by AllTimeJeff 17 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Good thread ATJ:
I took the liberty of adding this one:
You want me to believe that your Elders, Ministerial Servants, Pioneers, etc should be exempt from going through back ground checks that serve to protect our children while other organizations comply?
Now,that you put it that way....
Sometimes,I think my life would be a whole lot easier if I just straigtened up and towed the party line,meaning the Watchtower. I still have dear friends and family in,who believe that I still believe.
But,you brought out some good points that I always wondered about myself. I never understood how they proved that they were God's chosen organization in 1918/1919,among other things.
Well it seems to me they never proved it. They made a statement, backed it up with questionable "facts' and expected every JW to swallow it hook, line and sinker, which we did.
I think that's one of the main problems with authority figures and especially authority figures in religion, "just accept it, don't think about it, we have your best interests in mind." Yet they will use that very same "authority" to coerce, brow beat and bully you into submission, (if you step out of line), all in the name of "unity."
I could never go back. I get pysically ill just seeing a WT or Awake magazine on the street. I have to fight the urge to put them on the ground, stomp on them and grind them into bits of paper (but for fear of making a spectacle of myself), but I can dream can't I?
Slightly off topic and a thread hijack, but I wanted to get something off my chest.
I've been looking back over my posts here in the past few days and while I don't mind debating the written text, I will say that the need to visit this site is becoming less and less. Not that I dislike anyone here ('cept maybe the Apologists), but that I think the posts sometimes brings out the worst in me. I see myself falling back into JW thinking patterns (thinking I'm of the anointed BS and all that) when I know what the problem is.
Truthfully I never cared one way or the other about a reward at the end. Just serving God the best way I knew how and the supposed blessings that came from that were enough. But the only blessing I ever received was my exit from the JW's and truthfully I have myself to thank for that. I did all the work and I don't recall anyone ever suggesting to me that they were a cult or bad for me ('cept my therapist).
I never saw any blessings in my life as a JW. I lived from paycheck to paycheck (as many JW's I knew did as well) and the only ones who were successful were those ones who didn't "wait on Jehovah" to bless them, but who went out and got it for themselves. Then they were ridiculed for being materialistic. Oddly enough though, it was those very same ones the Brothers always went to in times of need. Hypocritical to say the least.
I do believe there is a God, but I don't think it's the OT God. Too mean and petty for a "God of Love". I sometimes think the Gnostics had it right.
I can believe that a GUD (Great Unknown Deity) created life and simply allowed Evolution to continue it. For me this answers the problem that Evolution has with explaining how life started. I do believe in Evolution, I love Science but vigorous study has led me to the conclusion that the Bible is just a book of myth and folklore, the same as the Poetic Eddas, the Book of the Dead, The Tain Bo Culange, The Ulster Cycles, etc..
The only reason why it's so widely believed is because the way in which it was distributed, (by the point of the sword). It's teachings were passed down by through families and through politics. The various churches were instrumental is making sure other cultures were co-opted by Bible teachings and laid waste to any culture that opposed them, citing it was "God's Will."
Something I also think about from time to time. The 1st Century Christians didn't have the Bible as we have it now. They had oral teachings. So how do we know what was taught is the same thing that was written down? We don't it's a matter of faith.
I no longer have any faith, the JW's made sure of that. Now unless I can experience it for myself (in regrads to religion), I don't accept it.
I apologize again for the thread hijack. I just really needed to say this.
Peace,
Awen
If you believe all then you have to be in acceptance to a agreed to set of lies. ...... interesting ethic is it not ?
Religious traditions and institutions generally consider themselves to be privileged arbiters of morals, to have particular expertise in matters of ethics and morality. Indeed, even many non-believers defer to religious leaders or in some way acknowledge their authority in such matters. For example, many parents who are not themselves religious nevertheless consider that the education of their children should include some moral instruction based on the religious traditions of the society in which they live. They assume, apparently, that to be a good person requires at least some grounding in a faith-based moral system. The late Stephen J. Gould, paleontologist and avowed agnostic, promoted the principle that, while science deals with empirical truth, the religious "magisterium" includes that of ethics. [1]
However, there is no reasonable basis for this preconceived notion that morality belongs to religion. Throughout recorded human history, many non-religious ethical systems have been proposed. The Golden Rule promoting mutual respect in human relations, for example, originates from several different sources, some of them non-religious. The philosopher Paul Kurtz has this to say about Gould's principle:
I think that this position is mistaken. Indeed I would argue that there also ought to be a separation between ethics and religion. Religionists have no special competence in framing moral judgments. I say this because a great effort has been expended in the history of ethics -- from Aristotle to Spinoza, Kant, John Stuart Mill, and John Dewey -- to demonstrate that ethics can be autonomous and that it is possible to frame ethical judgments on the basis of rational inquiry. [2]
When we consider that religious dogma is based on irrational beliefs in supernatural phenomena such as god(s), the soul, spirits, demons and angels, heaven and hell, creation, etc., we must ask ourselves: What does such mythology have to do with sound ethical principles? Why should acceptance of these vacuous concepts be a prerequisite for morality? Religious belief systems are human inventions. So-called "sacred" scriptures were written by human beings. To declare with ostensible certainty that the Bible or the Coran or the Bhagavad-Gita is the word of some god is just a pious lie. The fact that some people sincerely believe in the sacredness of scripture does not make the idea any less absurd.
Even modern religious tendencies which prefer a very metaphorical interpretation of traditional dogma remain ultimately founded on supernatural principles such as the belief in an omnipotent creator transcending time and space. Every theist is essentially a creationist in the generic sense of the term, even if he or she places that creation billions of years in the past.
Indeed, if we adopt the simple ethical principle of intellectual honesty, then we are forced to confront the following conclusion: As religious systems of morality are based on unfounded beliefs and are thus fundamentally dishonest, they are inherently unethical. For example, if a religious authority declares that lying is sinful because it is contrary to "God's will", then that authority is guilty of hypocrisy, because even if one were to grant the existence of "God", we have no way of knowing "His" will. The author of this article knows as much about the will of "God" as does any pope or ayatollah, and that knowledge is zero.
People who validate their ideas together are INTO Ideology.
I'm not into ideology; I'm into law-abiding behavior because I like the effects and outcomes of good behavior around me.
Torah-Law is good behavior if you treat it sensibly; Sermon on the Mount is good behavior.
But thoughts clanking around in somebody's headbone don't qualify as "behavior"--not yet. Dogma & doctrine are just thoughts.
The Will of YHVH God is that we get along, steward the planet, survive problems, keep our history, develop good Law and Ethics.
Those are ALL behaviors; in fact, they presume a lot of experience, work and the cultivation of wisdom.
I guess this way of thinking is probably not the most popular one on these Boards.
Shechaiyah
You want me to beleive that 1-2 million people ,man woman and child,wandered about in the wilderness for 40 yrs.after leaving egypt ?And theirs no archaeological evidence to support such an a assertion !!Think about it.
smiddy
You want me to believe that a dream described in some dusty old book about an idol made of gold, silver, copper, iron and clay mapped out and predicted world events down to this day?
You want me to believe that a bunch of self-important window washers and janitors are qualified experts on how mental health and family issues should be handled?
You want me to believe that nasty, condescending, abusive behaviour are signs of "brotherly love" that prove that the JWs are God's holy people?
You want me to believe that all species of animals on this planet will one day literally become vegan in the twinkling of an eye?
You want me to believe that 7 corrupt, crotchety old men speak on behalf of God himself?
You want me to believe that God micro-manages all human affairs?
Yeah right...
V665
I think Awen puts it the way it makes sense to me.
I don't quibble with what Society servants write; they're entitled to their thoughts, but I'm entitled to mine also.
We were all given free minds; and God always intended for all of us to use them and handle matters for ourselves.
Since we are judged on our behavior, it's God that does the judging, not other fallible human beings.
So, the GB better just lead themselves and use the Society to protect all its people; but leave us alone morally.
That's how I feel.
