for those of you who will be disgusted that i even attended the meeting, let alone allow my son to give his first public talk tonight, please, spare me the shouting messages.
i take full responsibility for what i experienced this evening.
yet, i feel the need to share this experience that has me enraged.
So no tongue lashing here from me either. Their actions, responses, and what was said, was wrong. Not just because of what was said and done, but the motivation behind it. It seems to me they did it, not to benifit him, but to hurt you.
There was probably no intent to hurt you at all. In fact there was most likely absolutely no thought of you whatsoever when he made the comment.
They want your child to feel like the congregation is his family, and that is the really insidious part.
the most eerie and fascinating passage i ever read in any of the jw literature (literature??
) was in the red book, life everlasting in freedom of the sons of god.
i wish i had written the quote down.
But really, why do we see in color, why do we smell pleasant smells, why do we feel wonderful sensations, these were not necessary for survival yet without them our life would be very bland, and unexciting. The different trees, the flowers, the animals the medicinal plants to keep us healthy, I cannot believe it all happened by accident, don't get me wrong, I also wonder why he or they do not intervene when horrific tragedy happens, but I won't let this make me bitter, life is too wonderful!
This reasoning is an example of the 'anthropomorphic principle', the belief that we exist the way we do because the universe is here for our existence. However, the reality is that we exist the way we do because the conditions of the universe allow it to be the case.
All of the warm fuzzy issues raised can also be phrased as negatives... why is the entire light spectrum not visible to us? why are some harmful odours undetectable to us? why can we not selectively turn off pain? why are some plants and animals detrimental to us?
Humans like to classify things as 'good' and 'bad' based on what impact those things have on themselves or on things they care about. Reality is a little harsher than that. Suns explode. Planets die. It's been happening for a very long time.
.
many thousand years ago, jesus expelled demons in people.
do you think it's possible today that people, maybe you or i, may have one or more demons in us, controling us to a certain extent?
The symptoms attributed to the 'demonized' people of Jesus' time (as well as those burned in 'witch' trials) can be explained by medical conditions. In times of very limited medical knowledge, almost any medical condition could have been passed off as 'demonic possession'. (Or even if someone was just unpopular in the community, it was a good way of getting rid of them.) One common cause of the 'demonic' behaviour is ergot, a fungus that grows on rye, especially in marshy areas, and therefore often affecting poorer classes. This fungus has effects similar to LSD (Lysergic Acid Diethylamide) and explains all of the so-called demonic behaviour.
So if you're eating mouldy rye, perhaps you too may have a 'demon'.
for those of you who will be disgusted that i even attended the meeting, let alone allow my son to give his first public talk tonight, please, spare me the shouting messages.
i take full responsibility for what i experienced this evening.
yet, i feel the need to share this experience that has me enraged.
Witnesses simply have no respect for 'disfellowshipped' people (re-inforced by their 'they left the truth' rationale), so they feel no compunction whatsoever about such downright insulting behaviour. They would see no insult or insensitivity, blinded by their own self-aggrandizing praise for 'taking in' the 'orphan'. To say such things while the child's parent is in the hall is even more deplorable.
the post about crisis of conscience in which the poster said he knows there's some bad in the watchtower (as brought out in coc), but there's some good in it too got me to wondering about people that stay for the good in it.. the united states makes some decisions as a country that i don't agree with, perhaps even object strongly to.
but i don't disavow my citizenship.
it's mostly a good place to live, so i stay.. if you want to live in a way that utterly conflicts with the watchtower -- homosexual, multiple sex partners, smoking, whatever -- then you have reason to leave.
I see you're driving a 2-door. I assume that's your second car?
Brother, I am shocked!! Second car?? Should you be encouraging this kind of materialism?
could the watchtower and the jehovah's witnesses survive the discarding of their 1914 doctrine?
the doctrine that in 1914 the end of the gentile times took place, jesus took up rule in heaven.
for some reason the jws think the outbreak of world war i in 1914 is proof their prophetic calculations were correct.
There is no such thing as one correct definition for this word but several definitions and there is more than one methodology in interpreting the relevant phrase.
It is interesting to know that not only do you twist scripture, but you are happy to ignore the English language as well. How can anything you say be trusted if you wilfully contest even the simplest of things about which you are clearly wrong. There very certainly is a correct definition for the word 'methodology', and it does not include using it to mean 'method'. 'Methodology' means "the system of methods and principles used in a partiuclar discipline", or "the brand of philosophy concerned with the science of method and procedure". It never validly means "method". To give you the benefit of the doubt, I decided just now to check whether your usage is at all acceptable. A usage note for the word explains, "Methodology can properly refer to the theoretical analysis of the methods appropriate to a field of study or to the body of methods and principles particular to a branch of knowledge ... In recent years, however, methodology has been increasingly used as a pretentious substitute for method in scientific and technical contexts ... the misuse of methodology obscures an important conceptual distinction between the tools of scientific investigation (properly methods) and the principles that determine how such tools are deployed and interpreted." So, once again the facts agree with me and indicate you to be wrong.
Our model is much simpler than yours as it is based on history but yours is frankly dishonest but your arrogance denys you upholding the Bible over 'higher criticism'. You are a funny little bloke! For in reality we are dealing with many huge problems with this silly 586/587 debacle because the clear statements of God's inspired Word are ignored. You are left with a dead-end chronology that has no life in it just like a dead horse which you continue to flog.
You imply that my model is not based on history, which is an amusing little lie, since my model is plainly consistent with the known period according to secular historians, and it does not conflict with any part of the bible once the interpretations foisted by the Watchtower Society are removed. It is a simple fact that all of the problems against the 607 dogma are harmonious with each other and gel to form a complete picture that completely invalidates the Society's interpretations - interpretations which exist only to lend support to its other doctrines.
I should have listened when I was told never to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man.
how often do you hear:.
"how much longer can it go on?".
"i'm tired (of waiting, being ill, poor, disappointed)".
jgnat:
This year's theme is a huge downer for the loyal "rank and file". It's aimed at the dissenters, but the dissenters are leaving. This leaves the loyal sheep to get beaten down even further.
Dare I ask what this year's theme is?
could the watchtower and the jehovah's witnesses survive the discarding of their 1914 doctrine?
the doctrine that in 1914 the end of the gentile times took place, jesus took up rule in heaven.
for some reason the jws think the outbreak of world war i in 1914 is proof their prophetic calculations were correct.
You are finally coming around to understanding (albeit slowly) the importance of methodology and interpretation in the construction of a chronology.
You funny little man. I have been telling you for weeks the correct definition and usage of the word 'methodology', which you still continue to misuse.
Yes, I am aware that you have a specific interpretation of where the 'third year of Jehoiakim' occurs in his reign and there are scholars who agree with this view. I believe in an interpretation that places that 'third year' towards the end of that reign and again there are scholars who agree with this view which has a greater foundation, based upon scriptural facts and is the traditional understanding.
Yep. I say three equals three and you see it a different way.
The second year of Neb's kingship is of course theological as plainly stated in the commentaries because 'kingdom' is a very theological word in both the OT and the NT. No, our model works for all, plain and simple and one does not have to resort to 'cooking the books' to fit some pet theory, ignoring the plain statement of scripture. Your theory violates biblical history, it is dumb and bad history to boot. You are the supporter of Thiele because you are using his model and if he is accurate in some matters then we can utilize his research as necessary. By the way have you read Thiele or are you big-noting yourself?
Again you put your arrogance on display for all to see. Your model is, of course, not simple, as it requires a special explanation to make it fit into your model rather than letting the facts explain themselves and fall into place perfectly all on their own, letting the bible harmonize with the known facts of the period.
Of course we are just dealing with one single of the many problems with the silly 607 thing. You think you do quite well in defending even this one point, but everyone else sees that you fail miserably to convince anyone. And when all of the issues are considered in concert, the Society's interpretation flails around hopelessly like the dying dog that it is.
could the watchtower and the jehovah's witnesses survive the discarding of their 1914 doctrine?
the doctrine that in 1914 the end of the gentile times took place, jesus took up rule in heaven.
for some reason the jws think the outbreak of world war i in 1914 is proof their prophetic calculations were correct.
Agreed, because biblical Hebrew has a somewahat limited vocabulary and provides a wide semantic range noticeable when translated into another language such as English. So, as I have said to you many times, it all boils down to exegesis or interpretation. Scholar's cardinal rule is applicable CHRONOLOGY= METHODOLOGY + INTERPRETATION.
LOL. Even your rule is wrong, since interpretation of source material is a component of the methodology of chronology.
METHODOLOGY [of CHRONOLOGY] = INTERPRETATION + other methods and principles.
The application of this word as a starting point or as a end point is rather pertinent or is this expesssion 'third year' a historical or chronological is another way of stating the matter. In this regard, scholars opinions do in fact differ because some scholars prefer a beginning point and others see it as a end point.
I, along with many professionals in the field, say that Jehoiakim's third year is his third year (accession-year system) which agrees perfectly with all available sources. Placing it at some other point has a very weak foundation and is not backed up by the facts.
Scholars do in fact that the matter is theological as in the case of Daniel 2:1 and this is reflected in the commentaries and I have mentioned these facts to you. Becuse a certain model works well as you say does not make it correct becuse our model also works just as well it simply represents the fact that there can be many other interpretations of the matter. the book of Daniel is about theology as again noticed ny commentaries whi acjnowledge that its theme is about the Kingdom of God or eschatology;
Theological or not, Nebuchadnezzar's 2nd year was his 2nd year (accession-year system), and it is simply JW dogma to say otherwise. The only reason your model seems to work well for you is because you just ignore anything that doesn't fit. You clutch at tiny quotes from sources such as Thiele for minor details, as if they agree with you, but you ignore the fact that all of these sources are much more akin to my model.
could the watchtower and the jehovah's witnesses survive the discarding of their 1914 doctrine?
the doctrine that in 1914 the end of the gentile times took place, jesus took up rule in heaven.
for some reason the jws think the outbreak of world war i in 1914 is proof their prophetic calculations were correct.
It is not I that is saying that malkut means much more than simply a duration or 'reign' but that is well recognized by scholars that this word has a wide semantic range. It is a word that means many things and that is proven by the lexical quotes that have already been posted. The NWT Committee under the direction of celebrated WT scholars have decided that in regard to Daniel 1:1 and because of lexica, biblical history, theology, chronology, tradition, Josephus that this Aramaic word is best rendered as 'kingship'.
It does make absolute sense because it correlates this opening verse of Daniel with the facts of history and theology and the use of 'reign' is misleading and inaccurate because Jehoiakim's third year does not synchronize with the first year of Nebuchadnezzer. Such a bizarre interpretation creates a historical contradiction because Jeremiah synchronized Neb's first year with Jehoiakim's fourth year.
Scholar, it has never actually been the use of the word 'kingship' as such that has been the problem, but the Society's application of the word to try to make it refer to some other starting point, and it is the alternative starting point that does not have any valid basis.
Daniel further used malkut in a theological sense in Daniel 2;1 and 8:1 according to the views of past and present commentators so he was quite happy to go malkuting by providing correct theological view of history with its relation to the Kingdom of God.
Daniel gives no indication that he is talking about some theological usage, and all of his references to years of reign (or 'kingship' if you like) work perfectly well when using their typical known reigns, except when using the Society's flawed model with which absolutely no sources agree. Saying Daniel was using some 'theological sense' is simply a weak excuse for applying one's own belief system instead of the clear reading of the verses.
