What is the justice in condemning humanity for the apparent sin of Eve, transferring the crime of one to another, or the entirety? Where is the justice in exterminating unbelievers (most of whom may simply be unaware of 'the truth')? Why are some born with disease, deformity, etc, and not others? Why is that man is not to lie with man, yet there seems to be a static portion of the population that is homosexual? Does this imply that women are not to lie with women? On what basis is one testament viewed to be legitimate and not the other? People seem to value freedom as an implicit good--how is god's rule not authoritarian? Regarding the immanent armageddon, 1914 was indeed a momentous year, yet what of when the Black Plague ravaged Europe killing between one third and two thirds of the population? How was that not more significant than the First World War? (Or the entire Dark Ages for that matter.) Indeed, what of the prosperity following WWI? The decline which followed with the stock market crash and the Second World War, but the relative stability, and arguable prosperity relative to other historical ages ever since? Has anyone looked into other religious sects that predicted armageddon, but merely chose a year for that occurrance which was relatively uneventful, and the sect simply died off after that?
Questions...
by Aequitus 3 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
jwfacts
Good questions and they are ones that made me realise the senslessness of the Watchtower doctrinal structure.
In regards to doomday cults, there have been endless ones over the last 2000 years, and some continue for some time after the failed date for various reasons. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/rapture.html lists some of them.
In regards to how the WTS survived the failed prophecy of 1914 Carl Sagan has one of the best quotes:
Doctrines that make no predictions are less compelling than those which make correct predictions; they are in turn more successful than doctrines that make false predictions.
But not always. One prominent American religion confidently predicted that the world would end in 1914. Well, 1914 has come and gone, and -- while the events of that year were certainly of some importance -- the world does not, at least so far as I can see, seem to have ended. There are at least three responses that an organized religion can make in the face of such a failed and fundamental prophecy. They could have said, "Oh, did we say '1914'? So sorry, we meant '2014.' A slight error in calculation. Hope you weren't inconvenienced in any way." But they did not. They could have said, "Well, the world would have ended, except we prayed very hard and interceded with God so He spared the Earth." But they did not. Instead, they did something much more ingenious.
They announced that the world had in fact ended in 1914, and if the rest of us hadn't noticed, that was our lookout. It is astonishing in the face of such transparent evasions that this religion has any adherents at all. But religions are tough. Either they make no contentions which are subject to disproof or they quickly redesign doctrine after disproof. The fact that religions can be so shamelessly dishonest, so contemptuous of the intelligence of their adherents, and still flourish does not speak very well for the tough-mindedness of the believers. But it does indicate, if a demonstration were needed, that near the core of the religious experience is something remarkably resistant to rational inquiry.
Broca's Brain Carl Sagan (New York: Ballantine Books, 1979, pp. 332-333)
-
Oroborus21
howdy and welcome...
you pose all good and interesting questions..my only suggestion is that you pose them one at a time if you want any "discussion" to follow....
-Eduardo
-
Aequitus
(Re: jwfacts) That was quite an eye-opening list... (Re: Eduardo ) I will do just that. Thank you both.