the other day i was doing some research about "1914" for a friend on my wt cd library (spanish) and i found it quite interesting that the number of times "1914" is mentioned in the watchtower magazine during the previous 3 decades has been dropping exponentially as follows.... 1980-1989: mentioned 854 times.
1990-1999: mentioned 492 times.
2000-2009: mentioned 222 times.
They will never drop 1914. At the best they might delink a few more prophetic events claimed to have happened in 1914 and shift them into the future, which they have gradually been doing already. But they are too afraid to take the big leap and admit that Jesus enthronement as king obviously didn't happen in 1914, although many of the GB privately know it.
And since most JWs are dumb enough to swallow the insulting generation new light, they are dumb enough to always believe in 1914.
a problem for believers!.
a majority of the world’s population acknowledge that they believe in a superior god or in their creator.
they also claim that they have got this special understanding and knowledge of his will and his law.
the most ridiculous of all dogmas anywhere in the universe is the very foundation of churchianity.....thus, all their other claims are just blah, blah!.
.
Frankly I agree with the OP.
Although most of the Bible is sheer bunkum, the trinity doctrine goes the extra mile in being a lot of utterly absurd bunkum; yet its supposed to be the foundation doctrine of Christianity.
Laughable.
one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
John Mann:
History show us that some accounts is literally impossible.
Every battle and genocide is a symbol for our inner faith struggles.
Catholicism is not founded on Bible. The NT is a product of Catholicism. Outside Catholicism the Bible is pure nonsense.
Amazing how Atheists here seems just to take the Sola Scriptura approach. If Sola Scriptura is the only approach so I'm an Atheist too.
And so the special pleading begins. Cherry pick what scriptures suit and reject what doesn't.
In that case you have just completely sawn off the branch you are sitting on, since all knowledge of your God comes from the Bible.
Case closed.
one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
John Mann:
What's the problem to a Christian if morality comes from directly from God's nature (as opposed from His will or intellect as you put as "divine command"). I don't see any dilemma in this.
The problem for Christians is that the Bible contains accounts of morally abhorrent actions claimed to have been commanded, sanctioned or performed by God, such as genocidal ethnic cleansing, killing children, etc.
one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
As you alluded to, the Euthyphro Dilemma is pretty much all one needs to know to refute this typical Christian apologetic.
If morality is independent of God and exists outside of Him, then it means God is not all powerful and that He is subject to something greater than himself, ie, objective morality. No Christian can accept this proposition and still believe God is omnipotent.
However, if the source of all morality is from God and is not something outside and independent of God then objective morality does not exist, since it is only a reflection of Gods divine commands. It would mean morality is arbitrary and that might is right after all, as Satan claimed.
It's an intractable dilemma.
Some Christians have said the dilemma is false, claiming there is a third option. But it's not very convincing.
i was in a good mood yesterday (makes a bloody change, i hear you say).
i was meeting an old buddy for a meal.
he was never a jobo.
Its Johos not Jobos.
the sda's are also getting most of their growth in africa and latin america but plateauing or declining in europe and parts of the western world.. what's also interesting is the sda leadership fronts up and attempts to explain why there is decline in some areas of the world (albeit somewhat disingenously), eg, on the link below from 2014. but the watchtower leaders have never tried to give any explanation for why membership is dramatically falling away in the western world.
increasingly worried jws are instead turning to other sources of information to try and understand why the 'true religion' is contracting.. http://news.adventist.org/en/all-news/news/go/2013-10-13/membership-nears-18-million-secretary-highlights-regions-of-growth-decline/.
The SDA's are also getting most of their growth in Africa and Latin America but plateauing or declining in Europe and parts of the western world.
What's also interesting is the SDA leadership fronts up and attempts to explain why there is decline in some areas of the world (albeit somewhat disingenously), eg, on the link below from 2014. But the Watchtower leaders have never tried to give any explanation for why membership is dramatically falling away in the western world. Increasingly worried JWs are instead turning to other sources of information to try and understand why the 'true religion' is contracting.
report was in nz news paper recently this guy had a camera attached to his witnessing bag so he could film up girls skirts hyperthetical can you imagine before he was caught this bro being commended for his zeal in the ministry and used as a role model for reporting a lot of hours which is considered by the elders a measure of ones spirituality .
He was actually an elder.
regarding what happened post russell in 1917, if you ask a jw, they'll say it was the fault of the ousted board members who were 'self willed'.
if you ask an ex-jw, they'll say it was a 'power grab' by rutherford.
the latest yearbook elaborates on the situation:.
Great post krismalone, thanks.
