Posts by dgp

87

All of you should start a splinter JW group..

by fortbethel in

forgive me if this comes off as harsh,.

i've read & read many posts here mostly very negative.

alot of you have family that have shunned & continue to shun.

The Value of a Godless World

by cantleave in

jw
friends

thought provoking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a42rhvmnuaa&feature=uploademail.

dgp

Still Thinking: The Dear Leader finished his earthly course. However, he continues to be "The Eternal President", according to the Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Il_Sung).

By the way,

The exact history of Kim's family is somewhat obscure. The family was neither very poor nor comfortably well-off, but was always a step away from poverty. Kim claims he was raised in a Presbyterian family, that his maternal grandfather was a Protestant minister, that his father had gone to a missionary school and was an elder in the Presbyterian Church, and that his parents were very active in the religious community. [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ] According to the official version, Kim’s family participated in anti-Japanese activities and in 1920 they fled to Manchuria. The more objective view seems to be that his family settled in Manchuria like many Koreans at the time to escape famine. Nonetheless, Kim’s parents apparently did play a minor role in some activist groups, though whether their cause was missionary, nationalist, or both is unclear. [ 10 ] [ 11 ]

At some point Kim also abandoned Christianity and became an atheist. [citation needed]

Did he really become an atheist, or did he feel about becoming a God himself?

There are over 500 statues of Kim Il-sung in North Korea. [ 38 ] The most prominent are at Kim Il-sung University, Kim Il-sung Stadium, Kim Il-sung Square, Kim Il-sung Bridge and the Immortal Statue of Kim Il-sung. Some statues have been reported to have been destroyed by explosions or damaged with graffiti by North Korean activists. [ 39 ]Yeong Saeng ("eternal life") monuments have been erected throughout the country, each dedicated to the departed "Eternal Leader", at which citizens are expected to pay annual tribute on his official birthday or the commemoration of his death. [ 40 ] It is also traditional that North Korean newly weds, immediately after their wedding, go to the nearest statue of Kim Il Sung to lay flowers at his feet.

Kim Il-sung's image is prominent in places associated with public transportation, hanging at every North Korean train station and airport. [ 38 ] It is also placed prominently at the border crossings between China and North Korea. His portrait is featured on the front of all recent North Korean won banknotes. Thousands of gifts to Kim Il-sung from foreign leaders are housed in the International Friendship Exhibition.

I believe that the idea of it being impossible to have morals without a God is the fruit of circular reasoning. Whoever believes that we need a God to tell us what is moral and what is not, so that we have "a light" (sometimes a "new light") to guide us, need to prove that such a god exists, to the exclusion of all others. Otherwise, there is no one to tell us what is right and what is wrong. If I accept the idea that we need God to tell me what is correct, then I am accepting there is a God. And that is something that needs to be proven, NOT disproven.

Lest we forget that, the idea that there is only one God, and that one God is YHWH, who sent his son to save us, is a latecomer in history. Not even Christians deny that. If you look at this matter from the perspective of the Chinese (or the Aztecs, or the Africans, or Hindus, or Vikings, Celtic druids, Egyptians), the first thing we would need to accept is that such an only God exists after all. And we need to think that the morals we have been living in accordance with is always wrong, because it didn't come from YHWH but from human reasoning.

If you are to follow the dictates of that God, you also need to ask yourself what is the criterion used to determine what is good and what is wrong. Does "good" mean "good for God" or "good for man"? God being different from us, what is convenient to him will not necessarily be convenient for us. And we cannot really rely on his good judgment. Wasn't it he, according to Christians, who forbade Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but also the creator of the damned tree? Would you trust this guy to really know what is best for you?

And then, what happens when the Bible is silent about something? What does the Bible say about stem cells, for example? Or about euthanasia? How do we know what is right and what is wrong in that regard? Religious people will say we can use the Bible to derive the principles we need. So, is human reasoning involved here, or not?

What about slavery? What does the Bible say about slavery? Did it get condemned? Was slavery a good thing?

109

The Value of a Godless World

by cantleave in

jw
friends

thought provoking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a42rhvmnuaa&feature=uploademail.

dgp

From what I see, on this thread "godless world" means exactly what it means elsewhere: "a world where no god is worshipped", but somehow the opposite of "a godless world" is taken to mean "a monotheistic world". And that only god, let us make no mistake, is the Christian god, YHWH. It's clearly not Allah. Nor Aten.

From the perspective of a convinced atheist, "a godless world" means something different from what it seems to mean here. It means "a world where everyone is sure there are no gods and all the bad things religion brings have ceased to exist". I think that is what the video posted by leavingwt is really about. Let us do things now, for their own sake, not because we expect to live forever or because we will receive a prize.

I am sure this website is a hell of a place (pun intended) for people to accept that religion does bring bad things with it. Religious persons usually claim that it's not their religion that fails, but somebody else's. Or then their own religion failed (past tense) but it doesn't know because the leaders rectified their mistakes (aka "noo lite").

From an atheist perspective, the idea that morals come from God is plain wrong, because nothing cannot emanate from nothing. The Christian values and morals that we share in the West (after two thousand years, that is the case for all of us whether we like it or not) are man made. The mere idea that God dictated morals to us (in the Good Book, or the Watchtower, anywhere) has no foundation in reality. No God ever spoke to Moses, or Muhammad, or Joseph Smith, or has any direct line with the Governing Body, simply because there is no God.

I searched the Wikipedia and found this about Confucianism:

The core of Confucianism is humanism,[2] the belief that human beings are teachable, improvable and perfectible through personal and communal endeavour especially including self-cultivation and self-creation. Confucianism focuses on the cultivation of virtue and maintenance of ethics, the most basic of which are ren, yi, and li.[3] Ren is an obligation of altruism and humaneness for other individuals within a community, yi is the upholding of righteousness and the moral disposition to do good, and li is a system of norms and propriety that determines how a person should properly act within a community.[3] Confucianism holds that one should give up one's life, if necessary, either passively or actively, for the sake of upholding the cardinal moral values of ren and yi.[4] Confucianism is humanistic[2] and non-theistic, and does not involve a belief in the supernatural or in a personal god.[5]

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucianism)

So much, then, for needing a god, revealed wisdom, whatever, in order to have morals.

I'm sure a certain "Christian" organization I worked for recently would cry religious discrimination if their faithful were denied jobs on the basis of their religion. These very same people have a policy in place whereby they don't hire anyone who doesn't share their beliefs. This, I'm sure, they would not consider religious discrimination. I wonder what would happen if someone who worked for them suddenly claimed to be an atheist, and refused to participate in the morning and Friday afternoon prayers. This simple example is far from being the worst of religious crimes, by the way, and it is inspired (or so they would say) in the "Good Book". It is the atheistic morals that teaches that excluding people because of their religion is plain wrong.

For some reason, not many Christians consider it wrong for YHWH to wipe the Canaanites out just for the sake of the fickle Jews.

I also have a comment to make regarding the idea that Communism removed God. It didn't; it just replaced religion with a secular God, "the Party", or sometimes a personal leader, as in the case of the Dear Leader, Comrade Kim Il Sung. By the way, I wonder if it's only me who notices some similarities between the depictions of Kim Il Sung and those in the Watchtower.

Back in 1975, Venezuelan thinker Carlos Rangel pointed out that churches were empty in Uruguay, but they were full in Poland. The reason was that Communism could be many things but it was certainly useless in bringing consolation to people in grief. Words to the effect of "Comrade, your son fell for the greater good of the nation", cannot bring any relief, but saying something like "He will be joining us in Paradise" do give hope, even if it is false.

So the Catholic Church became the only non-Communist institution in countries such as Poland and Hungary, and the Church was very much alive there. But churches were empty in democratic Uruguay.

Rangel pointed out that the Catholic Church "updated" itself and liberation theologians came to exist probably because the Church realized that, half the world being Communist, some kind of accomodation had to exist between Communism and the Church. But, also, because both Communists and the Catholics were convinced that salesmen were their common enemy, and their most urgent task was to force them out of the temple. The Church knew how to count time in centuries, said Rangel. It was not certain whether the Communists would prevail.

26

How do you know when the Governing Body speaks for itself, and when it is supposed to speak for Jehovah?

by dgp in

in the catholic church, the pope is considered "infallible" when he speaks ex cathedra.

that is to say, he is not infallible when he speaks about things that don't have to do with religion.

for example, he may say whatever he pleases about economics, but no one will hold that catholic economists will have sinned against god if they consider that the pope is wrong.. the important point here is that the pope is thought to be infallible only when he speaks about matters strictly related to the church.. the wikipedia has this:.

dgp

Thanks to everyone for posting. My opinion is that, as Wobble says, the Governing Body only speaks for itself, and that is how everyone should understand it. I think the same is true of the Pope and of every other person who has ever claimed to speak for God, or who has ever claimed that God speaks through him. Even the prophets.

Let´s do some "reverse engineering" of the concept of papal infallibility. The Pope is considered "infallible" when he speaks in matters of faith. The Pope has only used such a prerogative three times: to define his own infallibility, as in "I'm infallible because I'm infallible, for Christ's sake (pun intended)", in the case of the Immaculate Conception (the Virgin Mary was free of sin from the moment of conception), and in the Assumption (the Virgin Mary was taken to the Heavens; now, she didn't do that by herself, but was instead lifted). The Pope does not claim to be infallible, but, as is the case with the Governing Body, he expects people to think he is.

But there is an ambiguity that all this envoys of the Lord can exploit. They can make a statement, and then they are uniquely positioned to say that they spoke only as mere mortals (I was only giving my opinion) or claim they spoke because God inspired them (I was speaking ex cathedra). Which is like saying that they, and they alone, can decide when the Lord is speaking and when he isn't. As if the Lord had a "mute" button that only they could push at will. I can but remember what a Mexican cartoonist wrote once: "God can control everything, except His ministers".

It would be different if God suddenly came to them, "possessed them", and made them speak. But in this case one could suspect epilepsy, I guess.

But then, if the Faithful and Discreet Slave (or the Pope), let's write down His word as we did with the Bible, and face the embarrassment of having clear proof that, for example, God said millions living in 1914 would not die, but that is clearly not so.

26

How do you know when the Governing Body speaks for itself, and when it is supposed to speak for Jehovah?

by dgp in

in the catholic church, the pope is considered "infallible" when he speaks ex cathedra.

that is to say, he is not infallible when he speaks about things that don't have to do with religion.

for example, he may say whatever he pleases about economics, but no one will hold that catholic economists will have sinned against god if they consider that the pope is wrong.. the important point here is that the pope is thought to be infallible only when he speaks about matters strictly related to the church.. the wikipedia has this:.

dgp

In the Catholic Church, the pope is considered "infallible" when he speaks ex cathedra. That is to say, he is not infallible when he speaks about things that don't have to do with religion. For example, he may say whatever he pleases about Economics, but no one will hold that Catholic economists will have sinned against God if they consider that the pope is wrong.

The important point here is that the pope is thought to be infallible only when he speaks about matters strictly related to the Church.

The Wikipedia has this:

Papal infallibility is a dogma of the Catholic Church which states that, by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error [ 1 ] when he solemnly declares or promulgates to the universal Church a dogmatic teaching on faith as being contained in divine revelation, or at least being intimately connected to divine revelation. It is also taught that the Holy Spirit works in the body of the Church, as sensus fidelium, to ensure that dogmatic teachings proclaimed to be infallible will be received by all Catholics. This dogma, however, does not state either that the Pope cannot sin in his own personal life or that he is necessarily free of error, even when speaking in his official capacity, outside the specific contexts in which the dogma applies.

Now, I wonder if the Governing Body has ever claimed to be infallible. I know that in practice it is held to be, and that, in practice again, whatever they say is to be obeyed. But, how would one know when it is Jehovah that speaks through them, and when it is they themselves who are speaking?

By the way, if Jehovah were speaking through those men, I would assume Him to speak with ONE voice. That is to say, everyone would agree on everything and there would be no rule that winning a debate requires two thirds of the vote.

Does the Governing Body claim to be infallible? Or does it act as if it were? If so, can a witness, however fanatic, actually believe that they never make a mistake, or that they always speak for God and not for themselves?

24

The impact of Governing Body policy on higher education: read this!

by Terry in

excerpt:.

does your religion affect your income?by mari cockerell, ktxs newsabilene, texas -- the pew forum on religion and public life recently put out the results of a survey on wealth and religion in the united states.. you may be surprised to learn which religious groups in this country have the most and the least wealthy members.an infographic produced by the folks at www.good.is breaks down information gathered by the pew forum on religion and wealth.

it maps out distribution of income for the 14 major religious groups in this country, charting those whose income is less than $30,000 a year all the way up to $100,000+.. what they found is interesting.the religions whose members earn the most money are jews and hindus.

dgp

Terry just introduced another important factor. The survey seems to assume that people do not convert. Religion at the time of survey is supposed to be "religion since birth". One more way the survey is really not very useful.

What if someone left the Watchtower at, say, 18, went to college, and returned out of fear of Armageddon? Would it be possible to claim that there is a "positive" relationship between this person's degree and this person's religion?

24

The impact of Governing Body policy on higher education: read this!

by Terry in

excerpt:.

does your religion affect your income?by mari cockerell, ktxs newsabilene, texas -- the pew forum on religion and public life recently put out the results of a survey on wealth and religion in the united states.. you may be surprised to learn which religious groups in this country have the most and the least wealthy members.an infographic produced by the folks at www.good.is breaks down information gathered by the pew forum on religion and wealth.

it maps out distribution of income for the 14 major religious groups in this country, charting those whose income is less than $30,000 a year all the way up to $100,000+.. what they found is interesting.the religions whose members earn the most money are jews and hindus.

dgp

I think this subject is not presented in a correct way. Someone who didn't pay attention could see this as whether religion alone makes you poor, and then the conclusion would have to be in the negative because people of all religions are poor, and people of all religions are also affluent.

The survey is somewhat dumb. It groups people together by religion, checks whether a group is richer or poorer, and assumes that religion is the cause. As if the grouping eliminated other influences. Whoever it was that planned this survey, that person seems not to have noticed that India is the home of many poor people, and also many Hindus.

The question in the survey should be whether, all other things being equal, religion makes you poor. If so, I have no doubt that the answer would be in the affirmative. If your belief is that getting education beyond what is needed to survive is useless, "because the end is imminent anyways", then that belief makes you poor. If the same set of beliefs makes you devote much of your time to place magazines and preach to people who don't want to be preached, then that is a factor.

I am sure everyone here knows, much better than I, that every so often the Watchtower comes with an example of Brother Andrew (him again), or the Sister from Ethiopia with little education who made 3,000 euros a month, or then with real stories about people who did give up wonderful opportunities "for Jehovah". The reason for praise here is, lest we forget, that people did give up real opportunities, and not only for greater income. I would doubt anyone would question that such decisions do make you poorer than you'd otherwise be.

19

Non NWT use in Public Talks

by cantleave in

i am sure that when i gave talks, although the nwt was always the main bible used, other translations could be used to make a point.. the elders recived a letter dated may10th 2011 re:public speakers and it stated under the subheading "reading from scriptures".

scriptures should be read by the speaker rather than requesting a volunteer from the audience.

the new world translation should be used, if available.

dgp

So, if they use other translations, what is the point of having their own mistranslation?

If their version is the illuminated one, the true one, et cetera, why settle for less?

14

FYI: SNAP has made history today!

by AndersonsInfo in

snap has made history today!

in partnership with the center for constitutional rights snap is formally asking the international criminal court (icc) prosecutor to investigate high-level catholic church officials for crimes against humanity.

the story has made headlines across the globe: .

dgp

Bookmarked.

10

Launch of the newly revised AJWRB.ORG (Associated Jehovah's Witnesses For Blood)

by Dogpatch in

jw
friends

after three weeks of putting in long hours zen and i have put up a new look on the well-trafficked (#2 in pagerank for all ex-jw-type websites) site that doctors and medical students regularly go to for accurate information on the watchtower's current stance on transfusing blood components, etc.

fred rusk and gene smalley will love what is coming up.

but surprise!

dgp

I trust many a life will be saved with this website.