Posts by DT

28

John 19:14, a devastating contradiction?

by DT in

matthew, mark and luke claim that jesus died on passover (nisan 14) john, however, claims that jesus died on the day of preparation for passover (nisan 13) "now it was preparation of the passover" -john 19:14 nwt (it helps to read the context, several verses before and after.

) john also doesn't mention the lord's evening meal with his his apostles on passover.

it would have been impossible, because he was already dead, according to john.. the bible contains many contradictions that can possibly be reconciled if you have enough imagination, but this contradiction seems pretty blatant.

DT

Matthew, Mark and Luke claim that Jesus died on passover (Nisan 14) John, however, claims that Jesus died on the day of preparation for passover (Nisan 13) "Now it was preparation of the passover" -John 19:14 NWT (It helps to read the context, several verses before and after.) John also doesn't mention the Lord's evening meal with his his apostles on passover. It would have been impossible, because he was already dead, according to John.

The Bible contains many contradictions that can possibly be reconciled if you have enough imagination, but this contradiction seems pretty blatant. I don't know how a JW could overcome it. It seems to shatter a fundamental aspect of JW theology and is pretty damaging to other religions as well. The JW's only have one holiday every year and one gospel account indicates that it has no justification.

What are your thoughts on this?

30

Questioning the question of God's existence

by DT in

jw
friends

i don't know if there is a god.

if i knew for certain, this piece of knowledge could serve as a foundation for my world view.

some people are confident they know the answer (both theists and atheists) and their world view is based on this faith.

DT

I don't know if there is a God. If I knew for certain, this piece of knowledge could serve as a foundation for my world view. Some people are confident they know the answer (both theists and atheists) and their world view is based on this faith. If their faith is wrong, then it calls into question everything they believe. I suggest the possibility that belief or disbelief in God may not be the best foundation for a person's worldview.

I think we should ask if there is a God. It's an important question, but a dangerous one. Once you come up with an answer (even if the answer is I don't know) it tends to provide a context for everything else. It may be better to first provide a context for the question. The act of asking whether there is a God involves assumptions (such as a preconceived notion of what this imagined God may be like). It should be helpful to analyse these assumptions first.

I now find myself in a bit of a philosophical mess and feel poorly prepared to continue, but I'll try to explain my thinking. It involves analysing the level of certainty we can have about anything. There is only one thing that I can be absolutely certain of. That is that I am conscious. It is my personal knowledge that I somehow experience the world. (whatever the world is) I also assume that others have the same experience. I'm not saying that personal experience is a reliable guide to truth as is believed in some religions. I'm just saying that I know my experience exists in some way. I have consciousness.

This basic fact is fundamental to many religions, especially certain eastern religions, gnosticism, etc. Other religions are more external and ignore or suppress this basic wisdom. I'm not advocating Eastern type religions. I don't know enough about them and am troubled by some of what I have learned. However, I do believe there is a great danger in other religions that place a great emphasis on external authority and ignore a basic understanding of the self.

I wish I could deduce from my experience of consciousness a satisfying and fulfilling philosophy or religion. Some believe this is possible. I have my doubts. On the other hand, I can use this piece of certainty to better analyse the uncertainty of other ideas. It can help me to identify hidden assumptions and maybe ask better questions. It also suggests to me a question that may be more fundamental then the question of God's existence:

What is the relationship of matter and consciousness? I can't answer this, but I can give reasons to doubt some commonly accepted answers to this question. This would change the context for the question of God's existence. Consider a common line of reasoning. A young person begins to study the universe. He learns that the universe is far bigger and older than he is. He might conclude that a God made the matter of the universe and eventually made Intelligent humans out of this same matter. This explanation may seem satisfying but it is incomplete. It doesn't explain consciousness. One possibility is that consciousness is a property of organised matter. This is a hidden assumption of many people. Another possibility is that consciousness is separate from matter.

Matter is not a certainty. Our only knowledge of matter comes through our consciousness. It seems to be a big jump to conclude that consciousness is just a property of matter. (also it causes scientific problems, any purely materialistic explanation of consciousness would seem to do away with free will. I feel justified in accepting the assumption of free will. Either it exists or it doesn't and I can't change the fact that I believe in it.) It seems more likely that either matter and consciousness coexist or that matter is somehow dependent on, or a product of, consciousness.

It's interesting to speculate about the consequences of the possibility of the mere coexistence of matter and consciousness. (It would indicate that evolution or any purely materialistic theory doesn't have all the answers. Although it wouldn't necessarily demand the existence of a God since claiming that consciousness has to be created by a preexisting consciousness only sidesteps the question of where the first consciousness came from.) I believe it is more probable that matter is somehow dependent on consciousness. This idea has a philosophical appeal for me, but more importantly it has scientific support. I'm talking about quantum physics, not various types of fringe science. Quantum physics includes the role of the observer. The actions of the observer affects the behavior of the things observed. Experiments indicate that particles behave like probability waves that simultaneously exist in multiple states until the probability wave is collapsed by the act of observation by a conscious observer. It's as if the universe needs to be observed in order to exist.

I'm mostly trying to consider a different perspective on the question of God's existence. If matter is dependent on consciousness, then we might not feel compelled to believe in a creator of matter. It would still be worth considering if there is a higher intelligence, but it would be premature to assume that the relationship is simply one of creator verses created. We could also consider the possibility that there is only one great collective intelligence. I'm uneasy about this, but I'm forced to admit that it is a popular idea in some religions and it simplifies some of the difficulties of quantum physics.

Some have also suggested that if the universe needs an observer to exists, then it may have developed as a vast realm of possibilities until the mere possibility of a conscious observer developed to collapse the universe into one of many possible states.. This could dramatically change our view of the possibilities of life coming into existence without the intervention of a traditional creator.

I apologise for rambling on so long. I'm trying to organise my thoughts and I hope that others have similar questions. I look forward to your comments.

53

Upcoming Elders Schooling

by Questions1 in

it's no secret that the "organization" has increased it's cia, national security clerance only super-secret attitude in regards to the elder school that is going to be conducted soon.

a few days ago, i had a conversation with an elder who has been in the fold all of his life practically.

in keeping with the conversation style of jws, the gentleman told me that nobody knows what exactly will be taught at the meetings, but in his backdoor conversations with some brothers who seem to be tuned into the bethel's officially, unofficial, communications network, the elders are going to be taught "post-armageddon" teachings.

DT

Welcome to the forum. I'm looking forward to hearing what is discussed at that school. I wouldn't be surprised if they come up with some crazy new ideas.

32

2008 Memorial...How will Brooklyn fix this MASSIVE blunder?

by A-Team in

....brooklyn forgot that this year is a leap year in the hebrew calendar, and passover begins @ sundown on april 20th of 2008. now, will they fix this mistake, or come up with some crap excuse on why its not on nissan 14th this year?

either way, they are in a massive jam.

DT

I recall the WTS publishing their formula for calculating Nisan 14. I believe it was supposed to be the same method that the ancient Jews used. I think the method was to use the first full moon after the new moon that was nearest the vernal equinox. I think that's what they did this year too.

39

Unexplained Mormon "miracles"...Unexplained JW "miracles"

by FormerMormon in

jw
friends

ok... lets get the ribbing aside.

our mormon "miracles" are more unexplainable than yours.... one of the many tools used by the morg to keep it's members active is the use of faith promoting stories involving apparent miracles... or the unexplainable.

there are unexplainable stories even in my own family.

DT

It's great to have a former Mormon on this forum to provide a broader perspective. Can you suggest a good Ex Mormon forum?

Well, I was in a small congregation with one old "anointed" brother. Someone was about to take legal action against him and that day a tornado hit and sucked him out of the house. He was the only one who died. I know this happened because it was reported in the news, but I can't vouch for all the details. It really gave me faith that coincidences really happen. Or maybe the lesson should be don't get in God's way if he is trying to kill someone. He had to destroy a lot of homes to get at that one troublemaker.

40

Atheists - What is the meaning of life?

by Paralipomenon in

jw
friends

personally i am a agnostic with a complete rejection of a personal god.

without the concept of salvation my belief structure states that when i die, very likely that is it.

no amount of good or bad deeds will extend my life past the point of my death.

DT

I would say that the primary goal of my life is to try to discover the meaning of life, if it exists. Maybe my search will provide some answers or be beneficial in some unknown existence after death. Maybe not. Maybe there will eventually develop something in this universe that we would consider divine or meaningful. If so, I would be pleased to have played a role in its development, even if I'm long gone by then. I know that my search for meaning might be pointless, but accepting a false religious hope would only ensure defeat.

4

A New Creation Myth

by DT in

jw
friends

i'm just having some fun with genesis and the wts explanation of the issue of universal sovereignty.. one day a powerful god named jehover got lonely and created other spirit creatures.

since he was an angry bully, he made them spend all their time serving him and talking about what a great and powerful god he was.

eventually, this got kind of boring and jehover decided that if he made intelligent creatures that were even weaker and more pathetic than the angels, then he would really feel like a great and powerful god.

DT

I'm just having some fun with Genesis and the WTS explanation of the issue of universal sovereignty.

One day a powerful God named Jehover got lonely and created other spirit creatures. Since he was an angry bully, he made them spend all their time serving him and talking about what a great and powerful God he was. Eventually, this got kind of boring and Jehover decided that if he made intelligent creatures that were even weaker and more pathetic than the angels, then he would really feel like a great and powerful God. So he came up with a design and realised that he would have to do some preparatory work so that these extremely fragile creatures could survive. It was a bit of a bother, but he spent almost an entire week building a planet to support them. He made a naked man and woman out of dirt, so that he would feel really superior, and placed them in a specially designed garden where they would have all the food they needed.

Well, the angels thought this was just great and complimented Jehover on what a great and powerful God he was compared to his new puny creatures. Then something embarrassing happened. An angel named Satanas got fed up with all this brown nosing. He said, "Just look at how pathetic these creatures are. They can't even take care of themselves. They would be helpless without you and would probably make a mess of everything! If you were really a wise and powerful God, you should be able to make creatures that are stronger and more self sufficient."

If Jehover wasn't so worn out from his work week, he might have just destroyed this trouble maker. Instead, he got very angry and said, "How dare you question my creative abilities! I made these creatures perfectly, so of course they can take of themselves. They don't need me. I'll prove it and make you watch!"

So Jehover put them out of the well tended garden into the area he hadn't spent that much time on. He predicted that they would prosper and succeed in governing themselves. He also claimed that after they became stable and happy that they would still want to serve him because they loved him, not because they needed him.

It didn't take long to prove that Jehover was wrong. They really were pathetic creatures that couldn't even direct their step. They kept fighting and killing each other and generally made a mess of things. Jehover even tried sending some of his angels to earth to have sex with the women in order to make improved humans. (The angels didn't really want to have sex with these dirt creatures, but what could they do?) It didn't work, even the improved hybrids messed everything up. Jehover began to regret that he made men in the first place. One man was in the habit of preaching about what a great God he was, so Jehover had him build a boat for his family and then drowned all the others.

Then Jehover invented information control. He called for a giant heavenly assembly. He had slow hypnotic music, long boring talks, endless testimonials about what a great God he was and dire warnings about the dangers of apostate angels. Then when the angels were about to invent heavenly sleep, Jehover unveiled some marvelous new light! He gave a talk about the situation on Earth. Most of the angels had lost interest in the exploits of these dirt creatures, but Jehover revealed that this was a great test of his universal sovereignty! The evil Satanas had questioned his right to rule and claimed that that these humans would be better off without Jehover. In his love and wisdom, Jehover would give these dirt creatures many more centuries of hardship to prove how inept they were! He would also show that a very small minority would continue to serve him, thereby proving what a great God he was and what a malicious liar Satanas was. Then Jehover thumped the celestial podium with a comet and said in a deep, menacing voice, "And you must stop having relations with those dirt creatures!"
There was a thunderous applause in heaven.

The situation again turned into a bit of an embarrassment. Jehover gave these dirt creatures a book so they would know how to serve him. Alas, the book was confusing and the poor, stupid dirt creatures couldn't figure it out. Instead they started to worship men who claimed that they could explain this mysterious book. By now, Jehover was well rested and realised this whole human experiment was a mistake. Fortunately, he was able to come up with a better invention. He figured out how to make singing worms out of slime. He destroyed all of mankind and filled the earth with obedient, dirt dwelling, slime worms that would sing his praises until time indefinite.

13

Could the widespread belief in God be evidence that he doesn't exist?

by DT in

jw
friends

first of all, i'm an agnostic and don't know if there is a god or not.

however, i do think it possible to intelligently review the evidence and come to some reasonable conclusions, even if we can't have absolute certainty.

it's a big topic, so i'll just discuss the main reason that many people believe in god.

DT

First of all, I'm an agnostic and don't know if there is a God or not. However, I do think it possible to intelligently review the evidence and come to some reasonable conclusions, even if we can't have absolute certainty. It's a big topic, so I'll just discuss the main reason that many people believe in God. It often comes down to a hunch. People have a gut feeling that there must be a God. So for many people, their belief in God is based on the fact that many people believe in God. I'm not trying to be disrespectful or trying to trivialise this. Rather, I think it is an important argument that needs to be discussed seriously.

If there is a God, it seems likely that we would be created with a kind of inborn belief in him, so this could be taken as evidence of his existence. On the other hand, this evidence would lose much of it's force if the theory of evolution made the same prediction. It's hard to analyse the survival value of believing in God, but a good argument can be made that there is a survival benefit to attributing some kind of intelligent cause to things that have an unknown cause. So if someone hears a rustling of leaves and assumes that it is caused by a predator or enemy, he will have a survival advantage, even if he is wrong most of the time. If natural selection over a long period of time selects for this way of thinking, then it is easy to see how belief in God as an intelligent cause for unexplained events could develop.

It might seem hopeless to decide which scenario best explains the evidence if they both predict the same thing. However, there are some differences in the details. The common gut feeling that there is a God is very powerful, but it can be overcome and it also varies from person to person. This is consistent with evolutionary theory, but it is not quite consistent with what we might reasonably expect if we were created by a loving God. If there is a God, he could have made this gut feeling absolute so we wouldn't have to waste time debating a certainty. Or he could have given us clear supplemental evidence that he exists. Neither is the case.

If there is a God. I would expect that he would not only give convincing evidence of his existence, but would also design us with the ability to properly understand and visualise the nature of the universe. If our gut feeling in the existence of God was just a consequence of a natural tendency to misunderstand the workings of the universe, then I would consider that to be strong evidence for the nonexistence of God (at least of a loving and wise God).

The fact is that our natural tendency to attribute an intelligent cause to unexplained things offers survival benefits, but greatly hinders us in our efforts to understand ourselves and the universe. This fact is obscured somewhat by modern science. We have learned that at least most of the workings of the universe have natural explanations. In the past, it was common to assume these were the result of supernatural causes. Think of all the reports of demon possession in the Bible. Before people understood illnesses and even minor maladies, they often assumed these were the result of demon possession. This natural tendency is pervasive. For example, Kepler discovered some mathematical laws of planetary motion. They described what happened, but not how it happened, so many believed that angels moved the planets according to these laws. Newton eventually discovered that a mathematically precise description of gravity could account for these observed motions, so the unnecessary hypothesis of planet moving angels was abandoned. I view this natural human tendency to be more consistent with the forces of evolution then with the hypothesis of a wise and loving God. Also consider how poorly equipped we are to comprehend and visualise advanced scientific ideas like relativity, quantum physics, extra or curved dimensions, etc. These abilities wouldn't have provided any survival benefits (until recently, at least) so it's not surprising that we don't have them. If we were created, I would expect that we would be better prepared.

I know this is just a brief review of an important topic, but I would like to hear your thoughts.

22

Context and Consistency

by DT in

since i was born into the wts, i suffered from a lot a brainwashing before i could even read.

i had a lot of preconceived ideas before i started to read the bible.

i assumed that it was consistent, so when i came across apparent contradictions, i assumed there were reasonable explanations and even tried to make them up.

DT

I'd be interested to see what was the most striking inconsistency that you've found.

Probably John 19:14 where we learn that Jesus was killed on the day of preparation for Passover, Nisan 13 instead of Nisan 14 like the other gospels claim. I think this is huge because it contradicts the one holiday that JW's celebrate. I'm planning on making this the subject of a separate post.

19

Assembly Resolutions

by DT in

jw
friends

even when i was a believing jw, i began to really dislike those fake assembly resolutions.

my biggest complaint was that we weren't given any time to think about them before we were called on to agree.

i thought they were pretty meaningless and stopped responding to them.

DT

Even when I was a believing JW, I began to really dislike those fake assembly resolutions. My biggest complaint was that we weren't given any time to think about them before we were called on to agree. I thought they were pretty meaningless and stopped responding to them. Everyone was put under a lot of pressure to respond positively, so I felt that the response didn't mean much. I also grew tired of all the testimonials and experiences that we heard. There was no way they would allow negative testimonials and everyone that gave positive experiences were put under pressure so they couldn't be viewed as reliable.

Note: An old thread was recently resurrected that was just an April Fool's joke. It touched on some of these matters and had some very interesting comments, but I wanted to put my thoughts on a different thread. What are your thoughts?