Again and again the Holy Bible has proven its inspired historic accuracy. Check this out: http://channels.netscape.com/ns/news/package.jsp?name=fte/biblicaltunnel/biblicaltunnel
Derrick
JoinedPosts by Derrick
-
54
The Holy Bible proves its inspired accuracy again...
by Derrick inagain and again the holy bible has proven its inspired historic accuracy.
check this out:
http://channels.netscape.com/ns/news/package.jsp?name=fte/biblicaltunnel/biblicaltunnel
-
-
-
3
Flurry of Lawsuits Allege Cover Up By Jehovah's Witnesses (7-30-2003)
by Derrick inthe san jose post-record, is a legal newspaper published in san jose, california that carries articles of interest to members of city government, law enforcement, the legal profession and general public.
on wednesday, 7-30-2003, page 3 has an extensive article of alleged "cover up" by guess who?
here is the link to the pdf scan of this article:scanned article (pdf)publication contact page (html).
-
-
Derrick
Well, no good deed goes unpunished. It seems that Geocities.com doesn't allow linking from message boards and blocks the display of pages from outside referrers.
According to their "Help" screen the solution is for me to create a link on the home page of the site where the page is displayed, in this case Hourglass2 Outpost (H2O) home page.
I'll go and do that. Check the very bottom of this page in 10 minutes from now:
http://www.geocities.com/hourglass2.geo/
I'll create a new category "Jehovah's Witnesses in the news" and a link to this PDF file. This PDF will remain there for at least a week or two. I'll send a copy to Bill Bown at Silentlambs.org (since the PDF is easier for non-technical people to read than the JPG which requires a viewer and magnification adjustment).
-
3
Flurry of Lawsuits Allege Cover Up By Jehovah's Witnesses (7-30-2003)
by Derrick inthe san jose post-record, is a legal newspaper published in san jose, california that carries articles of interest to members of city government, law enforcement, the legal profession and general public.
on wednesday, 7-30-2003, page 3 has an extensive article of alleged "cover up" by guess who?
here is the link to the pdf scan of this article:scanned article (pdf)publication contact page (html).
-
-
Derrick
The San Jose Post-Record, is a legal newspaper published in San Jose, California that carries articles of interest to members of city government, law enforcement, the legal profession and general public. On Wednesday, 7-30-2003, page 3 has an extensive article of alleged "cover up" by guess who? Here is the link to the PDF scan of this article:
I have forwarded the JPG contained in this PDF to Bill Bowen at Silentlambs.org for review and wide area dissemination. It's one of the few articles where I personally recall seeing the accusation of an alleged cover up. Opening the paper by complete coincidence to the page of this article suddenly put the reality of this issue in my face in a way that is difficult to describe.
-
90
Know what makes me terribly sad about some on these forums?
by Derrick ini find something very distressing not to mention terribly sad about some of you people (and to those who are not one of these people i kindly ask to please don't fly into some "i'm so insulted!
" snit as if i'm wrongfully referring to you).
to those people i'm referring to i say: you rightfully hope for the british and u.s. military to destroy that saddam monster and its minions of mass-murdering/worshippers throughout iraq.
-
-
Derrick
Farkel,
You said:
The current Watchtower leadership IMO has engaged in manipulation of words on this teaching to keep the rank and file in line, WITHOUT actually teaching that non-JWs will be exterminated.
Then I said:
That's not the point, Derrick and you know it. The point IS that WTS leaders have not repudiated the teaching that 99.99% of the human race (including many dubs) will be massacred by Watchtower God in writing.
Point of order: in all your further laborious comments, you never really addressed my assertion in that little yellow box above. In FACT, that is what they've stated and in FACT, they have not changed that doctrine. Do you deny this? If so, please present your evidence.
The problem of what you said "that the WTS leaders have not repudiated the teaching that 99.99% of the human race (including many dubs) will be massacred by Watchtower God in writing," is that without any qualification it is an inflammatory statement.
You seemed to ignore my exhaustive expository about God's ability to resurrect those who die and our lack of understanding as to why God will allow Armageddon. In the past I recall you have expressed outrage by using the analogy of a parent who allows their children to suffer horrible deaths but again failed to comment on my commentary about the fact the Jehovah -- unlike human parents -- is capable of resurrecting those who die, causing them to forget their past sorrows, and even controlling the laws of space and times in ways to eliminate any trace of evil anywhere in this multi-dimensional universe. (As a "bonus," Farkel, I even gave a link to the Sciam.com web site to illustrate my comments.)
You also ignored my comments about the flood and 99.99% of Earth's population dying in that cataclysm.
I wonder if you read any of my other comments, considering that you have not commented on anything I said? I sincerely hope you aren't just pasting boilerplate stuff because reading what I write is too thought provoking for you?
Let's revisit the flood. Suppose it turns out that Jehovah resurrects those who perished in the flood? The Bible is silent on whether they will be resurrection, regardless of what the GB might have speculated about over the years. The Bible is also silent on what percentage who die as casualties of war (and not those who are divinely executed by Christ's armies of angels) will be resurrected.
Back atcha, Farkel, after avoiding the real challenge I proposed to you and doing a fly-by over the lean meat of my posts, you attempt to answer a question I proposed:
: The question is, Farkel, WHY does the Watchtower pathologically imply that a large portion of mankind will perish in the great tribulation and Armageddon?
Rick, I don't know WHY they do this crap. I can only guess. I do appreciate that you were wise enough to use the term "pathologically", because that describes the dub leaders better than any other word I can come up with.
I will make a guess or two, but believe me, I have no insight into those poor souls locked in their Brooklyn prison, battling their own demons and battling Watchtower demons and trying to balance everything and still remain sane. God knows, that would be nearly an impossible place to remain sane.
Here's my guess: they constantly imply that most of mankind will be destroyed because that is the only way they can justify their existence. They've been doing this since Rutherford's era from the late 1920's until now, and they know no other way to justify why they exist. Death, hate and destruction is all they know, and all they've been taught. Even their "Good News(tm)" of "God's Kingdom(tm)" involves mass genocide. What a sad life to live. Everything in dub-Land involves misery for most humans, at the doors where they knock, and misery for themselves if they don't deliver this misery at doors where they knock. They can sugar-coat it all they want, but their message is mass genocide from their "loving God."
Agreed! You seem to have the GB pegged and yet you absolutely refuse to try and remedy the situation through reform. With all due respect and without trying to insult you, but rather as blunt criticism, you remind me of those who criticized every step of the war with Iraq even though you're still glad the monstrous Saddam Hussein is no longer tormenting those poor Iraqi souls. Reformers are doing all the dirty work while you can't stop criticizing. In the end if they succeed in removing wrong teachings, i.e., the misinterpreted teachings on blood and disfellowshipping to name just two major doctrinal disasters, then will you try to "fine tune" JWs by moving on to your REAL bone of contention ....... their belief in the Creator and his message in the Bible? Isn't that the last bastion of JW stronghold that, after everything else is "reformed," is in your belief the final conquest?
Come on, Farkel, stop playing coy on that score.
Derrick
-
90
Know what makes me terribly sad about some on these forums?
by Derrick ini find something very distressing not to mention terribly sad about some of you people (and to those who are not one of these people i kindly ask to please don't fly into some "i'm so insulted!
" snit as if i'm wrongfully referring to you).
to those people i'm referring to i say: you rightfully hope for the british and u.s. military to destroy that saddam monster and its minions of mass-murdering/worshippers throughout iraq.
-
-
Derrick
Rosemarie,
Yes, those scare tactics used by the GB by threatening everyone with "bloodguilt" for not preaching as much as physically possible is indeed a complete contradiction to their claim that God will not penalize those who have not heard the kingdom message.
Also, I always felt it was an insult to Jehovah by the GB in their claims that the actions of a JW in stumbling "weak ones" makes them "bloodguilty" if the weak ones "fall out of the truth" or "refuse to accept it" on account of the said JW's stumbling. This makes Jehovah look like he's willing to destroy someone because another person "stumbled" them. The scripture where the apostles warned against stumbling others is misinterpreted to literally mean that a stumbled individual will be destroyed rather than given the opportunity to be spiritually revived after the resurrection.
Although the apostles taught that stumbling others was a serious offense, the act of stumbling was wrong because it demoralized the stumbled individual (just like raping them, robbing them or deceiving them was an evil act that caused demoralization). Obviously someone who is the victim of wrongdoing and as a result becomes deeply depressed and demoralized isn't going to be destroyed by God as a result. That is why Christ warned NOT to fear those who CAN DESTROY THE BODY BUT NOT THE SOUL.
The GB seems to forget that errant actions by JW's in "stumbling" others or not delivering the good news of Christ's impending Kingdom cannot possibly result in the destruction of their souls. It COULD result in their not making positive changes to their lives, i.e., if they are drug users that are about to die of over-doses and bringing them the good news could have changed their lives (which has happened to many who have testified to the power of Jehovah's holy spirit in saving them from death by drug over-dose). Therefore, one COULD surmise that not "paying attention" to Jehovah's spirit through Christ in directing them to witness the good news to these ones in fact change their future; i.e., if those who heard the good news as they were about to over-dose on drugs and thus whose lives were saved in retrospect were NOT given the good news they in fact could have died of a drug over-dose.
One friend in my congregation said matter of factly "I would have been long since dead for many years now, in some cemetary, if the kind elderly brother in our Hall had not visited our door." Like it or not, this is the truth that haunts many ex-JW critics who in fact know that the actions of JWs have saved many of those in these dire circumstances, and in fact the world needs an organization like JWs but in fact it is the current leadership that desperately needs reform for grievious errors. I was one of those people who was about to attempt suicide as a confused and desperate teen, but was given hope by a sister who might have preferred to sleep until noon after a long week at the office. Instead she dragged herself out of bed on a Saturday morning and, well, the rest is history. Here I am. A forum many know as "H2O" got its start because of that fateful morning when a young woman that represented a religion that one day would be shaken to its roots by places like "H2O" came to the door of someone who was so close to the grave. (If I didn't love JWs then I would have told my friends in Australia who started H2O to let them go f**k themselves rather than to try showing that it's not the religion but the human leadership that is the problem. And I understand that if I didn't accept their invitation to sys admin the site they would have probably never started it. I have been told that without the original AJWR and H2O sites working in tandem JW history as we know it today might be very different and not very recognizable.)
So to veer back to my original point, it is the unselfish sacrifice of people who deliver Jehovah's good news that can save literal lives. No, it doesn't mean that if a current JW / former drug user who failed to hear the good news in an alternate timeline and died of an over-dose -- thus meaning they were never baptized -- would have any less of a chance to live forever. However, the clear message of the Bible is quality of life and life-long learning experiences, and about the importance of not missing out on life's journey if at all possible! Although death is certainly a "shortcut" to the Kingdom it is a selfish route born out of fear, and not allowing the human spirit to triumph over fear. Even though such selfishness might not mean loss of eternal life, it's a tragedy for the person who missed out because they lost the breadth of experience that deepens their appreciation of the gift of life and other spiritual treasures we might not presently comprehend.
Derrick
Note to Dedalus,
I'll check back in a few weeks or sooner to read your reply. Take care!
Derrick
-
90
Know what makes me terribly sad about some on these forums?
by Derrick ini find something very distressing not to mention terribly sad about some of you people (and to those who are not one of these people i kindly ask to please don't fly into some "i'm so insulted!
" snit as if i'm wrongfully referring to you).
to those people i'm referring to i say: you rightfully hope for the british and u.s. military to destroy that saddam monster and its minions of mass-murdering/worshippers throughout iraq.
-
-
Derrick
Sorry about the broken link. I forgot that Scientific American has a method of dynamically changing the links to avoid outsiders linking to their site, so that link is "missing."
Go to the Scientific American web site: http://www.sciam.com/ and look for this article: May 2003 issue Parallel Universes Not just a staple of science fiction, other universes are a direct implication of cosmological observations By Max Tegmark
Overview / Multiverses- One of the many implications of recent cosmological observations is that the concept of parallel universes is no mere metaphor. Space appears to be infinite in size. If so, then somewhere out there, everything that is possible becomes real, no matter how improbable it is. Beyond the range of our telescopes are other regions of space that are identical to ours. Those regions are a type of parallel universe. Scientists can even calculate how distant these universes are, on average.
- And that is fairly solid physics. When cosmologists consider theories that are less well established, they conclude that other universes can have entirely different properties and laws of physics. The presence of those universes would explain various strange aspects of our own. It could even answer fundamental questions about the nature of time and the comprehensibility of the physical world.
Readers of this post might also wish to visit the author Mr. Tegmark's web site:
http://www.hep.upenn.edu/~max/multiverse.html
This proves that our definition of "reality" is about to face the shocking changes that past generations experienced in the days immediately prior to Newton and Einstein and other great luminaries of science.
Derrick
-
90
Know what makes me terribly sad about some on these forums?
by Derrick ini find something very distressing not to mention terribly sad about some of you people (and to those who are not one of these people i kindly ask to please don't fly into some "i'm so insulted!
" snit as if i'm wrongfully referring to you).
to those people i'm referring to i say: you rightfully hope for the british and u.s. military to destroy that saddam monster and its minions of mass-murdering/worshippers throughout iraq.
-
-
Derrick
Before I reply, correction to my last post:
Scientific American (May 2003 issue) was referenced. When I said "current issue" I was thinkiing of the issue that was currently sent to subscribers, which I neglected to clarify. This shocking article on parallel universes as fact, not fiction, is found at this sciam.com link:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?colID=1&articleID=000F1EDD-B48A-1E90-8EA5809EC5880000
As a nice shoe-in to my following reply, I think it's interesting to note that some might hold my feet to the fire on my first post claiming that I literally referred to the CURRENT ISSUE of Scientific American (which is the April 2003 issue, not the May 2003 which I was really referring to). Furthermore, no less than an admission that I misstated the reference to the correct issue would be considered satisfactory. If I dared to state that I was really correct because from Sciam.com's standpoint the "current" issue is really the one out on newsstands, mailed to subscribers and on their web site, I would be faulted because the "current" issue could ALSO mean the current month (April).
This is the kind of argument we find ourselves in about whether ONLY JWs will survive the big "A" or whether others will also survive.
Dear Dedalus,
You're like a lawyer that says "do you admit that you said JWs will not be the only survivors at Armageddon, then acknowledged that only JWs will survive?" to which I reply, "First of all, Dedalus, one person has already since acknowledged that the Society has said that Jehovah may spare those who have not heard the message." You're attempting to show that first I said JWs don't teach only THEY will survive, then did a classic Watchtower flip-flop by acknowledging they do. In fact, as in the example of my reference to the "current" Scientific American issue, isn't context at all relevant?
I clarified that I said the Watchtower doesn't teach only JWs will survive by discussing the exegesis of the Jehovah's Witness teaching on divine execution which is filled with a combination of nuances and in other cases what seems like outright waffling due to them simply not knowing for certain. (And I explained in detail why they may have trouble knowing for certain.)
If I tell you the article is in the "current" issue of Scientific American and then say "actually it's in next month's issue" then I did which of the following: (1) Corrected a miscommunication because although technically it is "current" because it is out on newsstands, some might think of it relatively speaking as NOT actually "current" but "next month's" issue (meaning they think of "current" as the current month's April issue), or (2) Corrected an outright wrong statement because there is no relativity of understanding about what is meant by a statement, rather, "current" absolutely means to EVERYONE the current month's issue (April) and EVERYONE knows the May issue is NOT current but next month's issue.
You may answer (2) of this multiple choice, and I answer (1).
Therefore, we spend time debating whether I was right in stating I was "clarifying" something when you claim I'm so petty that I won't simply admit that I was "wrong" and was outright correcting a wrong statement. Now if we were siblings in a family, I might finally say to keep the peace, "Okay, Dedalus, if it makes you feel better than I was WRONG," but then I might actually screw up my attempt at family diplomacy by adding, "Actually, it is technically correct that I was initially WRONG because even though I was technically correct that many people consider the 'current' issue as the one on newsstands, I failed to communicate this simple fact to my target audience. One could even argue that it's debatable whether someone could deliberately EXPLOIT their target audience by phrasing things in manner that is technically correct but they know will be misunderstood! Therefore to avoid that misconception I'll acqueise to your insistence that I admit that I was 'wrong', okay, feel better?" Of course most families know how that one ends. When someone insists that another admit they are wrong the last thing they want is explanations that seem to "excuse" the "wrongdoer."
It might be more productive to admit that when the Watchtower says that only JWs will die, they teach this as a "caveat" since they qualify this teaching with the acknowledgement that
- non-JWs who haven't heard the message might be spared by Jehovah
- just because 99.9% of Earth's population dies in Armageddon doesn't mean that some unknown percentage, such as 60%, are not casualties of war and will be resurrected (with a mix of those that didn't hear the good news and faithful JWs amongst that 60% for instance)
- Jehovah may "delay" worldwide destruction and nobody, not even the Son, will know about the delay let alone the actual "time" of the holocaust
- last but not least, every divine execution during Armageddon will be perfectly righteous and such consideration overrides all statistical speculations (such as the 99.9% speculation).
So you see, there were a lot of assumptions behind what I said then, and what I'm saying now. A good attorney will often nail down exactly what you said and no matter what you really meant, he/she will insist on a definition of what you said that most people will agree upon (but nevermind what you really meant or what you thought others would understand you to have meant). That is why in a court of law you dare not say anything unless your attorney approves it. Now for a while on JW forums I used to think through every angle precisely because someone would nail me on a technicality.
Now I like to think that I'm grown-up enough to simply speak colloquially and clarify what I meant, ask others to clarify what they meant, until we flesh out what we're really saying.
Incidentally, aren't we both a wee bit guilty of avoiding touchy issues in our replies? Didn't you surgically bypass any of my comments about the existence of God and the Bible's message itself (apart from the JW interpretation) in my last post? Then again, I shouldn't jump to conclusions because like you thought I had run away initially, so too I recognize that you might be ready to address those points.
And if you don't address certain points, unlike some people, I'll try not to claim this proves those points are right. However, just like it's human nature to conclude that my failure to address certain points means that maybe I cannot adequately address them, same holds true with you and anyone else who bypasses certain points about God's existence and the logic that I presented in the last post about physics (which I backed with the above Sciam.com article).
With that, I'll look forward to your reply.
Derrick
-
90
Know what makes me terribly sad about some on these forums?
by Derrick ini find something very distressing not to mention terribly sad about some of you people (and to those who are not one of these people i kindly ask to please don't fly into some "i'm so insulted!
" snit as if i'm wrongfully referring to you).
to those people i'm referring to i say: you rightfully hope for the british and u.s. military to destroy that saddam monster and its minions of mass-murdering/worshippers throughout iraq.
-
-
Derrick
Dear Dedalus,
My post to Farkel pretty much answers your comments. It addresses the issue of "genocide" as in fact a judgmental lack of having all the facts about why God did what he did, and why it's even possible for someone to do something we think is "evil" when in fact if we knew all the facts we would know the act was necessary and for a greater good. In fact, Dedalus, your comments reaffirm my contention that you consider the death of everyone on Earth except for Noah and his family as a "bloodthirsty" act of "genocide" by God. (Of course you'll probably say that would be true if God existed, which you'll probably say he either does not or if he does, he would not have caused everyone except Noah and family to perish in a global deluge. Correct me if I'm mistaken.) Therefore, anyone who accepts Bible teachings is bloodthirsty by your own admission, PERIOD, am I right?
I sincerely hope anyone who skipped my lengthy reply to Farkel prior to this post goes back and reads it, because I really believe it expresses and explains my views in this regard well.
Derrick
-
90
Know what makes me terribly sad about some on these forums?
by Derrick ini find something very distressing not to mention terribly sad about some of you people (and to those who are not one of these people i kindly ask to please don't fly into some "i'm so insulted!
" snit as if i'm wrongfully referring to you).
to those people i'm referring to i say: you rightfully hope for the british and u.s. military to destroy that saddam monster and its minions of mass-murdering/worshippers throughout iraq.
-
-
Derrick
: The current Watchtower leadership IMO has engaged in manipulation of words on this teaching to keep the rank and file in line, WITHOUT actually teaching that non-JWs will be exterminated.
That's not the point, Derrick and you know it. The point IS that WTS leaders have not repudiated the teaching that 99.99% of the human race (including many dubs) will be massacred by Watchtower God in writing.
The question is, Farkel, WHY does the Watchtower pathologically imply that a large portion of mankind will perish in the great tribulation and Armageddon?
- They interpret certain scriptures in the Bible in the book of Revelation and other books in both the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures as prophesying this outcome and someone in the writing department in Brooklyn evidently was bold enough to throw out this infamous and long-maligned percentage.
- Their teachings strongly indicate they believe that if God executed 99.999% of the population in the days of Noah then subtracting 0.009 for a death toll of approximately 99.99% of Earth's present-day population is giving a generous estimate (and pardon my facetiousness).
- I don't have my WT CD handy right now but I believe that if I did could quote many instances where they have stated or strongly implied that there will be casualties of innocent people due to the various geological and celetial disasters that will occur during Armageddon. In other words, unlike some born again Christians they don't teach that God will necessarily shield ALL faithful JWs from death, but they DO emphasize that innocent casualties will have the hope of a resurrection based on Christ's ransom sacrifice.
- Due to conflicting quotations from various years it's debatable whether they do or don't believe that non-JWs who die during Armageddon will receive a resurrection to judgment (deferring to the long-term debate by ex-JWs on whether they believe, for instance, whether all who died in the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah will receive a resurrection and the admitted flip-flops in various publications over the years). HOWEVER, IT IS SAFE TO CONCLUDE THEY BELIEVE ALL WHO ARE EXECUTED BY AVENGING ANGELS DURING ARMAGEDDON WILL NOT RECEIVE A RESURRECTION. Again, I stress the murkiness of this teaching in exactly who is literally divinely executed and who is an innocent "casualty of war" entitled to resurrection dying as a consequence of epi-plague or disaster (i.e., tidal waves, mega-earthquakes, meteor showers, volcanic activities and manmade disasters from nuclear detonations and chemical/bio-warfare etc. interpreted to be prophesied in the book of Revelation).
Now we're getting down to the real target of your anger, Farkel, and that is your personal angst about the Holy Bible's teachings and your apparent feeling the Watchtower's literal interpretations are perhaps the s**t frosting on the cake from your standpoint. I won't get into a lecture of why I believe that this anger is born out of a total lack of trust that we humans do not have the bigger picture, or lack of faith that God can resurrect everyone who is not out-and-out evil and even make them forget the horror show mankind has endured since the beginning days in Eden. I won't go into why I believe the critics of the Bible are like "back seat drivers" who haven't a clue in the world as to the real reasons why God does what he does, or why their reasonings about letting people die and suffer as proving God is a "monster" and comparisons to the love of human parents is irrelevant because human parents DO NOT have the supernatural power to raise the dead and control the very laws of space/time to where of God wanted to he could snatch good people from any point in time and then destroy those timelines as if they never existed in the first place. (If you think I'm insanely rambling read this month's Scentific American and take a look at its cover -- you'll have to call scientists insane as well, which knowing you wouldn't surprise me.)
No, I won't even delve into any of these areas because your fundamental problem is this belief that goes something like this: "Derrick, what you say would be well and good except it is FANTASY and I would be insane to even consider it." In other words, if any argument is presented that you have pre-supposed as based on the impossible, then you discard the argument immediately rather than risk considering it. You do this, IMO, because you believe it would open you to the risk of going "insane." If you pre-suppose that God cannot possibly exist, then it's impossible to rationally argue God's existence with you because you refuse to "go there" in the first place. Of course, you won't admit this because it would make you seem bias to this vast audience on this site, so you instead dismiss it with personal insults and sarcasm.
Getting back to the basis which the Watchtower teaches these things -- their (mis-) INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE -- it stands and remains JW doctrine. I do not wish that doctrine away, but I can claim that things are different now BECAUSE A NEW GENERATION OF JWS IS ABOUT TO TAKE THE HELM. These younger JWs are more open-minded because they were born in times of post-war prosperity where basic education was in far greater abundance. Believe it or not they recognize the inconsistencies and the death of their seemingly all-wise leaders will empower them to face these obvious discrepancies between party-line teachings and reality.
but the plain truth is it is STILL official WT doctrine. Dedalus and JT and others have quoted what those same leaders DO teach, and all your excusogetics cannot explain away actual JW doctrine.
True, but I can give breadth on WHY and insight into the (misguided) BASIS for the present GB's and Writing Dept.'s teachings. You don't like this, because evidently you don't think CORRECT INTERPETATIONS of the Bible are better. Misguided or correct you seem to believe it really doesn't matter because you have judged God as portrayed in the Bible as evil.
Case in point, you think God committed "genocide" by killing all humans except for Noah and his family. Therefore, the whole argument about what the Watchtower interprets about everything else is really moot, isn't it, Farkel?
Any doctrine not explicity changed by WT idiots on the GB stands until they change it. That's a fact, and all your whining doesn't change that.
However, you fail to either recognize or admit that it's because they believe their interpretation of the Bible is exactly correct, and until they are convinced they are wrong, they will not change it. Of course, admitting this really torpedoes your whole concept of a wicked and manipulative GB because it implies they really are too good for their own britches in their uncompromisingly sticking to what they personal KNOW is right (whether or not it is in fact truly right) until proven otherwise. Because what else are those willing to uncompromisingly stick to what they personally believe is right supposed to do? Are they supposed to say, "I might not be right so let's just do whatever we each feel is right"? You'll have to admit that is not exactly what Christ taught.
Farkel, you would have to show that after the GB each realized that any given teaching was wrong, they continued to demand JWs believe it for a period of time until they were good and ready to officially change it. That's tough because you can make a very strong case that my belief is wrong, for instance, but my value system might mean I'm determined to proceed with caution and not admit you're right until I positively believe beyond a shadow of doubt that you are in fact right (after which time I make the change).
The WT religion is based upon hate and mass-genocide on nearly all humans (regardless of age) on the entire planet and that is STILL a fact.
Yes, that is the crux of your belief in the Bible itself. Unfortunately you fail to realize that authentic truth in any matter is not often apparent on the surface. You also refuse to admit even though someone as bright as you must know deep down in your heart that sometimes we cannot explain our actions and convince everyone we are right, and at least for a time we may suffer condemnation from others on our actions until they one day learn all the things they didn't know about at the time they judged us. It's the old "after the fact" scenario where, after the fact, we might say "Gee, now I understand why God did what he did over time,l and appreciate the fact that everyone who ever lived was saved -- but how could I have possibly known that at the time? I am so sorry, I just had no idea at the time."
This is the subtle point where you'll eventually discover one day in the future, whether it is in a distant time who can guess, that God will perfectly understand your bitter anger at Him due to a complete lack of understanding. That is, unless (and only you know this in your own mind and heart) you just simply hate the concept of God no matter how righteous and just he is, or no matter how good things turn out in the end? I don't know you and you certainly don't know me, but I'm willing to guess this isn't the real problem with you. I'm willing to guess you simply are terrified to even "go there" and give yourself the luxury of even considering these possibilities. Because you're terrified of the possibility of being taken to the cleaners by a God that is truly monstrous or worse that space and time is a mindless and spiritually dead place where we just happened to accidently come into existence and where "good" and "bad" are simply constructions of intelligent life. I think that somehow you're afraid to consider the possibilities I have mentioned and that you must ridicule my faith in the factuality of these possibilities to make your denial of these possibilities feel like grasping "reality." You once looked at the possibilities of God being real through Watchtower glasses and discovered this was illusion, so you're afraid to look through anything that resembles looking-glasses even if it's a real "electron microscope" to examine all possibilities. Obviously those willing to consider possibilities instead of simply having a closed static worldview run the risk of seeing truth in possibilities that respected peers might ridicule.
It takes courage to simply stand alone with a proverbial "telescope" and aim it into the darkness, because peers who will refuse to look into that telescope might deride you as "crazy" for seeing something that isn't supposed to be there.
Derrick
-
90
Know what makes me terribly sad about some on these forums?
by Derrick ini find something very distressing not to mention terribly sad about some of you people (and to those who are not one of these people i kindly ask to please don't fly into some "i'm so insulted!
" snit as if i'm wrongfully referring to you).
to those people i'm referring to i say: you rightfully hope for the british and u.s. military to destroy that saddam monster and its minions of mass-murdering/worshippers throughout iraq.
-
-
Derrick
Hi Robyn,
I appreciate your kindness and insight. Although it's probably otherwise pointless, I can justify a reply by considering yourself as an unbiased and reasoning audience to any further attempts to explain my beliefs on the Watchtower's Armageddon doctrine.
First, I think the current administration in the Watchtower and past administrations have used the fear of Armageddon in a misguided belief that instilling "Godly fear" in the rank and file will pummel them into uncompromising obedience to God's organization. I believe they really believe that Jehovah appointed them and therefore they reason obedience to God's organization is required to obey God himself.
Obviously the more enlightened JW who truly read their Bible daily and sought the truth out of love for truth (not out of fear of what they imagine will happen to them for not finding it) knows that the Watchtower Society is probably not Jehovah's visible organization on Earth but rather an imperfect instrument for broadcasting the good news worldwide. Obviously this implies that God is using them warts and all without their really understanding the nature of how God is using them.
In other words, Robyn, while they are motivated by their own manufactured and self-aggrandizing belief that God appointed them as the "faithful slave," God is in fact using them like all the other do-good organizations worldwide that provide a wide array of spiritual, social, medical and food delivery services to humanity. While the Red Cross engages in physical relief for example, organizations like the Watchtower, Mormons and other religious faiths engage in broadcasting the hope that God will save mankind from death. True, it's a sore subject by many including myself that the Watchtower doesn't attempt like Jesus did in his ministry to provide physical as well as spiritual nourishment to the poor, and this probably is a sore point with Christ, but they have built a billion-dollar infrastructure that is highly efficient in disseminating Bibles, less than accurate but nonetheless Bible-based literature that focuses on a positive future for mankind under the Kingdom, and hope. I believe that God figures that good people will take what they need from the message of JWs and discard the rest. While the Watchtower is loathe to this concept it is nonetheless being used by Jehovah. The proverbial steak might think it's all good but the one consuming it might cut off the fat and only consume the lean mass, to use a rather silly but I think pertinent metaphor. (I'm typing on a "stream of thought" basis because I'm sipping a latte in a Starbucks with a limited timeframe to respond; and because I type fast you're going to get unedited voluminous data out of me.)
This leads to the Armageddon doctrine. Notice they teach that if one is not part of God's true organization on Earth that one is destined for destruction. Aside from being dead wrong in the very foundation of this teaching, and assuming that Armageddon is coming even within a few decades it's physically impossible for every righteous-hearted person to join ANY organization that God approves let alone one headquartered in Brooklyn NY of all places, let's examine the gist of this teaching.
First and foremost, any body of religious teachings involves exegesis:
Merrian-Webster's Unabridged Dictionary
Main Entry:exegesis
Pronunciation:*eks**j*s*s
Function:noun
Inflected Form:plural exegeses \-**s*z\
Etymology:New Latin, from Greek ex*g*sis, from ex*geisthai to explain, interpret, from ex out of, out + h*geisthai to lead * more at SEEK: EXPOSITION, EXPLANATION; especially : critical interpretation of a text or portion of Scripture
Understanding the "luminaries" behind the Watchtower who live in the ivory towers of Brooklyn and Patterson, I have learned after almost 30 years a Watchtower slave (sorry, couldn't resist the cliche since the majority of visitors to this site would consider me exactly that!), involves solving a complicated puzzle. I won't pretend to have solved it completely but I have come awefully close! Some will immediately recognize that sometimes when we think we're "close" to solving a puzzle, we couldn't be farther away from the solution. Having acknowledged that, I'll continue that we must therefore critically interpret both the Society's references to Armageddon and death that Dedalus quoted to support the claim they teach that only those affiliated with the WT will survive the worldwide destruction by God.I assert that they in fact believe they are truly God's ONLY chosen organization for a reason. Right or wrong they believe they are practicing the truth where those outside the organization are not practicing the truth. Furthermore, they hold the outrageous belief that Jehovah's son Jesus Christ is directing the worldwide ministry to the point where any areas "missed" are for a divine reason, i.e., that no honest-hearted ones are in those missed areas.
Layer after layer of sincere albeit twisted reasoning follows to the point where they're convinced that anyone outside this supposed one and only "God's organization" are outside for a reason. They honestly believe -- and I'll admit this seems insane on the surface until you understand the layers and layers of self-brain-washing they have done to themselves motivated out of a morbid FEAR of death -- that those outside of the organization might appear to be righteous and sincere when God knows they are not. Therefore those in the Watchtower's higher eschelon harbor an admittedly warped view that the majority of mankind are unrighteous people living under the guise of being good people. This is based on the incorrect scriptural view that God will not save people who are willing to live law-abiding ordinary lives but simply don't love Him or don't want to make any sacrifices for Him.
In summary, the teachings of the Watchtower are that one must be part of God's organization to be saved, that God will miraculously make sure before Armageddon that those "worthy" of life will become connected to that organization, and that the majority of mankind although outwardly appearing to live good lives do not want to embrace God's values and therefore are "unrighteous." Then the Watchtower proceeds to make the case why THEY are the organization, and why THEIR teachings and exegesis of the Bible embrace God's values, therefore leading to syllogisms leading them to false conclusions!
The Watchtower is in effect saying "unless you can prove we are not God's organization and our interpretations of the Bible are not precisely what God intended when inspiring the Bible, then {Watchtower Society conclusion A, conclusion B, conclusion C, etc. .........}.
This sheds an entirely different light on the Watchtower Society that many on this forum refuse to consider or accept. Instead of it being an evil "Borg"-like organization run by manipulative religious con-artists its fundamental motives are quite the opposite. Like the mentally and emotionally disturbed child who is willing to do ANYTHING to please the parents, and grossly misinterprets anything the parents say (i.e., the parents say "Johnny, I don't care what you do, but make your younger brother stop crying!" meaning "Johnny, will you try to play with your brother and keep him occupied while we visit with guests in the livingroom?" -- Johnny takes their words to do "anything" to stop the infant from crying. All else failing, Johnny drowns the infant in the bathtub and it ceases to cry.)
The Bible can be taken in a similar vein by the over-zealous! Those with the most sincere and good-hearted motives have grossly misinterpreted this book and applied it in damaging ways that God never intended. The problem with the Watchtower is that it is an amalgamation of different people running it with various backgrounds and degrees of sanity! Quite often those whom everyone relates to but in fact are the most unbalanced and less than stable individuals get the most attention and sway a group's course. In this case we are talking about an organized religion and its belief system.
Well, I've been here in Starbucks for almost 2 hours trying to explain the basis for the JW teaching and why it is widely misunderstood, so it's time to wrap this up (as I haven't had dinner yet and it's after 8:00 PM here on the west coast). My point is that aside from making a case of why Watchtower reformation is so critical in the upper eschelon of the organization, I'm also trying to explain why myself and a great many JWs worldwide have come to the conclusion that no matter what the Society publishes or has published in the past in literal terms, the underlying caveat of the teaching is the assumption that under no circumstances will anyone whom Jehovah loves or who has potential for living peacefully forever will be destroyed. Also, many JWs realize that like any war, the war of Armageddon will involve many casualties including JWs! Those who perish in the worldwide destruction will receive resurrections. Of course the Society has speculated that those divinely executed at Armageddon may not receive a resurrection, but it also acknowledges that there maybe innocent casualties of war who will in fact be resurrected.
My battery is low, so I must close for now!
Thanks again, Robyn, for your kind words.
Derrick