Posts by Disillusioned JW

9

When Did the Watchtower Introduce the "Generation of 1914" Teaching?

by Ding in

i'm looking for help to track down the development of the "generation" doctrine, starting with when the wt first specifically tied the end to the generation of 1914.. russell taught that 1914 would be the end of this system of things.

when that failed, rutherford started touting 1925.. no need to talk about generations then; it was just specific dates.. when did they first tie the end in to a "generation of 1914" time frame?.

i also know that they changed the meaning of generation several times.. first, a person had to have been at least 15 in order to have seen the events of 1914 with understanding of what was happening.. i think they lowered that to 10 and then finally it was anyone who was alive in 1914.. of course, now the generation overlaps.. does anyone know someone where all these wt teachings are set out chronologically (preferably with citations to the literature)?.

Disillusioned JW

I notice that a number of posts make the claim that Russell plagiarized the works of others, but it should be kept in mind that under law if the copyrights on the works have expired then those works are in the public domain, and there is thus no legal requirement for any attribution to be made to those earlier works when using their ideas and words or even when using their entire content. In the time that Russell lived copyrights had a far shorter duration than modern works now have.

362

Just read that Carl Olof Jonsson died yesterday

by slimboyfat in

for newbies, who was carl olof jonsson?

he was a jw in sweden who was challenged by a householder in the 1960s, who pointed out to him that secular history books don’t agree with watchtower that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, but instead place the event 20 years later.

the reason the date is important is because it is the starting date for jw chronology which leads to 1914 as the end of the gentile times, and the beginning of the last days, as jws understand it.

Disillusioned JW

Vanderhoven7, you made a number of good points in a post on page 5 of this topic thread. However, I disagree with your statement that William Miller was "... the founder of the Seventh Day Adventists ...". He did not found the Seventh-day Adventist religion, though he did start the "... mid-19th-century North American religious movement known as Millerism. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Miller_(preacher) ). That movement was one which believed that the second advent of Christ was imminent (and thus it was a second adventist movement). But Miller was a baptist preacher (and for a period of time before starting the movement he was a deist) and to my knowledge he never joined the Seventh Day Adventist church. I think he also observed the Christian Sabbath on Sundays instead of Saturdays.

What became the Seventh-day Adventist church was influenced by Miller's ideas and it adopted some of his ideas, but that church was not founded by Miller. Likewise Russell's Bible Students movement adopted some of Miller's ideas, but the Bible Students (and the Jehovah's Witnesses) was not founded by Miller. The above mentioned Wikipedia page has a chart called "Reaction of Millerites to the Great Disappointment". It mentions the reactions that various Millerites had to Miller's message and some of the religions which formed as a result of such reactions. Since Seventh-day Adventist church is one of those religions, what you said is nearly correct.

53

1975 on the back burner

by Fisherman in

“1975” still marks 6000 years from the creation of adam in wt calendar.

according to “all scriptures inspired” book, there is a gap between the creation of adam and the creation of eve and her marriage to adam.

it was at that point in time when eve was created that marked the end of the 6th creative day and the beginning of god’s rest, the 7th day as recorded in genesis.

Disillusioned JW

Fisherman I think that TD's comment about Seth was to point out an apparent error made by woza, who said that "According to the Genesis account Adam was 130 when they had their first child ...". Genesis does not say the first child was was when Adam was 130 but rather that Adam was 130 when Adam's child named Seth was born. Genesis 4:1-2 says that Cain was the first child and that later Adam and Eve had the child named Abel. Genesis 4:25-26 says that Seth was born after Cain and Abel had been born.

But It is interesting that the "book of Adam's history" mentioned in Genesis chapter 5 does not mention Adam having an child before he had Seth. As a result, perhaps that account in chapter 5 (the account which I think is considered by scholars to be part of the account given by priests) disagrees with the account in chapter 4 (which scholars say is part of the Yahwehist account) of Cain being the first child of Adam and of Abel being their next son.

98

Better off PIMA than POMA or POMO.

by ExBethelitenowPIMA in

the situation is many of us are pima and all putting on a front, sometimes saying something we don’t fully believe.

or at least are actually agnostic about but a hope that it’s true.. but it can be useful if someone is really going through a hard time or has something they are very worried about, to say things like well let’s hope there is not much longer of this old system.. this can be useful in an awkward situation where you just don’t know what to do or say.

it’s a little bit of hope that can help when there is nothing else.. my agnosticism just means i won’t look back over decades thinking i wasted my life.

Disillusioned JW

Sea Breeze I strongly dislike it when people try to force me to admit something (or try to force me to do anything else) - even when it is something I am not ashamed of and something I am not afraid of revealing. I also don't like it when people try to manipulate me to do things, even things which I would otherwise not mind doing (or even things I would like to do). I value my freedom. That is part of the reason why thus far I have avoided answering your question to me of "Why can't you admit that it is objectively morally wrong for someone to murder you?" Furthermore, I don't like your inclusion of the word "objectively" in the question you asked. On the topic of morality I don't want to be figuratively 'pigeon holed' into classifying my views as objective or not objective, much as many people don't want to be classified as liberal or conservative or of any other political label (or even of creationist or evolutionist or evolutionary creationist or theistic evolutionist, or deist or pantheist or monotheist or polytheist or atheist).

If and when I decide to say "it is morally wrong for someone to murder me" or if and when I decide to say ""it is not morally wrong for someone to murder me, I will do so under my own terms and at a time and manner I choose, and not under coercion.

See my words above regarding the following words you said to me: "Do you really need scientists, the bible or someone else to give you permission to believe this? Is your mind that far gone?"

A number of your comments in posts you made today in this topic deeply offend me, and thus partly of the resulting anger I feel right now, I am currently defying your request/demand to me to answer your pet question.

98

Better off PIMA than POMA or POMO.

by ExBethelitenowPIMA in

the situation is many of us are pima and all putting on a front, sometimes saying something we don’t fully believe.

or at least are actually agnostic about but a hope that it’s true.. but it can be useful if someone is really going through a hard time or has something they are very worried about, to say things like well let’s hope there is not much longer of this old system.. this can be useful in an awkward situation where you just don’t know what to do or say.

it’s a little bit of hope that can help when there is nothing else.. my agnosticism just means i won’t look back over decades thinking i wasted my life.

Disillusioned JW

Sea Breeze, on a great many pages of the 'Holy' Bible extreme violence, even that which is glorified and mentioned in gory detail. Do you joyfully look forwards to being part of Christ's executional forces (in heaven) during the battle of Armageddon? Do you relish the thought of killing (from heaven) millions of people during Armageddon, in service to Christ and to God? Does it give you an intense thrill to think of killing atheists, non-Christians, homosexuals, lesbians, people who engage in sex outside of marriage, and various other types of people?

Regarding your comment of "... cannot even admit that it would be morally wrong for someone to take your own life?", that is not the case in. Instead I didn't answer the question because I do not wish to let you make me veer off the points i making. I want to stay focused on my message to you.

Furthermore, when you said "Would it help if I put a gun to your head and told you that I just loved killing people?" I did not you were asking me if think it would be immoral for someone to try to murder me (or kill) me? Instead, I thought you sarcastically meant would it help me 'to decide between if all morality should be objective, relative, or subjective?'

Regarding the definition of murder, I am well aware that the dictionary definition of murder is that it is unlawful killing (and the WT also teaches such, and uses the word "murder" instead of "kill" in the 1984 NWT translation of Exodus 20:13). The laws pertaining to when killing is murder and when it is not murder, vary from state to another and from one country to another, and from one century to another. At the Nuremberg trials many Nazis were convicted of having done murders (or crimes against humanity) even though those Nazis were following orders of their government and of their nation's laws. As a result when I contemplate whether a specif killing of humans is murder of not, I don't just consider whether the local human government jurisdiction considers it murder, nor if the Bible says God considers it murder. I also also evaluate the humans laws and the purported laws of Yahweh God, to determine if they are wrong in saying a specific killing is not murder. [Compare that to the biblical account of Lot questioning Yahweh about whether he would destroy the entire city of Sodom if a certain number of people therein were righteous.]

98

Better off PIMA than POMA or POMO.

by ExBethelitenowPIMA in

the situation is many of us are pima and all putting on a front, sometimes saying something we don’t fully believe.

or at least are actually agnostic about but a hope that it’s true.. but it can be useful if someone is really going through a hard time or has something they are very worried about, to say things like well let’s hope there is not much longer of this old system.. this can be useful in an awkward situation where you just don’t know what to do or say.

it’s a little bit of hope that can help when there is nothing else.. my agnosticism just means i won’t look back over decades thinking i wasted my life.

Disillusioned JW

Sea Breeze, please consider the following. Is joining a military and killing (even under orders from one's military superiors) noncombatant civilians acts of murder? To some it is and to others it is not. to others, it depends upon the specifics of the situation. Exodus 20:13 (KJV) says "thou shalt not kill" and chapter 20 says that without any exception, but elsewhere the OT Bible commands militaristic killing of humans (especially of non-Jews) in a number of occasions. The OT Bible also commands executing humans who were guilty of breaking the Mosaic laws. Are those examples of subjective morality, of relativistic morality, or being inconsistent. Does the above help you to re-evaluate your position on the subject? When if ever, is breaking the commandment of "thou shalt not kill" justified?

If you thought Yahweh God or Jesus Christ definitely gave you an order to kill me, would attempt to obey that perceived order (such as like the OT Bible portrays Abraham as having attempted to do to his son)? Would your actions in response to such a perceived command depend upon the other circumstances at that time? Many devout theologically conserved have killed people because they thought god told them to so.

I didn't choose the JW as a result of wanting to be popular (or more popular). I didn't later conclude that atheism and naturalism are true in order to be popular (or more popular). I didn't become an and atheist and a naturalist in order to increase my degree of popularity. I became an atheist and a naturalist because I concluded that it is vastly more probable there is no god (especially a personal God) and nothing supernatural, that that there a god and supernatural. I became and atheist and a naturalist because I followed the evidence to where it leads and because I very highly value truth., including knowing the truth and accepting the truth.

But there are vastly more atheists worldwide than JWs and thus far more people worldwide are attracted to becoming atheists than to becoming JWs. [Furthermore, polls of the USA population say that the percentage of people who claim to be atheist is rising (likewise for those claiming to be nonreligious). In contrast polls of people in the USA who claim to be Christians in rapidly falling (likewise for those claiming to believe in God).] I have told many of my co-workers that I am an atheist who is a former JW and they are fine with that. They act very friendly to me. They also see that I am a good person and a number of them have specifically told me I am a good person (without me asking if they think I am a good person).

Is your sense of morality truly consistent?

98

Better off PIMA than POMA or POMO.

by ExBethelitenowPIMA in

the situation is many of us are pima and all putting on a front, sometimes saying something we don’t fully believe.

or at least are actually agnostic about but a hope that it’s true.. but it can be useful if someone is really going through a hard time or has something they are very worried about, to say things like well let’s hope there is not much longer of this old system.. this can be useful in an awkward situation where you just don’t know what to do or say.

it’s a little bit of hope that can help when there is nothing else.. my agnosticism just means i won’t look back over decades thinking i wasted my life.

Disillusioned JW

Regarding the topic of whether human morality is subjective or not I will say the following. Human morality is made by humans (not by a god). The morality that pertains to humans is not the exact same morality that pertains to nonhuman animals. The morality (or moralities) that chimpanzee cultures have is not the same in every respect as the morality (or moralities) of human cultures. In various human cultures the standards of morality in some of those cultures differs from that of some other cultures to some extent.

The web page at https://study.com/learn/lesson/moral-objectivism-subjectivism-relativism-overview-differences-examples.html says the following. "Subjectivism is when morality is not dependent on set rules or societal norms, but rather on the individual. An individual gets to decide what is good or bad based on their own principles, feelings, and beliefs." The web page also says the following: "Moral relativism states that morality is determined by a culture or a society, such as a religious group. Moral objectivism states that there is a set of valid rules and principles which should be adhered to by all people no matter what." At this time I prefer to not state if I think either of those three types of human morality are correct or not, since it is difficult for me to make a definite decision about such.

Determining what is moral or immoral in some specific situations is not an easy one for me to make, especially when it comes to deciding what morality to apply to people other than myself. For example, I am tolerant of people having certain lifestyles which I wish to never engage in. For example, I no longer consider it immoral (in some situations) for unmarried people to engage in sex with multiple unmarried persons, but I chose to avoiding engaging in that kind of sexual conduct. However, because I was raised to believe that such sexual conduct is always immoral (and because such a concept got deeply ingrained into me), I sometimes (such as when talking to my JW family) inadvertently refer to people engaging in such as immoral people.

98

Better off PIMA than POMA or POMO.

by ExBethelitenowPIMA in

the situation is many of us are pima and all putting on a front, sometimes saying something we don’t fully believe.

or at least are actually agnostic about but a hope that it’s true.. but it can be useful if someone is really going through a hard time or has something they are very worried about, to say things like well let’s hope there is not much longer of this old system.. this can be useful in an awkward situation where you just don’t know what to do or say.

it’s a little bit of hope that can help when there is nothing else.. my agnosticism just means i won’t look back over decades thinking i wasted my life.

Disillusioned JW

I was in a hurry in writing my prior post, and I made some major typos (including by omission of some words) as a result. The following are important corrections.

In my prior post where I wrote 'I believe, as stated by a number of atheistic scientists, that there is cosmic purpose for us and that no god gave us a purpose' I meant to write "I believe, as stated by a number of atheistic scientists, that there is no cosmic purpose (no purpose made the cosmos [as a whole]) for us and that no god gave us a purpose'.

Where I wrote "Regarding what is someone's purpose involves murder ..." I meant to write "Regarding what if someone's purpose involves murder ...".

When I wrote "Likewise working human made electronic computers make decisions ..." for clarity I should have wrote "Likewise working electronic computers (made by humans) make decisions ...".

Where I wrote "... thus murder is not acceptable (at least not me and most other people)" I meant to write "... thus murder is not acceptable (at least not to me and most other people)".

When I wrote 'To say that "atheists do in fact beleive[sic] that we are just chemicals and copying mistakes" in quite accurate' I meant to write 'To say that "atheists do in fact beleive[sic] that we are just chemicals and copying mistakes" in quite inaccurate.'

Where I wrote '... my post on page 5 of this topic thread did not was specifically "highlighting moral subjectivity as a great tenet of atheism" ' I should have wrote '... my post on page 5 of this topic thread was not specifically "highlighting moral subjectivity as a great tenet of atheism" ...".

98

Better off PIMA than POMA or POMO.

by ExBethelitenowPIMA in

the situation is many of us are pima and all putting on a front, sometimes saying something we don’t fully believe.

or at least are actually agnostic about but a hope that it’s true.. but it can be useful if someone is really going through a hard time or has something they are very worried about, to say things like well let’s hope there is not much longer of this old system.. this can be useful in an awkward situation where you just don’t know what to do or say.

it’s a little bit of hope that can help when there is nothing else.. my agnosticism just means i won’t look back over decades thinking i wasted my life.

Disillusioned JW

Sea Breeze, thanks for your followup post. I believe, as stated by a number of atheistic scientists, that there is cosmic purpose for us and that no god gave us a purpose.

Our purpose is subjective in the same sense that our preferences for certain flavors or certain colors is subjective. Regarding what is someone's purpose involves murder, it like the way our USA constitution says we have certain freedoms. The Supreme Court has ruled that the extent of some of those freedoms is limited by whether or not the acting of them by a person hinders the same freedoms of others (for example how one practices their religion or there philosophy). Humans are social beings and we are all dependent (though to varying degrees) upon other humans, unless someone is like a feral child living in the wild with no human language. As a result, especially if we live in cities, we need to get along (at least to some extent) with other humans, and thus murder is not acceptable (at least not me and most other people). There are thus natural limits on what kind of purposes people can get away with giving to themselves and carrying out.

To say that "atheists do in fact beleive[sic] that we are just chemicals and copying mistakes" in quite accurate. We are a collection of chemicals in which many of the chemicals are highly animated and grouped in such a manner that their grouping consists of living cells. Likewise the living cells in the brains are grouped in such a way that mind is produced and exists. Likewise working human made electronic computers make decisions, and such is possible because of the way the components of the computer are structured and organized, because of the data inputs to the computer, and because of the electrical power in the operating computer.

Sea Breeze, my post on page 5 of this topic thread did not was specifically "highlighting moral subjectivity as a great tenet of atheism". My comment about a great tenet of atheism was about freedom to choose one's purpose - not about morality being subjective. In this topic thread I have avoided the topic of whether morality is subjective or not, except to the extent of what I mention above in this post.

98

Better off PIMA than POMA or POMO.

by ExBethelitenowPIMA in

the situation is many of us are pima and all putting on a front, sometimes saying something we don’t fully believe.

or at least are actually agnostic about but a hope that it’s true.. but it can be useful if someone is really going through a hard time or has something they are very worried about, to say things like well let’s hope there is not much longer of this old system.. this can be useful in an awkward situation where you just don’t know what to do or say.

it’s a little bit of hope that can help when there is nothing else.. my agnosticism just means i won’t look back over decades thinking i wasted my life.

Disillusioned JW

cofty, I don't think I was not equivocating about 'proof'. Instead I was thinking about it in the strict way you mentioned regarding proof, such as in the realm of mathematics and in formal deductive logic, but even those involve starting with premises/assumptions/axioms (even if such are well supported). For all we known, that which we perceive as reality could merely be simulation on some powerful computer. A number of atheistic scientists who fully accept evolution say that is a very real possibility. I consider such ideas, and the similar idea in the science fiction movie called the Matrix, as well as the idea everything I perceive and experience might be dream I am having. There have many times in my life when I though I had woke from a horrible dream only to find I was in another dream (or perhaps a different phase of the same dream), and even to find myself later in a third dream, before I actually became awake.

Though I am highly convinced that all of the current species on Earth have descended from a common ancestral species, it has technically not been proven (in the strict sense of proof in mathematics). For example, perhaps some of the species on Earth descended from an ancestor which never existed on Earth (such as by panspermia from another world, perhaps even by a life designed and created by an unknown extraterrestrial intelligence). The idea is very well illustrated in the science fiction movie called "MIssion to Mars" (and I own a DVD of the movie). It is a very good movie.

Furthermore, as many evolutionist scientists have admitted, there is no way to prove that a god didn't create all of the types of life on Earth by a nonevolutionary process (with them being given the appearance of having descended from the same ancestor). Those scientists have said creationism (depending on how it is worded) is unfalsifiable, since the creationist can say God did it by some mysterious supernatural means.

The perspectives contribute that what I said in the earlier post about "proof'. I am philosophical. I own books specifically about philosophy.