has anyone here listened to any judicial committee meetings and been very disappointed?
.
Tuesday,
When I was an Elder, I sat on a few JCs. Also, I was on the hot seat a couple of times, but did not get DF'd. I posted my "Justice" series here on JWD which dealt with JCs. Some I was on the JC and others, I was aware of because I had the JW file and read the records. In all cases they are disappointing because they are not really about confession and repentance, but about the Elders prosecuting an accused.
Jim Whitney
Purple,
On the other hand, as time has gone by, some Christians baptized afte 1935 have had witness borne to them that they have the heavenly hope. (Romans 8:16, 17) Thus, it appears that we cannot set a specific date for when the calling of Christians to the heavenly hope ends.
Yep ... I am not surprised at this ... they need an out for more Anointed because the current crop of GB and others are dying off. Also, this gives them some wiggle room in the event they need to justify more Anointed. In my JW life, I was of the Anointed and served as an Elder. I was able to find things like this QFR, but the best one was the 1952 Wt. It shows exactly how one known they are of the Anointed. Thanks for posting the QFR.
Jim W.
i'm a bit skeptical, but i thought i would give it a shot.. i've been watching my electric bill with reliant electricity and over the last year it has gone from $0.09 per kwh to about $0.15 per kw.
i looked around and discovered that green mountain, which provides 100% wind and water electricity, is charging about $0.13 per kwh.. could it be true???
could 100% renewable and pollution free energy actually cost less than fossil fuels and nuclear energy now???
Elsewhere,
The cheapest power is still coal. We have an abundance. Wind and Solar are unreliable and costly, though pollution free. For example, a wind farm will require 1,000 generators of the most modern type to equal the power output of one nuclear reactor. Solar is passive and only efficient during sunny weather. So, the best we can do right now with solar is heat water.
One nuclear plant replaces 300 miles of railcars of coal per year. They do not pollute. The fuel is cheap, because one pellet (size of a pencil eraser) used in a reactor will power a house for about 10 cents. The cost problem is in the structure, engineering, and management of the facility and spent fuel. Though the French have proven that fuel can be reprocessed (recycled). We were ahead of the French on fuel reprocessing until our environmentalists gained enough political clout to cause our research programs to be terminated.
Even spent nuclear fuel can be safetly stored for hundreds of thousands of years until it is no longer a threat. Reprocessed fuel can be used to the point it is no longer viable and then stored the same way as normal spent fuel.
We have enough nuclear fuel in the USA to last us thousands of years. Illinois is now powered by 95% nuclear. And it is working just find for us.
Anymouse,
Wind, solar, and water power cost nothing to generate power, the earth does the work for them. ... Besides the overhead, which normal power stations need, and maintainance, they cost less methinks. ... But the amount of raw power you get is less, so it needs to be rationed.
As I noted above, wind and solar are expensive because it takes so much more to build a wind farm. They become less expensive because they are not highly regulated, and are cheap to maintain. The problem with wind is that the environmentalists do not like them because they think they increase the deaths of birds. This is false, but they won't believe it. There is a federally funded study at the UNiversity of Iowa right now which is looking at the so-called problem. Solar is nice for those who live in sunny areas south of the 45th parallel. But as I noted, it is a passive system and is only good for heating water. For immediate benefits, nuclear is the best way to go, and the spent fuel problem is already solved as I noted above. Jim Whitney
no one has ever been able to explain to me just how we, as products of evolution, can possibly have sentience and self awareness.
(i understand and accept that humans evolved.
how come i am aware that i am jim whitney, a middle aged male, instead of being a young female named sarah smith?
Kid-A,
And it should challenge your faith. How could an ethical human choose to worship a deity willing to play such cruel games of chance with the lives of sentient beings?
I don't know that God is playing games. I do not profess to know what is on God's mind, nor do I see the big picture. In my own case, I was among those born with less than perfect health and in a poor environment. Yet, I do not blame God for it, nor do I resent not having perfect circumstances. In some ways, I feel rather blessed.
I would further add, what evidence do you have that sentience is reponsible for ones sense of self?
I never stated that sentience is responsible for self awareness. I treated them somewhat separately, those they are similar expressions.
Many other animals such as great apes and dolphins display rudimentary evidence of "self-awareness" yet are not classified as "sentient". Even cats and dogs display profoundly unique individual personalities in the absence of so-called "sentience". It is likely that sentience and human consciousness is merely an emergent property of a highly evolved cerebral cortex. One has no need to invoke supernatural explanations for neuronally explicable traits in humans.
Yes, recent studies on a breed of monkeys show that they have a sense of worth in a form of trade. They got quite upset when some among them were given more pebbles for the same work. They used pebbles to buy banannas and other goodies. Some chimps and other primates have been observed in the wild using tools to make tools. This is a huge level of advancement. Recently, a breed of gorilla was taught how to play computer games, and develop skills to win at Pac-Man.
I am not the one invoking supernatural explanations. I am merely observing and asking the questions. I do not, however, find that evolution explains our sense of self or sentience. I believe that something else is going on.
Finally, if humans do possess some entity called a "soul" that is produced by supernatural forces, how is it possible that such a "soul" could be vulnerable to physical damage? ... Often times, the person is no longer even recognizable as the same "persona" to those who once knew him or her. How could the "supernatural" be subject to the limitations of "natural" biological factors?
The soul is not vulnerable to physical damage. This is traditional Christian teaching. When the body is injured, the soul is not injured. The person inside the body does feel the pain because while they are alive they are united with their bodies. When the body is killed, the soul does not die but leaves the body and returns to the spirit realm.
One need only examine case studies of people that have suffered strokes, head trauma, etc etc to see how irreparably altered and "changed" a human personality can become following some "physical" trauma.
No, the soul is merely not able to properly use damaged equipment. The body is like a vehicle. If my car is damaged, then I am not able to drive it until it is repaired. If it is destroyed, I can never drive it again, but I live on. Traditional Christian thought is that our bodies are just a vehicle. This is why cases like Terry Schivo became so publicized, because some Christians believe that even though Terry could not use her body, she was still in it, and we must wait on God to release her. Others believed that her soul was gone and killing her body was acceptable.
For those who believe like the JWs, they are their body, for their soul and the body are the same, and therefore get damaged and die. While I cannot fully explain traditional teaching, I cannot accept JW teaching either. I believe that we are more than the sum parts of our bones, tissue, organs and blood. We have something in our nature that goes way beyond the mere physical. We have a spiritual nature that can see far beyond the physical.
Jim Whitney
no one has ever been able to explain to me just how we, as products of evolution, can possibly have sentience and self awareness.
(i understand and accept that humans evolved.
how come i am aware that i am jim whitney, a middle aged male, instead of being a young female named sarah smith?
No one has ever been able to explain to me just how we, as products of evolution, can possibly have sentience and self awareness. (I understand and accept that humans evolved.) How is it that you are you, and I am me? How come I am aware that I am Jim Whitney, a middle aged male, instead of being a young female named Sarah Smith? And Sarah Smith ended up being Jim Whitney? Are we mere products of our environment, making each of us unique and who we are? No. Because we can change our environment and make choices to change what we are into something else. However, our self-awareness remains the same. And it does not resolve the question as to how we end up in one environment and not in another environment with self-awareness that we are someone else. Note: If there is an evolutionary basis for self-awareness, then we must consider the possibility that animals, fish, insects, reptiles, and even plants might also be self-aware.
The JW soul: Looking back at how the Watchtower Society took away our soul and made us to be souls as a combine of our physical body, the air we breathe and some invisible energy that God gives us is fascinating. The Watchtower argument fits far better with pure godless evolution than any other doctrine. According to them, we are, afterall, just a mere product of the dirt of the earth, and our existence is strictly limited to our physical nature. We are merely an advanced beast of the animal kingdom. This view is devoid of meaning and too empty for me to consider ever again.
Did God give us a soul? I learned this growing up, that we are not just products of the natural forces of the earth, but we are individual souls created by God and put here on this earth for a purpose. We are assigned to a family and to a set of circumstances. This does not refute evolution, but merely makes our spiritual nature something not under the control of, or produced by, evolution. However, it makes God far more responsible for who we are and what circumstances we are placed in. In one case, the person is born healthy and placed into a family that is well off and in a nice environment. In another case, one is born with serious physical or mental defects and may not be in a nice environment ... and there are countless combinatioins and possibilities that exist. This view resolves the sentient, self-aware question, but creates a whole new set of more disturbing questions and challenges to my faith.
This post does not resolve the above questions ... but instead solicites your thoughts.
Jim Whitney
well everybody, i think a little update is in order here with what is going on in my world.
much has happened, and it appears that much more is going to happen quite quickly.
for those of you that don't know, the poster amber rose is my wife.
Drew,
Consider the option to play innocent ... and reset the fade clock. Here is what I mean: Don't meet with the Elders at the Hall, as it is their turf and they will be in their power mode. Invite them to come over for a shepherding visit. This way you get only two Elders and not a JC. This action changes the mood and forces them into a reconciliation mind-set. Offer them coffee and tea and let them bring up any "concerns." When they mention the YMCA, act surprised and declare that you were not sure that it was a problem, and that being away from the meetings must have made your thinking and your wife's thinking a little fuzzy on the matter. Before they come over, have your wife briefly resign from the YMCA. So when you and she are asked, your wife can tell them that she joined for some exercise classes, but then she realized that she does not have time for it after all. So, she already resigned. You take away their argument. They will of course counsel you and invite you back to meetings and ask that one of them study with you. Express repentance and assure them that you appreciate their shepherding visit and that you will be more careful about what organization you join in the future. Agree to return to the meetings but tell them that you will consider the study option. Go to the Sunday meetings for a time, and this will reset your fade clock.
Otherwise, you know that it is over. Talking to your relatives is, at best, simply going to confirm for them that you are for sure leaving the organization. This is a good step if you plan to end it. And in that case, there is no reason to talk to the Elders - ever.
Jim Whitney
<!-- .style1 {font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif} .style2 {font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; } .style3 { font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 18px; color: #0033cc; } .style4 { font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: #0033cc; } --> an open discussion about the bibleit has taken me a while to reconsider the bible after my watchtower experience.. to discount or discredit the bible because men have manipulated or tainted it .
would seem unfair to me.. the willingness to reconsider the biblei am debating whether to research the bible and have an open discussion about it.
the challenge i think is to do it without the influence from a religious source.
Wanderer,
First, I recommend studying the history of the Bible. You can read my posting on this topic at: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/128205/1.ashx where I discuss the formation of the NT Bible. Some of the posters also made some good contributions to the discussion. It may provide some good sources and help to understand that the what we call the New tetament today is really a development that started in the 4th century and continued on for many centuries until it was first printed in the 16th century.
Six of Nine:
To discount or discredit the Bible because men have manipulated or tainted it would seem unfair to me. ... How odd. It would be crazy and, well, "unfair" (to any ethical standard of personal honesty) not to discount the Bible for those reasons.
Can you provide an example of how the Bible has been "tainted" or manipulated?
Jim Whitney
not long ago, i caught the tale end of a show where this biologist believes that both apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor.
therefor there is no so-called "missing link".
has anyone heard about this theory?.
Mile,
As I understand it, the "missing link" refers to the transitional fossils of developing species that connect humans to some primate. We are actually closer in relationship ancestry to the Chimp then we are to Apes. The "missing link" is a term most often employed by young earth creationists, anti-evolutionist, and fundamentalists. We have on record today millions of fossiles and other related evidence that humans have been on this earth for hundreds of thousands of years and descended from the same common ancestor as our simeon and chimp cousins. Currently, in the islands around Indonesia, such as Flores, transitional fossiles are being discovered. What appears to be "hobbits" are also being discovered. Fossiles are very fragile and can be easily destroyed due to natural earth movements, weather and water damage. Also, they are not easily formed. So, one would not expect to find a lot of transitional or other fossiles. Yet, we do have a lot which help us in understanding our ancestry. We will find more examples of transitional fossiles that will help complete or closely complete the evolutionary development of humans. But it will not likely be in our lifetime.
Jim Whitney
my hubby and i have been doing a lot of bible reading are we correct by saying that jesus never once used the name jehovah?
if the name is so important surely jesus would have used it?
the jw's say that jesus was the greatest teacher and that we should follow his example so why are they using a name that jesus did not once refer to.
Pahpa: No where in any New Testament manuscript is the Hebrew name Yahweh (Jehovah, English) used. There are, however, some variations in some places, such as when Revelation uses Alelluia (meaning praise Yah). However, Jesus name (Yeshua) means "Yahweh is Salvation." The notion that when he quoted Hebrew scripture that contained the name Yahweh that he must has used the name is one possible support. Another possible support is found in John Chapter 17, where Jesus, in prayer, pointedly stated that he made his Father's name known to his disciples. We need to also consider that the New Testament shows that all name recognition has been transferred to the Son. Plus we have 2,000-years of Christian tradition focusing on Jesus name, and not Yahweh or Jehovah. Therefore, a better meaning of Jesus comments in John 17 may suggest the "name" he made known was in regards to God's reputation, or good name as we might call it, and not some formal pronounciation of a label we would call Yahweh or Jehovah.
Mad: You stated the following:
Due to the Jews believing the name too holy to be pronounced (especially since they knew they'd be using it in VAIN), ...
Jesus would not have submitted to such a tradition were it all that important to pronounce the Divine Name. But this superstition of the Jews that you reference is really irrelevant to the issue.
"... and also the the False Prophets that started swaying the early Christians ..."
Irrelevant. While there were some false prophets and heretics around, the Church Fathers were quite effective at combatting them. Also, Jesus promised that he would be with the Church all days up to the end of the world, and likewise he promised that the Holy Spirit would be there to teach and guide the Church. So to assume that somehow false prophets and Jewish superstition held sway over the Church is in effect calling Jesus Christ a liar.
" ... - and the fact that the original writings are long gone (only copies from later centuries- a few fragments believed to be close to the first century), we can't state a a FACT Jesus did or didn't."
This is also not a logical conclusion. The fragments, of which there are many thousands, some of which date back to the 2nd century, there is only minor variations in the copying. It makes no sense that somehow by the end of the first century all copyists around the then known world, from Jerusalem, to Alexandria, Egypt, to Spain, and Rome would have simultaneously conspired to eliminate the name Yahweh or Jehovah from the New Testament. If it were ever used it would have appeared in some of the texts. Jesus may well have used the name Yahweh, but it was not made important to the Christians, because the name Jesus was given above every name to humans as the name by which we must get saved.
However, knowing Christ, and the rest of the scriptures answers it for me- of course! No if Jesus were God, as the Catholic Dogma reigns in the minds of most church-goers, than maybe he didn't....However, Jesus HAS and SERVES a God- His "God & Father"!
Again, this vague reference to the Trinity doctrine is irrelevant to whether Jesus used the name Yahweh. While Jesus was a human he functioned in every respect as a human and his human nature was subordinated to the Father. He was not exerting his own Godship at that time. Paul said in Phillipians that Jesus took on a slave's form when he became human. So it would make sense that he would refer to the Father as his God. But this discussion needs a separate thread to properly develop.
Finally, you tell Dogpatch (Randy) that he should just summarize the informaton rather than quoting various scholars extensively. Randy made the quotes out of intellectual honesty so that we can see exactly what experts have said. This is academically the correct thing to do. Perhaps he oculd have opened with an abstract or executive summary, but in this type of very short post, what he did was just fine.
Jim Whitney
why does the watchtower exist in this modern day world?.
it started off because someone wanted power, authority and control.
are those still the main reasons?
KW13,
It started off because someone wanted power, authority and control. Are those still the main reasons? Is money or rather providing a good lifestyle for those at the top the main reason now?
It does not make sense that Watchtower started because someone wanted power, authority or control. Nor would money be the objective initially. Cahrles Taze Russell was the benefactor of his faither's clothing chain. It would make far more sense to have continued the family business, as this would provide plenty of power, money, and control.
Maybe its useful to have a Publishing Company to cover-up several operations as well as making money.
Possibly, but that may be putting the cart before the horse. The publishing company was simply the vehicle that Russell used to market his books. Although initially the Society used outside printers up into Rutherford's time. The Finished Mystery, for example, was printed and bound by an outside company in Hammond, Indiana. As the Society grew and decided to self-contain most all of its operations from printing, binding, shipping, and even food production, it needed additional corporations. They are self-insured, and extend their coverage for cars of Circuit and District Overseers. Of course, over time it has developed well over 100 corporations. Some years ago I was the first person to publish a list of the majority of these corporations. The Society has created more since that time, and others have identified these. They do not, to my knowledge cover-up their other operations and corporations. But, I believe that they have lost their original vision and maybe some of them are being used for purposes other than what they openly represent.
Why does the Watchtower exist in this modern day world?
The Watchtower exist, in part, because one man believed that God was using him to reveal truth. Whether this was an elevated ego, or for some altruistic reason is anyone's guess. But, it is safe to say that the Watchtower is among the many Bible groups that emerged out of the 1800s at a time when higher criticism of the Bible and religioin was developing. Also the emergence of various social and political philosophies such as communism created new challenges that taxed traditional religious views. The existing mainline Protestant and Catholic churches were not completely able to rise to the challenge fast enough. Whereas Eastern Orthodox did not really suffer the same developments in their part of the world and they continued on largely unscathed and undivided.
The reason that the Watchtower has been able to continue on after many prophectic and teaching errors is that they became skilled at adaptation. This, I believe, was learned during Rutherford's administration and was perfected under Fred Franz. Ray Franz, his nephew, made reference to this in his books when he quoted comments by other Governing Body members that his uncle Fred was able to engage in very creative ways of interpretation and reasoning (not the exact words, but captures the thought). Organizations of any kind tend to not have an exit or closure strategy when their mission is accomplished. So they seem very adept at finding new ways to continue operations when the initial reason for their existence no longer remains. For example, the North Atlantic Treaty Organizaton (NATO) was formed after WWII as the response to contain the spread of Soviet communism. That threat ended in the 1990s when the Soviet Union collapsed into its original 15 republics, and many other communist nations and the Warsaw pact left the communist block. Yet, here was are many years later with NATO still finding reasons to exist and function with relevance. Likewise, I have no doubt that the Watchtower Society has succumbed to this same trend in these modern times.
Jim Whitney
