Posts by darkl1ght3r

26

Here's an argument that ought to stump any JWs who come to your door

by sir82 in

jw
friends

isn't the "blood components are still blood, thus a jw wouldn't accept them" essentially the same argument that jws reject when discussing the trinity?.

i.e., "the father is god, the son is god, the holy spirit is god, and yet there are not 3 gods but only 1 god"...isn't that pretty much the same as "red blood cells are blood, white blood cells are blood, platelets are blood, plasma is blood, yet there is just one 'life-giving substance' named blood"?.

if a jw asks you "if jesus was god, who was he praying to?

darkl1ght3r

Hi reniaa...

Do you mean 'Genetic Memory'? That's purely hypothetical. Flood stories show many points of commonality because regardless of location, the experience is going to be similar. Like two people going to the same theme park years apart are still going to dscribe similar experiences. Therefore, many flood stories do not validate your particular favorite version or prove there was ONE great global flood. What basis do we have to belive yours over the Babylonian? Sumerian? Aboriginal? Chinese? Egyptian? I'll tell you: NONE. In fact the DIFFERENCES in the flood stories far outnumber the similarities, which would therefore count against the idea of common origin. The only reliable FACT that can pulled from the stories, is that floods have been a common occurance throughout mans history.

Now you're confusing a prevelant CONCEPT with a 'racial memory'. You're beginning with the assumption that there is a God and working circularly. There is no evidence to indicate that mans inclination towards belief in the supernatural is anything resembling a 'memory'.

There are three possibilities regarding the so called 'racial memory' of some form of a 'God':

1) They are all correct, all of those gods exist in some form or another.

2) Only one [or a few] is correct. The rest are distortions, or some other kind of error. [As you claim]

3) All are wrong.

You seem to be discounting the third possibility, and since there is no evidence of any supernatural occurence... ever, it seems to be the most reasonable.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

EDIT: I can't believe I just typed that whole thing with out realizing you completely dodged the question. Ah well...

26

Here's an argument that ought to stump any JWs who come to your door

by sir82 in

jw
friends

isn't the "blood components are still blood, thus a jw wouldn't accept them" essentially the same argument that jws reject when discussing the trinity?.

i.e., "the father is god, the son is god, the holy spirit is god, and yet there are not 3 gods but only 1 god"...isn't that pretty much the same as "red blood cells are blood, white blood cells are blood, platelets are blood, plasma is blood, yet there is just one 'life-giving substance' named blood"?.

if a jw asks you "if jesus was god, who was he praying to?

darkl1ght3r

The situation I find interesting is that JWs point to the plethora of flood stories in "pagan" religions and cultures and say, "See! So there must've been a flood because so many people believe it!" (Putting the obvious flaws in that reasoning aside), the JWs then turn around and point to the plethora of "triune gods" found in "pagan" religions and clutures and say, "See! So the trinity must NOT be true because so many people believe it!"

So, "popular" belief is counted as evidence of truth in one situation, but in another it's evidence of UN-truth.

Oh the irony. Anyone care to defend this twisted reasoning?

8

What "knowing Jehovah really means"

by gubberningbody in

jw
friends

"the form of worship that is clean and undefiled from the standpoint from our god and father is this: to look after orphans and widows in their tribulation, and to keep oneself without spot from the world" (james 1:27).

"for in loving kindness i have taken delight, and not in sacrifice: and in the knowledge of god rather than in whole burnt offerings" (hosea 6:6).

loving kindness is more important than sacrifice, which certainly shows that love of neighbor and family, whether baptized or unbaptized, is much more important than the sacrifice of field service and meeting attendance and is considered by god to be sacred service.

darkl1ght3r

LOL gb...

I started "editing my talks for content" too. I started taking everything out in the material that I thought was dishonest or deceptive (or just plain wrong). Ironically, I got some of the highest praise for talks I gave AFTER I realized I was an atheist. I wasn't promoting atheism or anything, I just made sure what I was saying was actually supported by scripture and not some twisted WT dogma, although I had/have problems with scripture too... I think the congregation found it refreshing to hear something slightly different.

30

Son of God vs.God

by Mazzie Brossmann in

does anyone know how many religons believe jesus was the son of god rather than god in human form?

those of you who are still christians, do any of you now believe jesus is god?.

darkl1ght3r

Reniaa, the problem here is the ambiguity of the Bibles description of God's nature. In my own research I have come to the conclusion that the Bible writers THEMSELVES were divided on the issue (they were divided on MANY issues). For example, John and Paul both explicitly believed Jesus to be both God and the Son of God, the 'Son of God' referring specifically to Jesus in the flesh. Other writers seem to make more of a distinction between the two. I could go in depth but I'm at work and I don't have my research in front of me.

You are correct in that the trinity doctrine itself did not arise untill several hundred years after Christ, however the belief that Jesus and God are one was widespread and accepted as early as the first part of the second century (look it up). Evidence shows that essentially ALL of the earliest church fathers accepted this view. (The quotes in the "Trinity" brochure were dishonestly taken out of context.)

What sealed the deal for me however, was the Old Testament prophecies and sayings that applied specifically to Jehovah. However, the NT writers took many, many, of those passages from the OT and then applied them directly to Jesus. You're going to tell us that they didn't know what they were doing when they did that? And the supposed 'confusion' that it would inevitably cause?

For example there is the passage of (I forget the exact wording) 'The one crying out from the wilderness, preparing the way for JEHOVAH'. Yet in the NT 'The One Crying Out' is described as John the Babtist who prepares the way for Jesus. There is another OT vs. that poetically describes Jehovah actually being sold for 30 pieces of silver. Then there is the "Alpha-Omega/First-Last" confusion in Revelation, where the WT cant even keep straight who is being spoken of, and uses warped resoning to differentiate the two titles. There are numerous other examples of descriptions and titles applied to God that the NT writers quoted but applied to Jesus, I can post them later but something tells me you're aware of them but choose to ignore their significance.

The funny thing is, when you look for the Societys comments on such parallels, they're silent on the matter. It's as if they'd rather have the rank-and-file unaware that they exist, than risk them seeing the obvious connections. So there's whole chunks of the Bible that the WT pretends arn't there. They focus on a core sampling of maybe 200-300 or so scriptures to support their doctrines, and beat those into the rank-and-file. (Don't believe me? Try to find the Societys comments on Luke 21:8. I think theres ONE refrence on the CD-Rom, IIRC)

The FACT is... the conclusion that Jesus is God is a logical one that comes from the Bible itself, and from an attempt to reconcile what is said about both Jesus and Jehovah. NOT from some supposed "Pagan influence". When ALL the evidence is considered (not just the WT's cherry picked and twisted "evidence"), you see the rational behind mainstream Christianity's veneration and worship of Jesus. Going by scripture, it is a logical and defensable conclusion, and certainly has more weight behind it than the WTs view.

But hey, what do I know? I don't believe either of them are God. I'm an atheist. :)

Dark

8

What "knowing Jehovah really means"

by gubberningbody in

jw
friends

"the form of worship that is clean and undefiled from the standpoint from our god and father is this: to look after orphans and widows in their tribulation, and to keep oneself without spot from the world" (james 1:27).

"for in loving kindness i have taken delight, and not in sacrifice: and in the knowledge of god rather than in whole burnt offerings" (hosea 6:6).

loving kindness is more important than sacrifice, which certainly shows that love of neighbor and family, whether baptized or unbaptized, is much more important than the sacrifice of field service and meeting attendance and is considered by god to be sacred service.

darkl1ght3r

"For in loving kindness I have taken delight, and not in sacrifice: and in the knowledge of God rather than in whole burnt offerings" (Hosea 6:6)

This was one of the verses I used when I was trying to explain the stupidity of the Blood doctrine to my family. Loving kindness would be allowing JW patients to choose life, sacrifice would be mandatory rejection of a life saving medical procedure.

It blows my mind that JWs can't see the irony in what they've created. I was on the phone with Flipper the other day and we were discussing a point and he read me a section out of the "Flock" book. My first thought was how much it sounded like the mosaic law. "You may do this if that happens... but you must do that when this happens." The current JW leadership structure is a mirrior image of what Jesus condemned the Pharisees for. With the hundreds and hundreds of EXTRA weighty laws and requirements not found in scripture, and the focus on law rather than the principal behind the law.

It seriously blows my mind every time I think about it... and makes me sad.

9

If you seek Amy in Field Service

by donny in

jw
friends

love me, hate me.

(love me, hate me).

darkl1ght3r

We used to listen to gangster rap and Metallica, and various other Goth metal bands when we were out "declaring the word of God". I remember me and my best friend had Metallica BLASTING when a brother from another congregation walked up and confronted us about working HIS laundromat. Good times...

50

Was There a Fictional Work Helped You Realize the Truth About the (T)ruth?

by BabaYaga in

the pen really can be mightier than the sword, and even fiction often carries much weight and powerful messages.. did you read a book or watch a movie that made you think?

did an "entertaining" work plant a seed of doubt?.

the first one i can remember making a definate comparison to the witnesses in my mind was ray bradbury's martian chronicles.

darkl1ght3r

I second 1984 and the Bible. lol

17

Today is my baby boy's birthday

by mrsjones5 in

jw
friends

joshua turns six today.

seems just like yesterday he was born.

we went to see kung fu panda which he highly enjoyed, was kinda hard for him to keep seated but it was fun.

darkl1ght3r

Well happy birthday to your baby boy!!!!

29

TURN IN YOUR DAMN TIME - IT'S THE 5TH...

by tresdecu in

i hate turning in time, even though it's phantom.

do you think they phase this out soon???

especially now that they spend so much time doctoring up the stats to make them look good.. anybody out there with some inside info?.

darkl1ght3r

straightshooter - "After all it makes the pioneers and those exerting themselves in the field ministry feel good about themselves at the end of the month."

When I was pioneering I was stressed and depressed because I was busting my ass and struggling to make my 90. ANd then they're like, "So, brother, is there a good reason you didn't make your time? YOu know we have to write a letter to the CO explaining why you didn't make your time." I was thinking, "Yeah, tell him I got SICK of going out by myself." I think I made my 90 hrs once. Maybe twice. Pioneering NEVER made me feel good about myself, except for right after I signed up. And then reality set in.

27

Do Jehovah's Witnesses even know their own teachings...

by Tuesday in

jw
friends

i've had a rash of people commenting on my videos lately that seem to not even understand their own teachings.

it leads me to question if jehovah's witnesses can even explain their own beliefs.

for example if i ask a question about the 1914 doctrine specifically about the biblical backing behind 607 bce being the year for the destruction of jerusalem, 9 times out of 10 i'm going to get some sort of answer that involves the "prophecy" in matthew 24 and how it somehow has been fufilled since 1914.. apart from the fact i honestly don't think i can find a jehovah's witness who will actually understand the question at hand enough to answer the points therein, i'm to the point where i don't know if jehovah's witnesses even understand their own teachings.

darkl1ght3r

BadBettie -"We changed the way we do calanders in between then and now. How the heck do we even know we are in the "right" year?"

Right. And to make matters WORSE for the dubs, the old Jewish calender was a LUNAR calender, based on the lunar cycle. But they figure for a so-called "prophetic year" of 360 days in their calculations. They then take the result and apply it to the modern Gregorian year of 365 days. It's alot of cherry picking to pull some significance out of thin air.

From the NONsight book:

***it-2p.505Nisan***

AdjustingtheLunarCalendar. God’s command required that the Israelites offer up a sheaf of the firstfruits of their harvest on the 16th day of Nisan (Abib) and that, on the 50th day thereafter, they offer up a second grain offering. These offerings corresponded naturally with the barley and wheat harvests, respectively. This precept made essential an adjustment in the calendar of lunar months used by the Israelites. There was need to compensate for the difference of 11 1⁄4 days between the full solar year and the shorter lunar year. Otherwise, within the space of three years, the month of Nisan would arrive some 33 days earlier in the season and far ahead of the barley harvest. The Bible record does not specify what method was originally used by the Israelites to accomplish such coordination, but the evidence indicates that a 13th month was added every two or three years to restore the seasons to their proper position in the calendar year.