Posts by Awakened07

27

Did you taste the "Goodness of Jehovah's Organisation" ?

by truthseeker in

jw
friends

if you can answer yes to the following questions.... .

1) did you have a full share in the ministry?

2) did you have a desire to do more?

Awakened07

If you did all those things year in and year out, would it make the WT teachings correct?

Or would it just indoctrinate you to such a degree that you would think they were all correct and not question them, and thereby feel better about it all?

13

God and your own thoughts

by serotonin_wraith in

i hate to be left alone with my own thoughts.

i don't mind silence if i'm reading, but my mind always has to be focused on something.

so at home i always have the tv or music on in the background.

I'm an atheist, and I have always loved thinking, even after I stopped believing - probably more so. After all, I have had to think in order to establish what I was going to believe or not believe after leaving the JWs. That said, I also often have the TV on in the background while I do other stuff. And I tend to do the best thinking when I have gone to bed and am supposed to sleep, which can be annoying in that sense, but I don't mind being alone with my thoughts, no.

70

The fade is over, talked to my parents last night. (very very long)

by Paralipomenon in

jw
friends

there would never be a good time to have this conversation.

quite different from most people raised a witness, i have very few horror stories about my upbringing.

my family was just a family, my mom and dad fought and argued, my siblings and i misbehaved and got in trouble.. .

Awakened07

Thanks for writing this down; it's a great help for those of us who haven't come that far yet.

Your story is almost like looking into my own future, if I were to tell my parents. Only I'm not so sure it would end so well (then again, maybe it would).

Either way - it's hard. You've got guts, that's for sure. Congratulations on the way you handled it.

39

Awake! Special Issue - Can You Trust The Bible?

by karvel in

here's a lovely highlight from the new issue of everyone's favorite 'journal.

' notice how they try to talk scientific accuracy two pages after an illustration showing jonah about to be swallowed by fish wherein he is to spend 3 days...alive.

.

Awakened07

First of all, thanks for the rest of the scans, karvel.

I can see how this article may be compelling to some people, especially those who are already JWs.

Page 3:

It starts off with a nice sentiment; don't believe or accept anything you hear, check sources, don't misplace your trust. It seems very open and inviting; 'take it or leave it'.

It promises that the rest of the article will present compellingevidence that the Bible is worthy of our trust.

Page 4:

Argues that the Bible is a special book because it has: Been printed and distributed in such large quantities, Was halfway "done" by the time of Confucius and Siddhartha Gautama, Has influenced arts and music, Has survived attempts to destroy it.

Yes, the Bible is a special book, there's no doubt about it, both in the way it came about (as we know it today) and in how large a distribution it has had. However, when the various ecumenical councils had decided what books should and shouldn't go into the Bible and thereafter made Christianity the state religion of the Roman empire, it was the start of a process that had to result in a large distribution of the book. Over the years, some people - even clergy - opposed the idea that common people should read the Bible, and therefore tried to destroy it, but since it was now an integral part of many people's beliefs, some were also willing to die to defend it. By our time, it has become widespread also because of the Christian 'duty' to spread the word, also in foreign territories. Today, I would guess every Christian (or ex-Christian) on the planet has at least one Bible (I personally have three). Both the large distribution and the persecution of it were part of a natural chain of events.

As for being half way 'done' by the time other influential religious characters and philosophers emerged, yes, the Bible's oldest books are old, however there are older religious texts and inscriptions than the oldest texts of the Bible; some of them seem to have inspired some of what made it into those first biblical books (although a controversial subject). So I'm not sure what the point of mentioning this is, other than trying to show that the Bible - at least in part - is older, and therefore more trustworthy (?) than the later religions and philosophies. Which in that case is undermined by the above mentioned fact that the earliest biblical texts are preceded by many other religious texts (to be honest, Leolaia and Narksissos among others know much more about this than me).

As for influencing arts and music, this is quite natural - just like other gods and beliefs have influenced people's art and music. People feel moved by what they believe, and spend a great deal of their life pondering it. No wonder they would use it as an inspiration in their music and art.

Page 5:

No need to say much here. The Bible might be 100% accurate when it comes to historical figures - it doesn't really matter. It is surely disputed by many, but my point is that even if the Bible is 100% accurate when it comes to naming places and people, it's a rather moot point. This aspect should of course also be carefully examined, but an old book being accurate about it's history wouldn't be anything special in itself. What is special, are all the supernatural occurrences the Bible is citing. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. If I wrote a book about the first world war, and all the historic details were correct, it wouldn't mean much if I also - in all seriousness - told the story of how my grandfather was able to defeat many enemies because he had the ability to instantly move from one location to another, could take a bullet to his chest with no injury, could fly, etc. All the historic accuracy in my book wouldn't 'prove' that my grandfather had these superhuman abilities. It would only prove that I knew and/or had researched recent history.

Page 7:

'Internal harmony'. Books could be - and have been - written on this subject. There are whole websites dedicated to the disharmony and contradictions in the Bible. Sure - some of it I'll admit comes from not understanding or researching the Bible enough, but not all of it can be explained away. Apologetic explanations are often centered around the idea that the Bible is the word of God, and therefore has to be correct, resulting in an explanation that is circular logic.

As for the 'Reasonable differences' that are cited in the article as "proof" of the unintentional harmony of Bible writers (??); Aren't these texts supposed to be inspired, in a way no other texts have been since? One could wonder what the point of eye witnesses would be in the first place when they are all inspired anyway. If God is "whispering in their ear" as they write, why are there even seemingly discrepancies? Purple or scarlet? Why didn't God 'inspire' one of them to get it right? (this is of course only one rather insignificant example). Is the Bible selectively inspired? Or are - as is written - all the scriptures given by inspiration of God? (2 Timothy 3:16 , 1 Thessalonians 2:13) If we are to conclude that in some select parts, the Bible writers were free to write down their own, sometimes flawed memories and thoughts, why are we then to assume that the same isn't the case with for instance Paul's letters?

Page 9:

Well, this is also a very controversial subject. One only has to mention 607BC and 1914AD to get the ball rolling when it comes to JWs, and to show how people's need for Bible passages to suit their already established doctrine will make them go very far in their interpretations. But prophecy in the Bible is also controversial in itself even if we look away from JWs. This can be seen simply by going to the Wikipedia article about biblical prophecy. It is such a controversial subject that there's almost a war going on. This is often the case when people's beliefs are being challenged. Many people think the biblical prophecies were written after the fact. Some prophecies could be said to not have come to pass, like the destruction and following desolation of Tyre (and who it was that caused it), as Leolaia mentioned. But as anything else, that 'problem' is attempted to be explained away by apologetics. The book of Daniel is thought by some to have been written around 165BC, and not in the 6th. century BC. Those who already believe in the God of the Bible, will of course hold to the belief that the texts were written as genuine prophecy that came accurately to pass, and that they were written down many decades before the prophecy was to be fulfilled, while those who don't believe in the biblical God will demand extra-biblical evidence that it happened that way. My take on it is again that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, and since a biblical answer would be circular reasoning ("the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true"), it would have to be from an extra-biblical source (archaeological findings that confirm the texts were written before the fulfillment of the prophecy).

Atheists will put all this together with what they have already found to be true, and as they don't believe in God, they will also deny the possibility that divine prophecies can have come to pass. Theists (Bible based such) will also put it all together with what they have already found to be true, and so they are inclined to believe that the Bible's prophecies did come accurately to pass. Personally, I must admit I would have liked some extra-biblical evidence that these prophecies were written down before the fact, before I could believe it.

The rest of the article has already been covered in this thread, so the above only covers the latest scans.

47

post the OT scripture that you find most disturbing.

by oompa in

i am too tired to find mine right now, but it involves men laying in wait to attack and rape sisters going to dance at a circuit assembly.

i think the purpose was to find even more wives for the tribe of benjamin.

great plan god.. ot stuff always weirded me out more than nt stuff, until i found out we have a totally fraudulant nt version, compete with the name jehovah spuriously inserted 237 times, along with many other spurious verses.

Awakened07

Some of these could be "explained away" as being the misguided and/or evil doings of men, and that God didn't approve of what happened (although I guess he could have prevented it...).

So the ones I find most disturbing are the ones where God himself kills people (or wants to kill people) in a hissy fit:

(2. Samuel 6:6-10, KJV)"And when they came to Nachon's threshingfloor, Uzzah put forth [his hand] to the ark of God, and took hold of it; for the oxen shook [it]. And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there for [his] error; and there he died by the ark of God.And David was displeased, because the LORD had made a breach upon Uzzah: and he called the name of the place Perezuzzah ["breach of Uzzah"] to this day. And David was afraid of the LORD that day, and said, How shall the ark of the LORD come to me?"

So - Uzzah made the terrible mistake of taking hold of the ark when it was about to topple because the oxen shook it. This must have been a reflex reaction on his part; he couldn't have "planned" to touch the ark beforehand because the oxen would stumble.

The apologetic answers I've found to this, are 1) Uzzah knew that he wasn't allowed to touch the ark, 2) Uzzah should have trusted God to stabilize the cart himself, 3) they were not supposed to carry it on a cart anyway, so it wouldn't have happened if they had done everything according to what God had told them (it should have been carried).

For the first point, I would say that as this was a "knee jerk" reaction, you can't really blame him for reaching out as the cart was about to topple. For the second point, OK, this seems like a valid thought, but again, it was not a premeditated thing he did, it was a natural reaction to seeing something valuable almost topple. And for the third point; if that was the case, they should all have been killed for doing what was wrong - what Uzzah did was just an indirect consequence of the desision to transport the ark in the wrong manner.

I find it interesting that David seems to have been quite appalled by what happened, and called the place Perezuzzah, which in some translations go as 'outbreak against Uzzah'. And he got afraid of the lord that day...

Another fun scripture is:

(Numbers 15:32-36, KJV)"And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation. And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him. And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses."

-The people didn't really know what to do about this man so they put him in "quarantine", but boy did God know what to do! This man was gathering sticks on the sabbath day! Probably for firewood. Granted, fire would be a necessity, but you just don't gather sticks on the sabbath day either way! I'm not sure this guy was even an Israelite himself; i guess that depends on if "children of Israel" literally means children, or if it means Israelites in general. Anyway - - they "were only following orders".

Then there's the one where God sooo wanted to just smite'em all, but Moses made him change his mind:

(Exodus 32:9-14, KJV)"And the LORD said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it [is] a stiffnecked people: Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation. And Moses besought the LORD his God, and said, LORD, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand? [.... Moses is pleading his case some more ....] And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people."

18

If there was a cure for 'narrow minded ignorance'................

by ThomasCovenant in

jw
friends

would you force people (those that you consider narrow minded and ignorant of course) to take that cure?.

if not, then what would be the point of the cure or even wishing for such a cure?

those 'afflicted' would be blissfully unaware of their condition and would never take it voluntarily.. thanks.

Awakened07

- What is the opposite of narrow-mindedness and ignorance?

Open-mindedness [open to consider and understand other points of view] and knowledge [from education].

So the cure is readily available already, but I wouldn't force it on anyone.

I would recommend it to be advocated by the governments (through schools/education) and parents of any country, though.

But even with a universal greater willingness to see and understand other points of view, and added knowledge from education, people wouldn't necessarily agree on every subject.

The same education could be used or understood differently, and even after considering other points of view, people may still hold to the views they initially had.

So we're just gonna have to live together. But it could be a healthy exercise - for all of us.

39

Awake! Special Issue - Can You Trust The Bible?

by karvel in

here's a lovely highlight from the new issue of everyone's favorite 'journal.

' notice how they try to talk scientific accuracy two pages after an illustration showing jonah about to be swallowed by fish wherein he is to spend 3 days...alive.

.

Awakened07

- I was "promised" scans of the other pages...

(in other words; *bump*)

23

Where does the human conscience come from?

by bluesapphire in

i am on the borderline of becoming atheist/agnostic.

but i still can't figure out the human conscience.

since the conscience is innate to only the human animal, how did that evolve?.

Awakened07

Non-theists will do what is right for the same reason non-theists can have moral values. Theists often ask the rather odd question; "How can you have morals without God?", as if doing or not doing certain things simply because God says so would be morally right.

- If the only reason one is moral is because "it says to do so in the scripture", can it really then be said that that person is a moral person?

A non-theist does not live in a vacuum either; his/her actions will cause reactions from the surroundings, some negative, some positive, Non-theists have parents too! We all know what is wrong basically because doing wrong things (on this basic level we're talking about here) is destructive and harmful to others. This can then - by most people - be reflected back on our own person, and we know that if someone did the same to us, it would be devastating.

Those who are sociopaths may lack empathy; some may lack it in a physical sense.

The brain is an organ which - if we believe evolution theory - must have evolved like any other organ. Our thoughts aren't something floating in a metaphysical realm up there, but are products of electrochemical reactions in parts of our brain that have formed partly due to what we've been using our brain for, and partly due to genetic heritage.

Here are a couple of links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscience

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioural_genetics

23

Where does the human conscience come from?

by bluesapphire in

i am on the borderline of becoming atheist/agnostic.

but i still can't figure out the human conscience.

since the conscience is innate to only the human animal, how did that evolve?.

Awakened07

An interesting question.

First off, I'm not so sure conscience is solely human. Those who have dogs or cats for pets, know that they can sometimes look really guilty when they've done something they know they weren't supposed to (something they've been yelled at for doing before).

In humans, I'm not so sure conscience is the locked, metaphysical phenomenon some people seem to think it is. Even religious (maybe especially religious) people agree that our conscience is something that needs to be trained if it is to be effective. In other words, to have an "efficient" conscience, we need to learn what things are OK and what things are not. This to me indicates that 'conscience' is not some special part of our brain, or our 'soul', but is simply something learned through experience, and will work differently from human to human dependent on the ethical/moral values we have fed our brain.

Conscience is however not a process of using logic and thinking in order to reach a conclusion, but is more like a quick reflex, almost literally a gut feeling happening in an instant. But I think it is still learned, in that we have these notions stored in the back of our brains, and when we come to a situation that goes against what we've been taught, it triggers a response dependent on that.

As for how conscience evolved in the first place, I first of all don't think it necessarily did at all, but may simply be an automatic cause of intelligence and memory (we weigh a new situation up against what we've experienced before, or have been taught before, but do it subconsciously so that it seems like a reflex).

-If it is indeed a trait that evolved, it could be said that in a society, it may be an advantage because you'd be better liked if you showed others that you have a conscience and are a better person toward others because of it. OK - that's a little weak for an explanation; let's go a little further back:

What we now know as 'conscience' may have started out as a different emotion, which directly would be beneficial for survival. Kinda like how we learn that if we've been burnt once, we make sure not to make the same mistake again; at least try a little different approach. That notion may have evolved into a more ethically driven emotion; "I stole from Ugh, but now I remember how angry and sad I got when Ugh stole from me - I must have made him feel the same now as he made me feel then. I now wish I hadn't stolen from Ugh." - - or - - "My mother told me that lying was wrong because it may mislead other people to do things they otherwise wouldn't do - - and now I lied anyway, and said there were lots of prey just over that mountain, just so I could keep them away from the flock of prey I recently discovered close to here. Now they may die on that mountain without finding any prey, and I regret having lied because of it, and having done something my mother warned me against."

This notion, this emotion when applied to a small society, may have made them close knit compared to another small society that had no such notions, and so the society with a 'conscience' may have had an advantage because of it. They may have stood more united than the other society/tribe when faced with trouble.

Something along those lines.

Small children learn very fast. If they do something that results in an angry outburst from a parent, it will instill fear in them, and they will understand that doing what they were about to do or did, is 'bad'. Still - curiosity or desire to have/do something may be strong enough that they do it again later - and if they are then caught, they know they are doing something their parents do not approve of, and their conscience - or perhaps fear of retribution at this point - make them feel remorse.

Think of all the things you would have a bad conscience about doing while you were a JW, but you would now do with no bad feelings. 'Conscience' is not a 'thing' as such in my opinion, but a 'pliable' emotion driven by past experiences and what we are taught.

33

How long will Watchtower last??

by chuckyy in

jw
friends

how long do you estimate that the watchtower org.

until the next failed prophecy?, or will it go on until armageddon ( only kidding)???.

chukky.

Awakened07

I used to think (when having doubts): "Oh well, if this turns out to be false, at least this religion has an expiration date." This was before the 1995 change of doctrine about the 1914 generation, though. Had that doctrine been standing, there would only be ten or so more years left before it would become too ridiculous. Which is why they changed it - in a "foot note" no less. And now recently they also changed the doctrine on all the anointed having been selected already, to now being an ongoing process. Which is also a subtle way of prolonging the 'expiration date' of the religion.

I think they'll be able to continue doing this almost indefinitely. After all, most JWs are still there after these recent changes. The previous teachings are now 'old light'; Jehovah has given them new pieces in the puzzle and the old ones are to be discarded. Just like that. Their kids won't even know what they used to teach on this, I'm sure, and neither will new members. Just as old literature is hard to come by and shouldn't be looked into as it contains 'old light', pre-1996 literature may someday be really hard to come by for an active JW. "Don't dwell on the past, always look forward".

The few who start to think, are literally afraid of doing anything about it. Both because of their friends and family are in, but also because they do believe in Jehovah, and fear him. Well - we've all been there, so no point in me babbling on.