Posts by OldSoul

50

Personal "God" and self-representation

by Narkissos in

jw
friends

it is commonly assumed that monotheism, in its jewish, christian and moslem forms, resulted in (or was related to) a specific development of human self-representation.

before a unique creator and judge the individual had to stand as an indivisible unit (e.g.

the "soul" in the middle ages) which was either justified or condemned, either saved or lost.

OldSoul

jst2laws: However it does boil down to what is consciousness. Personally, I think it is less local than the confines of my organic, parallel processor on my shoulders.

Won't it be grand when we artificially fabricate those organic, parallel processors and thereby establish that we may well be artificial fabricants?

I kid.

I do not think consciousness can be confined to a purely objective definition, so my answer to, "What is consciousness?" would be, "It isn't." Consciousness has always defied attempts at objective definition, yet everyone behaves as though consciousness is a reality. This lack of objectivity is what renders all discussion of consciousness moot to most realists. I find it funny that these same realists are quick to accept many other concepts that defy objective definition, so long as there is social or scientific consensus to a degree sufficient to cause them to accept them.

Typically, these abstract but nonetheless "real" concepts such as temperature, qauntity, and derivations stemming from the like are nothing more than an elaborate system of agreed upon ideas built on other agreed upon ideas. If anyone decides to stop agreeing with those ideas they are immediately labeled "crackpot" or worse, when they have really done nothing worse than expose the underlying lack of basis for a generally held idea.

They have exposed it simply by behaving as though the concept(s) aren't reality, which requires those who observe the results to establish their basis for belief that the concept(s) are realities. In my experience, that reaction usually results in a headache because concepts like consciousness are greater than "reality."

In my opinion, trying to mentally force such concepts into a box too small just for our own convenience can be hazardous to our health. I believe that the greatest strides forward in science throughout history are the result of allowing for concepts to be grander than the current definitions and limitations of what we call reality.

Respectfully,
OldSoul

12

why are there

by sad and lonely in

jw
friends

why are there people in here bashing the witnesses?

OldSoul

Thought to ponder:

Suppose you camped overnight by a stream. The next day an old mountaineer trudges down from upstream telling you that the source of that stream was a cool crystal clear mountain spring and that the water was totally safe to drink. You feel your mouth begin to salivate at the idea of fresh water. You begin drinking from the stream and it is indeed very refreshing.

As the man comes back up the mountain, he is in a very foul mood. He regales you with a tale about another group of campers downstream that he found. They were very disrespectful of nature. They were also disrespectful of his age and experience. They all shot him birds when he told them they could safely drink from that stream. He walked on in a huff.

That afternoon you decide to hike upstream to find the source. Along the way, you catch sight of that same old man urinating directly into the stream. You mention how you think that is an awful thing to do and that it makes you suspect he was trying to trick you into drinking from the stream. The old man just gives you a conspiritorial wink and tells you he was really just trying to pollute the water source for those downstream.

The question: Would you keep drinking from downstream, or would you try to camp by the source and drink from there?

I was advised that the Devil was behind my being stumbled over this NGO issue. There was no apology, there was no repentance of any kind exhibited, there was no candid admission of error. Only an inference that I was spiritually lacking and that I must be looking for a reason to doubt.

That is the opposite of what the scriptures teach regarding responsibility to avoid stumbling others. Jesus said it would better for someone to have a millstone tied around their neck and be pitched into the sea than for them to stumble a little one. Apparently, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society doesn't think those consequences for behavior apply to them. Apparently, Schizm and others would rather overlook any and all impropriety than correct and clean the organization. That appears hypocritical to me.

Respectfully,
OldSoul

12

why are there

by sad and lonely in

jw
friends

why are there people in here bashing the witnesses?

OldSoul

sad and lonely,

If you follow the directions at 1 John 4:1 you will question uncomfortable things to question and decide some things uncomfortable to decide. In my opinion, your question shows that you have begun to think of an organization as Christ's brothers. It appears that you view our posts challenging that organization and its behavior as beating up on the brothers of Christ.

However, it is not beating up on them to examine their actions for evidence of love without hypocrisy and share our findings with others. We have posting here one "Schizm," an advocate for the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, who tells us that what looks like hypocrisy, carries the fetid stench of hypocrisy, behaves exactly like hypocrisy, is not hypocrisy. He uses a different name for it: Theocratic Warfare.

The term "Theocratic Warfare" is an organizational excuse for hypocrisy. It is a contrived carte blanche for the organization to stumble anyone without any reprimand from the person of Jehovah. It is the best example I can think of as proof of a lack of faith.

There is nothing in the Bible that would indicate that it is alright for any "Christian" organization to voluntarily attach as an Affiliate to any government. Yet, I received a letter from "Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses" that admits the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society did exactly that for 10 years - a full one-fifteenth (1/15) of the "modern-day" existence of the Bible Students/Jehovah's Witnesses. Of course, without any admission of wrongdoing the letter also says that as soon as they realized the Criteria for Association included criteria a Christian could not adopt they disassociated themselves.

Now, that admission is interesting. The first and primary criterion is, "The NGO must support and respect the principles of the Charter of the UN and have a clear mission statement that is consistent with those principles." This has been the primary criterion since 1968, it isn't new. If you were deciding whether this would be a criterion you could accept as a Christian, would you find it an appropriate Association to enter into?

The purpose of affiliation to the UN/DPI is very simple: Disseminating information about the UN. It is obvious that the UN would only admit organizations that it believed were capable of and willing to accomplish that objective. It is impossible to stretch the imagination to the point of believing that materials submitted along with the preliminary or the subsequent formal application included articles painting the UN as the Image of the Wild Beast or the disgusting thing that causes desolation.

So the first and most logically obvious criterion would prevent any loyal Jehovah's Witness from Affiliating to the UN/DPI, but affiliate the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society did! In the very year that Watchtower printed an article exposing Christendom's representation at the UN ("Their Refuge-A Lie!" 1991). What kind of relationship did Christendom have to the UN? Why they were NGO Affiliates to the UN/DPI! (see the new OD book, page 155, regarding behaviors indicating Disassociation from Christianity)

Is stating facts a form of abuse? I say, rather, hiding facts from those who deserve to know is a form of abuse. It is also a sign of secrecy, which Schizm seems proud of. However, secrecy is the soul of the word "cult," a name s/he would be quick to throw off from Jehovah's Witnesses.

Outright hypocrisy is not something one woud expect to see in the recent history of an organization claiming spirit-direction in the final part of the Last Days. If this organization is a central part of the mountain of the house of Jehovah that has been lifted up, why is it still dirtying itself with political elements of this old system?

The light growing brighter in the 50s and 60s led to a 1963 Resolution forever denouncing the UN and stating that "[this organization] will never" become part of it. Did the light suddenly go dim in November 1991 only to brighten again in 2001? Odd behavior for light that gets increasingly brighter, don't you think?

So, in closing, I do not abuse individual Jehovah's Witnesses. More often, I pity them. They are sheep without their shepherd, slaving under a Pharisaical system. Just like Jesus, I rail against the system they are slaving under. (Matthew 23) And I won't apologize for doing so. I have no doubt at all that Jesus would have long since been disfellowshipped for apostasy in any congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Respectfully,
OldSoul

300

A comment I heard tonight

by Generic Man in

tonight i heard one of the most cruel and twisted comments i've ever heard at the platform.

the topic was the apocalypse and whether or not children will be slaughtered.

through one side of his mouth, the po stated that the bible is not clear on the matter, while out the other side he pointed to all those old testament accounts where children were killed.

OldSoul

Schizm,

You mentioned that the concept of "Theocratic Warfare" is one that many Bible characters engaged in with Jehovah's blessing. While I can think of examples in ~~pre-Christian times~~ pre-Mosaic Law times, I disagree utterly with your view from the Law of Moses forward. No servants of Jehovah were rewarded for deceit from that time forward. I invite you to offer any example that demonstrates otherwise.

Please do not embarrass yourself by citing Rahab (a Jerichite harlot at the time of her deceit) or the Gibeonites (persons who were slated for destruction by God but gratefully accepted a slightly reduced sentence of perpetual servitude due to their certainty of Jehovah's ability).

I would need a reference to any account involving intentional deception and/or direct contravention of God's directions to his people by the leadership of Israel, by Jesus, or by the early Christian congregation that resulted in Jehovah's favor and blessing. The reference would also need to be one you consider an example of waging "Theocratic Warfare" of the sort you believe to have been involved in the UN/DPI issue.

I caution you in advance: I have dozens of contrary examples to provide, where persons in positions of leadership were handed heavier consequences for contravening standards for the people. My belief is that you have a grand total of zero accounts to support your statements from the Mosaic Law forward. Both Abraham and Jacob might give you some wiggle room but for the fact that neither had any law from Jehovah to violate beyond circumcision.

I look forward to a thoroughly considered reply. I do hope you will not continue embarrassing yourself and letting me down with another pompous but ultimately empty reply.

OldSoul

5

Last Sunday's WT-study feb 15 p. 19

by Samuel Thorsen in

jw
friends

.

does anyone have this mag i english?.

then please type for us the question for paragraph 10 page 19. it's amazing in norwegian...

OldSoul

iiz2cool: Even within the organization only the Governing Body have access to God's spirit. Everyone else has access only to their publications.

Would that it was so simple. The members of the Governing Body do not claim to have any special direction from holy spirit, nor do they state that any of the Faithful and Discreet Slave? (All Rights Reserved, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc.) have any special direction from holy spirit.

They teach that the Holy Spirit does not operate in such a direct way anymore, although there is no indication in the Bible of it ever working in any other way. They teach that Holy Spirit is now guiding an organization, thus the term "spirit-directed organization" (see the two questions asked of baptismal candidates since 1985). While the Catholic church injects a person or two between the individual and Christ, Jehovah's Witnesses inject a huge, ungainly, nebulously defined organization between the individual and Christ.

The Greek Scriptures from Bible direct people to three sources for knowledge and understanding: prayer, Holy Spirit, and study of the Bible. At no time does the Bible direct persons to either the Governing Body or to a Faithful and Discreet Slave for knowledge and understanding.

On one occasion, in the book of Ephesians, Paul mentioned that things would be made known through the congregation...but the books of both Ephesians and 1 Corinthians show plainly how that knowledge would be made known. It did not take the form of regular communications from the Governing Body handed down, sometimes directly and sometimes through District or Lesser Overseers, to the lowly elder bodies as directives for the (even lowlier) publishers.

Regarding the Faithful and Discreet Slave, we lowly publishers are presented with a true logical dilemma. It could even be appropriately referred to as a conundrum, since conjecture is the only source for an answer. Identifying the brothers of Christ is presented in the Bible as a requirement for salvation yet we have no means to identify them except as a group.

In the First Century, the brothers of Christ were reportedly known to each other through gifts of the spirit. We have the example of Cornelius and his family who were only baptized after Peter and those with him recognized that they were among the brothers of the Christ. How did Peter recognize them? Was it by their piety? By their kindness? By their long-suffering? How about by their love?

Their identifcation of Christ's brothers was easily obtained because, to quote a common reference work that describes the occasion, "the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God."

After that, Peter reportedly said, "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" Let's see, if memory serves that is recorded somewhere in or about Acts 10. And thus, the other sheep-the Gentiles-began to be gathered. (John 10:16)

How did First Century Christians recognize Christ's brothers? If, in our day, I must discern them-although in the First Century each individual's identity as one of Christ's brothers was patently obvious-what conclusion must I arrive at?

This: If the Bible is to be believed, then the wheat is still growing with the weeds, which would mean we are still in the throes of the Apostasy. It is either prideful or wishful thinking to arrive at any other conclusion. The apostasizing of the WTS away from scriptural truths is no different from that of any other organized religion in our day.

Attaching the organization to the UN/DPI as an Affiliate, an Associate, a Partner, or anything else met the criteria for diassociation according to both OM and OD.

When the Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses? (Patent Pending, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc.) disassociated itself from its own teachings for 10 years (a full one-fifteenth of its "modern-day" existence), to where did it go away? That is the question they ask others, isn't it?

Respectfully,
OldSoul

300

A comment I heard tonight

by Generic Man in

tonight i heard one of the most cruel and twisted comments i've ever heard at the platform.

the topic was the apocalypse and whether or not children will be slaughtered.

through one side of his mouth, the po stated that the bible is not clear on the matter, while out the other side he pointed to all those old testament accounts where children were killed.

OldSoul

:And, as I've already said: It was nothing more than "theocratic warfare," waged for a purpose that I won't disclose to you.
What a disgusting JW liar. Try telling a judicial commitee that you joined the YMCA because you are conducting top secret "theocratic warfare" and see how far that gets your dumb ass.
GBL

Schism: You're not comparing apples to apples, "dumb ass".

Let's examine your hypothesis:

Association with the YMCA requires money. Is that what makes membership apostasy? No. According to Question From Readers discussing the appropriateness of such a relationship, it is the voluntary implication of acceptance of the purposes and objectives of the YMCA that makes it apostasy. No money would need be involved. So let's rule out that as a standard.

The YMCA is not a religion. It is not a "religious" organization in the strict sense, although it is certainly supported primarily by religions and has many religious objectives. Is this what makes membership apostasy? Again, the fact that the organization has religious objectives does not in itself make membership apostasy?it is actually the implication of support for those objectives that makes membership the equivalent of apostasy and an act of disassociation.

Now, let's compare to the orange...or is it the apple?

Association with the UN/DPI does not require money. As we have seen, that is an unimportant factor.

The UN is considered to be a government, however no purely voluntary relationship with any government is acceptable for any of Jehovah's Witnesses. Worldwide, many relationships that are required by law are unacceptable simply by reason of the unacceptable obligations imposed through criteria for the relationship.

What is left? The apples are right next to the apples. The same factor that makes YMCA membership apostate is the factor that makes UN/DPI membership/association/partnering/affiliation an act of apostasy. Implication of support for the objectives and principles of an organization under judgement by God.

In a legal and moral sense the terms member, associate, partner, and affiliate mean nearly the same thing. In fact, the similarity between terms is so close that they are frequently used interchangably to describe relationships between entities. In the case of the UN/DPI, there is not even an implication to concern ourselves with. There is a definitely expressed requirement to support the objectives and principles of the UN and the Charter of the UN. This requirement has been present as a condition of affiliation with the UN/DPI since 1968, it is not new.

This being the case, the principle making membership with the YMCA an act of apostasy is the identical principle that makes application to become an Affiliated NGO associated to the UN/DPI an act of apostasy. (James 4:4) I say the application is the act in question because that is what marks the desire. At least, that is how the June 1, 1991 Watchtower article, "Their Refuge?A Lie!" applied the counsel to Christendom. Was that counsel merely more "spiritual warfare" that should be ignored? The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society became an organization accredited to the UN when they accepted and used credentials provided by the UN/DPI, thereby proving acceptance of the terms of such association.

OldSoul

300

A comment I heard tonight

by Generic Man in

tonight i heard one of the most cruel and twisted comments i've ever heard at the platform.

the topic was the apocalypse and whether or not children will be slaughtered.

through one side of his mouth, the po stated that the bible is not clear on the matter, while out the other side he pointed to all those old testament accounts where children were killed.

OldSoul

Schizm,

I asked you a direct question. You seem to be in a position to know the answer. Please answer it clearly for everyone reading this thread.

"Now, teach me on this point if I am wrong: If I joined the UN/DPI wouldn't I be voluntarily joining myself to an organization that has purposes contrary to God's will and that is under judgment by God?"

Does the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society have different rules of conduct for itself than those the Governing Body imposes on Jehovah's Witnesses? Why, for instance, can I not choose to wage my own personal "spiritual warfare" campaigns that include agreeing to things directly contrary to the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses?

See, the Bible specifically talks about those who would impose heavy burdens of conduct on others and exempt themselves from those burdens. Do you know who referred to such a situation? That would be Jesus. Since he clearly identified the Pharisees as those who would do such things and since there is no First Century indication of double-standards for the organization, I have no choice but to conclude that those who impose more stringent codes of conduct on others than they themselves are willing to adhere to must be Pharisaical. God would not use such an organization, just as he was not using such an arrangement in Jesus' day. According to the Bible, his spirit would flee from such an organization.

Those presuming to teach others differently than they themselves believe would mark themselves hypocrites in their doing, combatants against truth, and deceivers. Such ones could only lead people to one eventuality. Such ones would mark themselves as blind guides, shutting up the kingdom of the heavens from before men.

I ask again, "If I joined the UN/DPI wouldn't I be voluntarily joining myself to an organization that has purposes contrary to God's will and that is under judgment by God?" In other words, is there any scriptural basis for this concept of an organization engaging in "spiritual warfare" that would include suspending accountability to God's Word while the organization adopts a status contrary to both God's Word and its own teachings?

It is fine if you prefer not to answer...I understand your hesitation. My question is direct and uncomfortable, I am sure. It asks for basis in Scripture for your view and you have none.

OldSoul

300

A comment I heard tonight

by Generic Man in

tonight i heard one of the most cruel and twisted comments i've ever heard at the platform.

the topic was the apocalypse and whether or not children will be slaughtered.

through one side of his mouth, the po stated that the bible is not clear on the matter, while out the other side he pointed to all those old testament accounts where children were killed.

OldSoul

Schizm: You're completely full of BS, you know that? The WTS's "association" with the UN was done for strategic reasons alone. The WTS didn't "hang with" the UN organization. It was nothing more than "theocratic warfare," waged for a purpose that I won't disclose to you. Your claim that the WTS has compromised it neutral policy is a bunch of hooey!

Ahhh... okay, so for "strategic reasons" why could no Jehovah's Witness sign a form renouncing their faith under Hitler's regime? If they didn't mean it, it should have been fine, right? Who is really full of it Schizm? Think carefully before answering...

What "strategy" was involved in a ten year long relationship with the UN/DPI? Please explain your theory fully ... <cricket> ... <cricket> Just like the WTS, you have no clear, open, CANDID explanation (see "Candor" and "proof of Bible authenticity). You have even less of an explanation, because yours is simply guesswork, i.e. pure unadulterated conjecture.

OldSoul

300

A comment I heard tonight

by Generic Man in

tonight i heard one of the most cruel and twisted comments i've ever heard at the platform.

the topic was the apocalypse and whether or not children will be slaughtered.

through one side of his mouth, the po stated that the bible is not clear on the matter, while out the other side he pointed to all those old testament accounts where children were killed.

OldSoul

To "hang" with another person or group of persons suggests that they approve of one another and consider one another as friends.

Good point, Schizm! I applaud your ability to cut straight to the heart of an issue.

I take it you have taken that understanding and applied it fully to the terms "Associate" as in the verb, both transitive and intransitive, and as in the adjective. I encourage you to also apply that understanding to the noun and verb forms of "Affiliate" and "Affiliated." Follow that by applying it to the term "Partner" in its various denotations and connotations.

Once you have done that, think carefully about what it means to be an Associate/Affiliate/Partner of the UN/DPI. Then consider the first and primary criterion for association with the UN/DPI (since 1968):

"The NGO must support and respect the principles of the Charter of the UN and have a clear mission statement that is consistent with those principles." (http://www.un.org/dpi/ngosection/brochure.htm)

Add to this, Article 1 of the Charter of the UN:

The Purposes of the United Nations are:
To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
(http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter1.htm)

Now, teach me on this point if I am wrong: If I joined the UN/DPI wouldn't I be voluntarily joining myself to an organization that has purposes contrary to God's will and that is under judgment by God? What does your OM book call such a relationship on page 151? How about the OD book, did the stand change at all? Examine carefully the scriptures used by both publications to prove the point (Isaiah 2:4; Revelation 19:17-21) ... it looks to me like maybe "hanging" with the UN/DPI is worthy of an announcement ... don't you think?

OldSoul

38

Archaeologists in Ethiopia discover 12 fossils around 4 million years old

by hawkaw in

jw
friends

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsarticle.jhtml?type=sciencenews&storyid=7815576&section=news&src=rss/uk/sciencenews

ethiopia archaeologists make important fossil find sat mar 5, 2005 12:03 pm gmt

addis ababa (reuters) - archaeologists studying human origins in eastern ethiopia have discovered 12 fossils that appear to be older than the famous fossil "lucy," the team leader said on saturday.

OldSoul

AlanF,

: As to my being anti-evolutionist, I wasn't aware I held that viewpoint.

AlanF: Nor was I.

Yes, you said the earth is old. But you also suggested that you think radioisotope decay rates change. Young-earth creationists are the only anti-evolutionists who make that claim, so far as I know. It's one of their foundation arguments against the validity of radioactive dating.

Since you wondered whether I was a Young Earther, or had been reading their publications, it seemed from this statement you thought I might be an anti-evolutionist. That is not the case.

AlanF: I'm not sure you know what you believe.

I agree with you here. I am definitely not sure I know what I believe, which is really the point of my first post on this topic. I really have only developed one strict belief, as far as I am aware: Since all of our beliefs are based on an admittedly misunderstood concept of reality?physical universe inclusive?if anyone is sure they know what they believe those beliefs are inherently highly suspect and conclusions drawn from them, while serviceable enough for the short term, are likely wrong.

From my personal experience and observation, and from lengthy consideration of mankind's historical progression in understanding, I have not even seen an iota that would contraindicate this belief.

AlanF: So far as I can see, it boils down to your emotionally based discomfort with long ages for the universe, since you don't seem to be able to provide any data to give a foundation in reality for your discomfort.

You assumed again that I have some discomfort with an old universe which would again imply I have some discomfort with very old humanity. That is not the case. It has never been the case. I haven't posted anything to indicate that it was the case. So far all I see is emotional reactions based on your assumption that I have been exposed to and have adopted YE theories.

By the by, Young Earthism is wildly entertaining and I thank you for letting me in on their beliefs. I have really enjoyed studying their abductive processes and seeing all the intrinsic difficulties associated to that type of reasoning play out in their explanations of reality.

You invited me to say what I have to say directly. As a species, the more we learn the less we find we know. That was long predicted as an obvious result of proper application of the scientific method. Now we find ourselves at a place where cross-discipline investigation is largely limited by a constraint that seems needless to me. That constraint is a barrier between the so-called "hard" and "soft" sciences, those are the generalized areas between which the least cross-discipline studies occur.

I believe that barrier, along with deeply ingrained respect for long established concepts of reality, would prevent you from being able to understand what I have to say, much less agree. Therefore, I will keep it to myself.

Suffice it to say I am unconvinced that empirical evidence exists that humans have been on earth for at least four million years. Of course, I freely admit that exactly the same amount of empirical evidence exists to disprove that humans existed 10 million years ago.

The universe, however, is almost certainly billions of years old. Empirical evidence supporting that theory exists in abundance, as do tests against theories used to explain observations.

Respectfully,
OldSoul