From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: Jehovah's Witnesses
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 18:32:47 GMT

smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>isn't what makes a True Prophet (tm) in your book.  So what makes the JWs
>True Prophets? 

	True fruits, as I told you. It's true that even false religion can 
	produce some fruit that can seem good to someone, but when considered
	everything they've done, it's more bad than good. 


	I know there are honest non-JWs among worldly people. We're seeking them

>That would have been news to them.  When Russell started the Watchtower
>movement, he said he had basically wiped the slate clean, dumped all old
>practices (although he admitted to not being a religious man up till
>that point, so he couldnt have had too much to dump) and started clean.
>Naturally in later years, as old teachings needed to be replaced to
>conform to new situations, SOME excuse had to be made for Russell being
>wrong on so many things.  Now, if they were only "in the imprisonment of the Great Babylon"
>till 1919, how does that explain some of the bizarre tachings that came
>AFTER 1919?  

	First, I have been reading a book - you know the big yellow book       
	published in early 1970's about 1,000-year Government ? There, quite 
	in the middle of the book there is a good explanation for you (when 
	this has bothered you more than once). (There's about the history of
	the Society). The point is that we've always known what the Truth is, 
	only details have changed. 

	1931 is in that way significant year that then we were given that 
	great name that labels us to the servants of the true God. 

>In reality, I dont think most JWs really know what Russell taught, and
>what their roots are, even though it was all only about 100 years ago.
>For example, Russell taught back in the 1880s that the "message" had
>ALREADY been preached to all the nations; that their work was only
>to get people into what he called the "elect", NOT to convert the
>"masses" for their salvation; that would come after Armageddon, unlike
>the current JWs who say you have to join them or else you will not
>survive Armageddon, and you will NOT be ressurected.  

	I know all this. 


>	Of course, wouldn't they admit that they're still in the false 
>	religion ?

>I'm not sure if the language barrier has confused this statement.
>Are you saying "if I read these old books, wouldn't Russell, in
>them, admit to still having some false religion?"  

	I only wanted to say that in that time everything seemed to be clear, 
	but it wasn't: Bible students knew only a little about the Bible and
	its prophecies. Still they acted like it would final.                
>Now that 1975 has come and gone, sure.  20/20 hindsight is great.
>But in the years approaching 1975, NO.  It was stated with certain
>belief that 1975 was 6000 years from BOTH of their creation, that
>BOTH were created in the same year.  It wasn't until after 1975 passed
>that the Watchtower leaders "discovered" what they called the "Eve gap".
>They said there was no way to know if they were created in the same
>year or not.  Thus, however wide the "gap", that would be how long after
>1975 the "end" would come...

	Seems that you haven't studied the yellow book... and neither the old
	Watchtowers. They KNEW about the "Eve gap", but they preferred to say
	it was only small. 
>Really...so you are familiar with the "Eve gap", and the fact that it
>was not "discovered" until after 1975's expectations had failed?  

	According to all evidence it was discovered before 1975.

>>"speculation by individual JWs" for the whole 1975 thing.  

>	That's what it's all about. 
>In a way, thats correct.  The problem was, the people *speculating* about
>1975 being the end of 6000 years, and thus Armageddon, were the people at
>the very head of the group; those writing the literature; those who are
>viewed as being "God's mouthpiece" and prophet to the world.  It would seem
>that they have been rather careless and cavalier about that self-appointed
>honor, with all the speculating they do. 

	It's impossible to say what is in the minds of individuals. I got the 
	idea that there were many views about it in the HQs, too. 
>Not an answer.  Many different groups produce good fruits; therefore by
>your approach, they must be good trees. Correct? 

	OK. Tell me, what good fruits have you produced ? I suppose the Catholic
	world is the happiest nation on earth and has solved all their problems.
	If you add +100 to -10,000,000 it's still negative. 

>			Andreas



-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion