
worship God as he wishes learn to "beat their
swords into plowshares" (and etc.).
If the "end times" of this world started now (and
could be proved to you), would you obey Isa 2:1-4
and "learn war no more" yourself?
>
> > > > In the NT era, no Christian served in either the
> > > > Roman or the Jewish miltary.
> > > >
>
> Prove it.
Here's a quote from a non-JW book in my personal
library:
... the state of things in the Empire was such
as to defer for a long time the realization by
Christian people of the fact that the question
whether a Christian might be a soldier or not
was an acute and important one. It was contrary
to law to enrol a slave as a soldier, and Jews
were legally exempt from military service on
account of their national peculiarities: and when
we consider what a large proportion of the early
Christian communities consisted of slaves, Jews,
and women, we shall realize that the percentage
of members eligible for service must have been
small. Further than that, while the Emperor was
entitled by law to levy conscripts, in actual
practice he hardly ever found it necessary to
have recourse to this expedient: the population
was so large in comparision iwth the armies,
that the Emperor could get all the soldiers he
needed by voluntary enlistment. This meant
that any attempt to force a man into the ranks
against his will was a very rare occurance, and
rarer still in the case of a Christian. Now no
Christian ever thought of enlisting in the army
after his conversion until the reign of Marcus
Aurelius (161-180 A.D.) at the earliest (our
oldest direct evidence dates from about 200 A.D.),
while cases of men being converted when already
engaged in the military profession (such as
Cornelius the centurion of Caesarea, and the
gaoler of Philippi) were during the same early
period few and far between. ...
[_The Early Christian Attitude to War_, by
C. John Cadaoux, 1919, reprint 1982, p.16-17]
This is near the end of the Introduction to the
book.
Also, borrow your wife's copy of _Reasoning From
the Scriptures_ and read the 3 quotes from historical
sources on pages 272-3.
There is also a fair amount of evidence from 3rd
and 4th century Christian writers that proves that
military service was viewed by Christians as
incompatible with their faith. The famous (after-
the-fact) rebuttal by Origen to the pagan Celcus
included quite a bit of defense (justification)
against the correct charge by Celcus that Christians
didn't participate in the military.
But you were quoting Joel 3 to do so.
Joel 3 says that God will rescue the
virtuous himself, but that the "heathen"
whose "wickness is great" will be called
to take up their puny military arms against
Jehovah's divine might. In Joel 3, no one
"virtuous" is being called to defend
themselves with military might.
-mark.
Terry/Anti
> Terry/Anti wrote:
>
> [snips]
>
> > >
> > > Naturally, I looked up the verse and read the entire
> > > chapter. I'd like to suggest that you do the same.
> > >
> >
> > Read the book. Joel comes off as the Jewish equivalent of a JW.
>
> Well, fancy that. How do you supposed Joel managed
> to make himself sound like a JW? Talk about prophetic!
>
Being a false prophet. Saying the end times were neer. Expecting that God
was going to defend him.
Terry/Anti
> Terry/Anti wrote:
>
> [snips]
>
snip
> > >
> > > In Matt 25:31-46, the "sheep" are the ones who
> > > are preserved to enter into his kingdom. By
> > > definition, "sheep" are peaceful.
> > >
> >
Most herd animals have a leader. I don't know about sheep, but I suspect
they do too. How does one become the leader and remain the leader? And how
about when a female gets in heat? How peaceful are they then?
Terry/Anti
> Terry/Anti wrote:
>
> [snips]
>
snip
> >
> > You can witness to them in the hopes of preventing war, but if it comes
to
> > kill or be killed, kill.
>
> I see. Where did Jesus or his "pals" say that?
> "Paul and his buddies" definitely didn't say that.
>
Were did he say you don't have the right to defend yourself?
Terry/Anti
> Terry/Anti wrote:
>
> [snips]
>
Snip
>
> > > > > Historical side note: Jews were exempt from Roman
> > > > > military service. Roman military service was
> > > > > idolatrous, thus no faithful Jew would serve in
> > > > > the military of Rome (or of any other nation, for
> > > > > there was no 'separation of church and state' --
> > > > > the military of all Gentile nations did the bidding
> > > > > of the states which were themselves religious
> > > > > entities). Since the first Christians were Jews,
> > > > > they were also exempt from military service.
> > > > >
> >
> > I imagine there may have been another reason that they were exempt.
Kind of
> > like why we don't try to recruit the Talibond (SP) into our military
> > service.
>
> With all due respect, I'd like to suggest that you
> not rely on your imagination, but to study history
> instead.
>
Maybe I should have said reason? You reserve the right to imagine to
yourself? I used to subscribe to the Investors Business Daily. They had a
section called something like Famous Leaders. Many were ancient leaders
like Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, Alexander the Great and Hannibal. I got the
impression that the Jews were the trouble makers from their beginning on.
Wanting to be the head ram I reason.
> It is true that the US military doesn't recruit from
> the Taliban, but it did once ally itself with the
> Afghan fighters (who later became its enemies) to
> help them repel/throw-out the Soviet Russians.
>
> The US military also accepts Muslims. Needless to
> say, that has caused some concern of late.
>
> But getting back to New Testament times, Romans were
> a foreign occupation force in Israel. A few individuals
> notwithstanding, they were NOT "the good guys".
>
I'm not as sure as you are. The Romans were good to the Jews. The Jews
were the ones starting uprisings and trying to overthrow the Romans.
I already have. The day I got my discharge.
Mark Sornson
I see.
As far as I know, everyone who believes the Bible
is God's inspired word also believes that Joel was
a true prophet. The Jews apparantly did, since they
included his book in their canon of scriptures.
At this point, you really aren't arguing only against
JWs, but are arguing against every religion that
accepts Joel to be part of the Bible.
Have fun.
-mark.
Mark Sornson
>
> "Mark Sornson" <sor...@zk3.dec.com> wrote in message
> news:3F944E59...@zk3.dec.com...
> > Terry/Anti wrote:
> >
> > [snips]
> >
>
> snip
>
> > > >
> > > > In Matt 25:31-46, the "sheep" are the ones who
> > > > are preserved to enter into his kingdom. By
> > > > definition, "sheep" are peaceful.
> > > >
> > >
>
> Most herd animals have a leader. I don't know about sheep, but I suspect
> they do too.
Those leaders are called human shepherds.
> How does one become the leader and remain the leader?
Either by being the owner (with training on how to
lead sheep), or being trained and then hired by the
owner of the flock to be their shepherd.
> And how
> about when a female gets in heat? How peaceful are they then?
I don't think that Jesus' parable was really
meant encompass bovine reproductive behavior.
If you really have a serious interest in those
details, though, let us know what you find out.
-mark.
Mark Sornson
>
> "Mark Sornson" <sor...@zk3.dec.com> wrote in message
> news:3F944E59...@zk3.dec.com...
> > Terry/Anti wrote:
> >
> > [snips]
> >
>
> snip
>
> > >
> > > You can witness to them in the hopes of preventing war, but if it comes
> to
> > > kill or be killed, kill.
> >
> > I see. Where did Jesus or his "pals" say that?
> > "Paul and his buddies" definitely didn't say that.
> >
>
> Were did he say you don't have the right to defend yourself?
Jesus said to his disciples:
They shall put you out of the
synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that
whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth
God service. (John 16:2 KJV)
Jesus taught that his disciples might be killed.
He never taught them anything about self-defense.
Jesus' own arrest, and his order to his disciples
to put their swords away, set the example for his
disciples. Matthew -- the eye-witness gospel writer
whom you trust for being Jesus' buddy (and not one
of Paul's pals) -- wrote that Jesus said to them:
Put up again thy sword into his place:
for all they that take the sword shall
perish with the sword. (Matt 26:5 KJV)
Does this sound like teaching them that they
had a right to self-defense to you?
Christian discipleship emphasizes self-sacrifice,
not self-defense.
-mark.