Posted by Al; on March 24, 1999 at 22:18:28 {MWbp7CDcBo4Qg}:
In Reply to: Post Deletions posted by Moderator 14 on March 24, 1999 at 20:37:14:
Somehow, I couldn't find the explanation for the deletion of these posts. In the interest of avoiding my error in the future, perhaps you could explain it to me.
Post 1-
It reminds me of the Proclaimers book on page 48 and 49 "Not as
new, not as our own, but as the Lord's", and then "Concerning the chronology he often presented, Russel stated: 'When we say 'our' chronology, we merely mean the one we use, the Bible chronology, which belongs to all of God's people who
approve it. As a matter of fact, it was used in practically the form we present it long before our day, just as various prophecies we use were used to a different purpose by Adventists, and just as various doctrines we hold and which seem
so new and fresh and different were held in some form long ago: for instance Election, Free Grace, Restitution, Justification, Sanctification, Glorification, Resurrection."
Then they go on to say how modest Russel was about what he had accomplished and how "God dishonoring" other people's doctrines were. "God's people", to whom these doctrines presumably belong, are who WTS says they are. The funny part is that in spite of the fact that others, such as Nelson Barbour,the Adventist's and many others in Christendom produced these doctrines, they are part of "Babylon" the harlot and the WTS is God's channel, even though they came up with nothing. They nobly call these doctrines "the Lord's" while curiously crediting themselves with being God's channel.
Yes, claiming to be God's only spokesmen is true modesty. Their names are all over the book but not the names of the people who did develop their doctrines. Nelson Barbour, whose scowling face is drawn on page 48, came up with 1914, probably from John A. Brown's "Eventide" of 1823, but those little facts are not mentioned. "It is the Lord's" they righteously say.(But we are the only channel, and all those guys that came up with our doctrines are harlots.) The "other guys" include "Christendom", who distributed billions of Bibles, and sent missionaries all over the world(teaching the flood legend among other things) for centuries.
The WTS jumps in, picks up on Storrs no hellfire idea, and catches on to tweaking their doctrines up so as to appear unique, and gradually adopt, in effect, a set of control methods and circular defenses. "Fleshly men can't understand the things of the spirit." "Tacking" and "brighter light", explains why past doctrines were off. "Testing and sifting" is the magical explanation why they are still right even though a lot of people think they are not, and they have no answer for their objections. Then some things they just revile those who speak of them as apostates, and "dispoiled of their 'faith'."
Witnesses have been convinced, circularly, that what they are looking for is some tight knit organization with exactly their
doctrines. They can be shown, instance after instance where their claims are in conflict with The Bible rather than in harmony. They can be shown that the facts which they think verify The Bible, actually deny it. Their circularly fed
"cognitive dissonance" convinces them that no, they are not hearing evidence that refutes their views, they are being tested by Satan, they are fulfilling prophecies. If they see people who commit crimes and live sorry lives they say, "See
what God's spirit does
for us." If they see people who are decent family people, helping their fellowman, they say, "sincerity is not enough." When they makes errors, they talk about the nation of Israel, David, and Manasseh. When
others make errors, it is evidence of them being part of "Babylon" or being "faithless" or "fleshly."
Al
Post 2-
Yes, they are caught in their own little conceptual eddy. "We are God's earthly channel." They sort of question
themselves into a corner. "Surely God would not leave us without guidance!" "Who else would it be?" Once in the trap, it's almost impossible for them to get out. There is an explanation for everything, or what sounds like it. -"How can
they disagree with us? We are God's channel." Instead of the idea that some evidence shows they are not God's channel, they say that we must "wait on Jehovah." In other words even though it seems like we're wrong, later we'll seem right.
What that really means is that they will revise their history or just counter-accuse those who bring up the past.
Sounds like the same approach I've been using for four months without deletions. Is there something about it or is it just part of a string?
Al