i did some research after reading this thread: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/246165/1/using-microsoft-excel-to-disprove-watchtower-theology-authority.
and realized there have been some flip-flops in the watchtower's interpretation of daniel's prophecy.
here is the interpretation from 'pay attention to daniel's prophecy' (1999) pg.301:.
the arrival of Jesus during the Great Tribulation
That reminds me, the Watchtower formerly taught that the Great Tribulation started at the beginning of the end times in 1914 and would continue all the way through Armageddon. Franz later changed that teaching to push it into the future, just like they have pushed the judging of sheep and goats into the future, and now the awarding of Belongings into the future.
i did some research after reading this thread: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/246165/1/using-microsoft-excel-to-disprove-watchtower-theology-authority.
and realized there have been some flip-flops in the watchtower's interpretation of daniel's prophecy.
here is the interpretation from 'pay attention to daniel's prophecy' (1999) pg.301:.
Two arrivals just doesn’t make much sense
Oh you of little faith! He "comes" in two senses - the first sense as the meek-and-mild king who directs the organization and the preaching work, and then later he comes (even though he's already present) in the second sense as kick-ass Jesus who clears out all enemies of the Watchtower organization and clears the way for the Watchtower leaders to act as ruler over a post-apocalyptic paradise earth!
It's all clearly (cough) explained in the "Revelation - Its Climax in your hand" book.
...and that applies to religion as well as politics.. if someone simply believes such and such is true, it doesn't really matter whether you "prove" it or not.
people will believe what they want to believe..
people define "fact" differently (regardless of how hard we stab the dictionary definition with our forefinger), and that personal experience tends to trump abstract imparted knowledge in most peoples' minds.
In line with the title of this thread, "facts" don't mean much if a person refuses to accept them. If people define the meaning of the word "fact" according to personal outlooks rather than according to some standard, then the meaning of the word gets lost.
I would hope (maybe vainly in this era where everyone can publish their opinions to a worldwide audience and proclaim them "fact") that people can separate what is a standard fact from their personal experiences, thoughts, and beliefs.
So, pretending to follow the only true definition of "fact", while excluding other peoples' "facts", can never lead to a fruitful debate or even a happy coexistence.
I either don't understand or do not accept the concept of "other people's facts". If there is a standard provable fact, then two people, while they may describe it in different words, would not disagree on the substance of the fact. If the topic being discussed is controversial or is subject to a person's outlook, then in my humble opinion it really isn't a fact but a belief, viewpoint, outlook, etc. - which others may or may not choose to accept as valid.
I should know better than to think I can convince anyone to be less confident of their position, though; it's a fool's errand.
Admittedly I have come to this thread with a defined viewpoint of what a "fact" is. I do think it's important to distinguish facts from beliefs and interpretations. However I do not come here with an arrogance that only I can be right and there is never room for growth in my knowledge and outlook.
I think we sharpen each other's viewpoints by proclaiming our ideas, putting them out here for discussion, and really listening to what each participant brings. It should be a rewarding experience.
has anyone noticed the recent deterioration in the quality of wt's contents lately?..
the spiritual food seems to be getting more and more shitty these days.
i have given a thought to what could really be going wrong, and if it is likely that some on the wiriting committee is consciously dishing out those nonsense to facilitate more poeple seeing ttat.
The Watchtower warns of complainers like all of you!!
The food is fine, just fine.
...and that applies to religion as well as politics.. if someone simply believes such and such is true, it doesn't really matter whether you "prove" it or not.
people will believe what they want to believe..
Apognophos:
I'm simply encouraging all to consider the fact that science can't provide all the facts. I've seen nothing but agreement with this assertion from the other contributors here, because we all acknowledge that science isn't "complete" yet, that there's more to learn.
In all likelihood, there are still unknown facts that science will uncover in the future. Certainly there is still more to learn. As Shelby/Aguest pointed out earlier, it was always a FACT that the earth is spherical. This wasn't confirmed by science until the 3rd century BC at the earliest and confirmed by actual circumnavigation of the globe much later. So the sure knowledge of that fact was yet future before it was confirmed as demonstrably true.
Where we get into murky waters is when trying to frame things like assertions, personal experiences and strong beliefs as "facts". I don't know that we can call things "facts" if they cannot be scientifically verified. If they cannot be, then they must fall into some other category. (I'm speaking about universal facts, not facts of law or facts where you have to tell the truth about what did or didn't happen.)
...and that applies to religion as well as politics.. if someone simply believes such and such is true, it doesn't really matter whether you "prove" it or not.
people will believe what they want to believe..
Satanus
Thanks for clearing that up.
quarterback tim tebow is scheduled to address the 11,000 member first baptist dallas congregation april 28th.
first baptist dallas and its outspoken pastor robert jeffries in recent times have called islam and mormonism coming from the 'pits of hell' and you can't be 'saved being a jew', although he clarified that being a jew is not the same type of hereticalness as being a mormon.....huh?.
pastor jeffries called the election of obama 'the rise of the anti-christ'.
Cagefighter,
I'm not one who wants to control what others say or think. Goes without saying - I don't have that power.
I respect anyone's right to believe what they want as long as it doesn't harm others. If someone wants to do a headstand in a corner of the room and kick their legs around in the air because they think it'll please someone who's watching from an invisible realm, I say hey - go for it.
My problem is when they use their positions of power to support discrimination or spew teachings that fill the air with distrust of whole groups of people that their religion preaches will be condemned to death (or worse) because they dare to live in a different way than their church preaches, I will say loud and clear that it is offensive.
If nobody on the Internet shared the very reasonable view that Jeffries and Tebow are making much money and commanding much attention by their self-promotion, then we'd only be hearing "happiness and rainbows" type stuff about these guys.
i did some research after reading this thread: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/246165/1/using-microsoft-excel-to-disprove-watchtower-theology-authority.
and realized there have been some flip-flops in the watchtower's interpretation of daniel's prophecy.
here is the interpretation from 'pay attention to daniel's prophecy' (1999) pg.301:.
Londo -
I think they invented the "overlapping generation" doctrine to keep 1914 going. As you mention, 1919 is integral to the WT Society's supposed authority as Don Cameron has pointed out in "Captives of a Concept".
They have let a lot of other formerly crucial dates drop, like 1799, 1814, 1925, 1975, and "before the end of the 20th century". They even let go of the supposed connection between 6,000 years of mankind's history (according to their chronology) and the nearness of Armageddon.
But 1914 is dyed into their wool, at least for now.
...and that applies to religion as well as politics.. if someone simply believes such and such is true, it doesn't really matter whether you "prove" it or not.
people will believe what they want to believe..
what i said was that science facts were not complete. That means that new facts would not be accepted. The theory aspect wasn't really a part of what i said. He firmly dissagreed w me, ie, he says that science accepts no new facts.
Glad I gave you a good laugh. However....
I think you may have misunderstood me here. I never said science accepts no new facts, and I never meant to imply that.
My meaning of that part of my earlier post to you is: once a FACT is established, it is complete. It cannot be reversed, and it does not need to be amended. A ray of sunlight takes 8 minutes (rounded to the nearest minute) to reach planet earth from the sun. That is a fact that won't be changed. It isn't a working theory. Working theories like the Constant Universe theory can be amended or even superseded when strong evidence (as accepted by a consensus of scientists) warrants it.
...and that applies to religion as well as politics.. if someone simply believes such and such is true, it doesn't really matter whether you "prove" it or not.
people will believe what they want to believe..
Shelby:
for many... most... and possibly most here... something is not a fact... until it is verified. But that's not really the definition trying to be sold. What is trying to be SOLD... is that something is not TRUE... until it is verified. And THAT... is a lie. Again, the earth was round BEFORE man verified that it was.
Please read my previous post responding to Satanus about fact vs. scientific theory. As to your example of the earth being round, yes it was always a fact. However it was not verified to the majority of civilization until Greek astronomy of the 3rd century BC, and further verified by European circumnavigation of our globe in the 16th century by Magellan.
Before it was verified, it could only be a scientific theory - i.e. the best explanation by the consensus of scientists. Some facts are waiting to be discovered.
So I will not and never did assert that facts are not true until they are verified. I only say that facts ARE verifiable (or become verifiable as scientific technology makes that possible) and at that point are incontrovertible.
Whereas religion, by its very nature, is not on a quest for facts because it claims to know all the truth already. In such religion there is no need for further investigation, it's said to be already frozen in time in the ancient wisdom of its books.
Perhaps when the proponents of science stop SPEAKING and ACTING like the proponents of religion, more people would listen to them.
By saying that you seem to condemn proponents of religion!
And I am not here vouching for the humility or honesty of all members of the scientific community. But I do say that bad research and bad claims in the realm of science are eventually exposed and corrected by other diligent and honest scientists. Fraudulent theories like "cold fusion" eventually get rooted out. The advancement towards more solid explanations for the world around us continually happens in science.
Religionists can't see/understand where proponents of science are coming from when THEY say the facts "can change."
Please see my scientific facts vs. theories points my post made in response to Satanus. Scientific people don't say facts change. (Only liars do.) Scientists can refine theories or even drop them all together. Einstein humbly dropped the Static Universe theory when a correction was brought to his attention. Einstein wasn't changing facts when he dropped the Static Universe theory, because he didn't ever say it was a fact!
