Posts by Liberty II

42

How does the Society refute the 607/1914 discrepancy?

by ithinkisee in

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/55372/1.ashx

i loooove this simple 607 bce explanation by alleymom.

(thank you if you are reading.

Liberty II

Hi scholar,

I am still confused. What if I buy your chronolgy 100%. I am still left with a big SO WHAT. What difference does it make since 1914 is rendered meaningless by the passage of time. Do you really think Christ rules invisibly for 91 years but does nothing? Surely, even you don't believe this? 1914's relationship to the "Last Days" is as meaningless as 1814 or 1492 if the "Last Days" stretch on for hundreds of years. The Watchtower cult simply ran out of time. This is FACT not opinion. You really don't see this?

42

How does the Society refute the 607/1914 discrepancy?

by ithinkisee in

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/55372/1.ashx

i loooove this simple 607 bce explanation by alleymom.

(thank you if you are reading.

Liberty II

Thanks for the link Leolaia! Your explaination is much clearer than anything the WT Society has ever come up with.

42

How does the Society refute the 607/1914 discrepancy?

by ithinkisee in

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/55372/1.ashx

i loooove this simple 607 bce explanation by alleymom.

(thank you if you are reading.

Liberty II

Scholar,

The real important point to be made is not the " how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" details of these dates but rather the plain cold reality that it doesn't matter. 1914 is a useless date. NOTHING HAPPENED. Christ did not return and does not rule "invisibly" for the last 91 years doing nothing. What has he done? Even the WT Society has given up on this date as a marker for the big "A". It is a useless date rendered so by the passage of time and not apostate opinion. Do you understand? It doesn't matter. If Jesus came back 91 years ago what is he waiting for? The Bible didn't say he'd return and then do nothing! Why is this date important to you since your own leadership is trying to put it behind them?

12

What was actually printed about 1925?

by confusedjw in

i've seen folks reference 1925 concerning "end of the world" claims from the wt similar to 1975.. i've read quotes from the wt about "the 1925 date is even more fixed in the bible than 1914".

but what did they really say was going to happen?

something about moses was said i think.. can anyone with references post them?

Liberty II

All of the information above is just more evidence that the entire JW/Watchtower religion is founded on absolute fantasy. Another JW belief which is also pure fiction concerns the WT Society claim that their "Good News will be preached to the entire inhabited World, and then the End will come". The fact that the population is growing faster everyday means that it is literally not possible to contact every person in the world even once with the relative handfull of active JWs who would find a whole new group of uncontacted adults appearing in the lag time of their ministry rotations. This doesn't even take into account the political and cultural barriers impentatrable to Western Philosophies like Watchtowerism. At this rate the big "A" would always be postponed to infinity, making the whole reason for being a JW (warning of the people of the World about the End ) irrelivant. If there was really a Jehover who had any fairness He could never bring the big "A" because there are now and always will be millions of people who have never had a chance to repent even if they wanted to.

77

What I remember from 1975

by Big Dog in

since i am sort of late to the party this has probably been beaten to death and if it has just kick this thread to the curb.

i was 11 years old in 1975 and i remember being scared silly the whole year.

i mean there was so much hype about it and the tension in the air was so thick it was unreal.

Liberty II

Thanks BigDog,

I suppose the same thing happened after the big disappointments of 1874,1914,1925, and the 1940's (WWII marked the start of the "End" to Rutherford). The JWs always manage to sweep it under the rug and pretend it never happened. I'm just baffled by their ability to hold two exact opposet thoughts as true at the same time: "we never predicted the End was coming but we are here to warn you that the End is coming soon" or "my congregation never made a big deal out of 1975 but we sure preached the Good News to save lives" . If the End is not near how are you saving lives? If the Big "A" isn't imminent what is the Good News and why is it urgently being preached? How can you be a good "lockstep" JW who supports the "Worldwide Unity of the Brotherhood" and then claim that a basic important teaching directly from the leadership was something you never believed in?

77

What I remember from 1975

by Big Dog in

since i am sort of late to the party this has probably been beaten to death and if it has just kick this thread to the curb.

i was 11 years old in 1975 and i remember being scared silly the whole year.

i mean there was so much hype about it and the tension in the air was so thick it was unreal.

Liberty II

What a lot of the JWs who claim that 1975 was never a big deal forget is just how tied in it was with the 1914 Generation Doctrine. This "Generation Doctrine" was well understood by any JW worth his salt. It (1975) clearly was the real upper limit of time for the official W.T. Society teaching about the 1914 Generation back then. That Generation who saw and understood the importance of the signs of Christ's Presence in 1914 were said to have been adults and at the very least teenagers then. This would have made even a very young 14 year old from 1914 a ripe old 75 in 1975. A Biblical generation (as taught by the W.T. Society then) had a limit of about 70 years. I remember clearly that the talk in the late 1960's and ealy 70's was that we would, in all likelyhood, already be past the big "A" and living in "the New World" by 1975. This kept getting pushed back and revised as nothing happened so that by about 1973 the start of the "Great Tribulation" was said to begin somewhere before 1975. This was revised again as the date was rushing upon us and some wiggle room was allowed by reducing the low end age of "The Generation" and by claiming Eve may have been created later than originally thought. Eve's creation date ties in the other key "evidence" used by the Society to pin point the "Time Of The End" and that would be how the length of Jehover's resting period of 6,000 years was coming to it's end around 1975 so Christ could rule as Lord of the Sabboth for the last 1,000 years of this 7,000 year "Day".

Any JWs back in the late 60's or early 70's who claim they were not expecting anything were either not very well aquainted with their study material or were just flagrant Apostates. I find it impossible to believe that any "spiritually mature" JW from this time period was not expecting a huge event of some kind in the early to mid 1970's. I think Englishman is right in saying that many now have "selective memories" when it comes to the immense disappointment surrounding 1975. Only very "unspiritual" brothers who were not "close to the fold" would not have understood the Society's not so subtle warnings about the mid 70's. This really was the whole essense of the entire JW movement! If they were not expecting the "Big A" then we all might as well have been Methodists. Otherwise, what was the point of being a JW? Knowing we were in the "Time of the End" is what we were selling for the Watchtower Society!

234

Intelligent Design

by Delta20 in

hey all,.

i am currently studying the topic of intelligent design (id).

basically the id theory is the revival of the teleological argument for the existance of a deity.

Liberty II

Yes, we do grasp logic and agree. Our explainations were clear. Logic is a product of the human mind. It is a tool humans use to explore and understand the objective truths of the Universe to the best ability of each of our subjective minds. The boundry between the sane and insane or the rational and irrational is in the subjective mind's ability to understand some observations about objective reality and that these are universal. Sane humans can agree upon the majority of logical observations we make.

The Sun is hot, lava is hot, boiling water is hot and everyone in the world who is sane accepts the objective fact that this is reality. We will get burned if we touch these and those who refuse to believe it are burned despite their belief. Not even Asian mystics can submerge themselves in lava and then come out unharmed. Lava will kill you if you swim in it. It is illogical to believe otherwise. It does not matter that our minds are subjective. Real facts are real facts and we have used millions of years of evolutionary experiance to build a system which tests and solidifies an objective reality which is understandable to subjective undamaged minds.

I don't claim to have the definitive definition of Logic but I understand enough about our agreed upon universal concepts to observe and draw logical conclusions about the natural universe. There is no compelling evidence for the existance of God. Sane people have not yet presented any proof of their God to skeptical sane people. The subjective feeling is different for the sane believers and the sane nonbelievers but the rules of evidence (logic?) should apply to God (as they do to lava) if He wants to be a real part of our lives. We all feel the heat, see the glow, hear the steam hiss,are burned, and realize lava has mass and substance. Lava is a real natural objective reality, God does not exist in this realm of objective reality. God remains unseen, unheard, unfelt, and inactive. Even believers agree that God is supernatural, beyond nature, not of this world, and without substance.

If I believe in God I must accept that He is beyond all my physical senses and just accept that He is. I am no longer capable of this and think it foolish of Him to demand such reasonless faith since it goes against everything I have learned about His own creation, the physical Universe. Why not believe in the Great Pumpkin, Zeus,Odin, or The Invisible Pink Unicorn if these are beyond the rules of logic and reason? Are they all not equally unprovable and therefore equally worthy of our worship and belief as the Western concept of God? If we exemt God from the rules of evidence then shouldn't every imaginary thing my subjective mind can conjure be equally considered as "real"?

234

Intelligent Design

by Delta20 in

hey all,.

i am currently studying the topic of intelligent design (id).

basically the id theory is the revival of the teleological argument for the existance of a deity.

Liberty II

Hi elderwho,

I, like many posters here, am not sure just what it is you are trying to communicate. I suppose it could be that God is logic? In any case your overly convoluted arguments about logic could be taken as a dodge of the real subject at hand, which is basically about the evidence for God's existance. I.D. proponents claim their evidence for God is that the Universe is far too complex to have come into being without an intelligent creator. The problem with this "evidence" is that God Himself is magically excempted from this otherwise absolute law. This is all fine and good except that many of us skeptics refuse to accept the absurd notion that it is OK for God to appear fully formed from the ethers without an intellegent creator when we are told by His supporters that we MUST accept that our natural Universe could not have done the same. There it is in a nut shell, plain and simple.

I really don't think you would be foolish (illogical?) enough to pay me your live savings for a baptism in my Invisible Pink Unicorn urine (which is so magical that it too is without physical substance) which, by your faith in the Invisible Pink Unicorn, would grant you eternal life. You would be justifiably skeptical of my claims and would demand some evidence. I could state that the fact you exist at all is the best evidence for the Invisible Pink Unicorn's reality. It does not take a complex understanding of logic to see that this is not good evidence for throwing away your life savings. Remove God and your Bible from it's cultural/traditional "logic protection box" and you can see how closely they resemble the Invisible Pink Unicorn. You don't believe in Zeus, Jupitor, Odin, Allah, or Shiva because these gods are outside your "logic excempt box" as well and since they are inactive, silent, and invisible they do not present any compelling evidence making them worthy of your belief. I too could say you must believe in Zeus because He made this complex Universe and the logic systems which govern it. How is your God any different?

234

Intelligent Design

by Delta20 in

hey all,.

i am currently studying the topic of intelligent design (id).

basically the id theory is the revival of the teleological argument for the existance of a deity.

Liberty II

Hi D Dog,

Logic is the system which makes communication possible and gives form to human thought. Logic has evolved along with human intellegence. There must be a consistant base for thought processes to compare facts and observations against, otherwise our thoughts become muddled nonsense. We all must agree to certain standards of objective reality, hence the reason insane people cannot hold conversations or build lasting relationships. Ultimately logic is made up of all the rules we have learned for communicating and getting along with others. If your employer says he'll pay you every Friday but then claims he can't pay you because he doesn't believe in Fridays it would not take you long to end this relationship and find an employer who could be relied on to follow the rules of logic.

When I dared to apply the everyday rules of logic to Watchtowerism and then eventually to the Bible and God Himself I found that none of these added up. I would not buy a product with my hard earned money which was invisible, silent, and inactive unless I had good evidence which proved it could benifit me in some way. There is no such evidence for God so why would I buy into such a silly concept? Remove religion and its scriptures and gods from their logic protected cultural/traditional box and they are easily seen to be frauds that otherwise smart folks such as yourself would never buy into. Which is why Western Christians won't believe in Islam, Roman mythology, or the Easter Bunny because they are not protected from our logical skepticism, unlike our own religion/god.

234

Intelligent Design

by Delta20 in

hey all,.

i am currently studying the topic of intelligent design (id).

basically the id theory is the revival of the teleological argument for the existance of a deity.

Liberty II

Thanks seattleniceguy for the welcome.

The purpose of my post was simply to explain how I came to my own conclusions about whether God exists or not by allowing myself to be exposed to rational/scientific thinking after years of Christian/JW brainwashing. The problem many Theists face in understanding our point of view is that they are woefully ignorant of science and how it works. I know I was before reading up on the subject and then taking University classes.

There is no "word game" to win or tactics to "outsmart" the sloppy language used by an opponent in a contest debate. This subject is so important that only reality and clear thinking should prevail and not debating skills or points for misused words. I am not interested in who is the most skilled and eloquent writer but rather in how the arguments stack up against the natural Universe I am experiancing for real during my life.

God may well exist, but He has chosen to remain invisible, silent, and inactive. At the same time He has given us as our only evidence for His existance a Universe which is chaotic, illogical, cruel, and filled with constant and violent change. If the Bible is His true guide book, then it presents us with many huge contradictions since He is said to be unchanging, loving, just, and that we were made in his image. If humans are able to think and behave rationally and to contruct logic systems then shouldn't the Universe reflect these qualities as well? How could a reasonable God demand our full belief in Him as a condition for our salvation by offering such flimsy and contradictory evidence?

It is also possible that our own dark and irrational natures and the cruel chaotic Universe are a reflection of the Creator but if that is the case His promises of salvation would be unreliable and belief in Him would be pointless in any case.