i dont believe in creation anymore.
according to the evolution theory we adapt based on our needs.
but the human brain is far superior than our needs.
I remember that myth being repeated so many timies at the KH.
Maps of the brain performing various tasks are amazing to look at. Our brain has many different inter-connected sections each dealing with various activities. Some parts are much more ancient in evolutionary terms than other parts. The ability to function effectively in a large social group is one of our brains biggest tasks.
The article poopsicakes posted is very good
something that always bothered me about jw doctrine, perhaps the thing that bothered me the most about it actually, was the notion that people who die before armaggedon are, for the most part, entitled to a resurrection, regardless of their religious inclinations or crimes, while the vast majority of those same people, if they happened just by chance to be living at the time of the end, would be destroyed eternally.. i mean some jws were actually debating over whether infamous deceased mass-murderers and genocidal maniacs(hitler, stalin,pol pot,etc) would have any chance of resurrection, whilst at the same time almost casually accepting that basically most non-jws alive at armaggedon were to be for the chop!
so i was given the distinct impression of the armaggedon scenario that while the bodies of average, decent, everyday people littered the streets, seriously nasty and despicable individuals who had formerly committed henious crimes would be being brought back to at least 1000 yrs of extra life, if not eternal life.
it didnt seem just.
I remember debates with my pioneer partner about this, it raises a real paradox.
I heard witnesses saying how glad they were when an old non-dub relative died so they would "get a resurrection"
Taken to a logical conclusion the kindest thing a witness could do for others is to become a suicide bomber. Thank god few people actually follow their beliefs consistently
daniel dennett has accused apologists of double-standards in a column in the washington post.. like all things that are worth saying it made me want to go away and really think it through for a while.
perhaps pat robinson was just being more honest about the real implications of faith?.
one of the striking differences between modern, "organized" religion and tribal or folk religions--religions without seminaries and theologians and official books--is that in tribal religions they have no double standard!
Richard Dawkins has also been expressing his thoughts in the Washington Post on the recent efforts of apologists. Like Dennett he challenges christians to stop the pretense and accept that the god of the bible makes no apology for suffering, natural or otherwise.
It is no surprise that his words are even more robust than those of Dennett.
Loathsome as Robertson's views undoubtedly are, he is the Christian who stands squarely in the Christian tradition. The agonized theodiceans who see suffering as an intractable 'mystery', or who 'see God' in the help, money and goodwill that is now flooding into Haiti , or (most nauseating of all) who claim to see God 'suffering on the cross' in the ruins of Port-au-Prince, those faux-anguished hypocrites are denying the centrepiece of their own theology. It is the obnoxious Pat Robertson who is the true Christian here....
i'm not saying i even agree with the current reasoning behind the 1914 date, but you can't argue that with jw's, but in my latest research and personal study, i ran into the kryptonite for the 1914 date.
right out of "bible topics for discussion" is "chronology" in which it states 1914 ce ends gentile times.
line of kingom rulers interuppted 607 bce ac 17:24, 25 7:48.
I'm fairly sure it was not as simple as adding a leap month every 7. If I remember correctly it was a matter of observation of the timing of the equinox, the decision to add a leap month was done ad hoc to correct as necessary. Sorry I can't remember the details now, maybe google lunar calendar?
last night i got a call from a chap in the uk, who recently left the jw's.
he wanted to compare notes with his us counterparts.. he said that a few years ago, (i think about 2 years ago) the society cleaned out all the literature from every kingdom hall, particularly russell and rutherford books and anything prior to 1950. giving each hall a computer with the watchtower cd rom for them to use for research.
he wanted to know if the same was done in the states.
When I began to have doubts I spent months reading old publications. I read most of SIS and loads of Rutherfords books; it did not take long to become convinced that the borg was a sham.
LeavingWT your first post in this thread is spot on!
a few months ago there was a thread about a couple of elders at the mill hill bethel being disfellowshipped because they disagreed with some wt doctrine (i can't recall exactly what it was) and that several other betheliteswere under 'investigation'.
i haven't heard anything since, does anyone know anything more about this?.
borghater xx.
Hi Podobear. Welcome, its good to have you here with your professional experience of supporting JWs and ex-Jws
A couple of things you said above resonates very strongly with what I believe
Tact and persuasion through hard fact, one on one, is SOMETIMES better than full ballistics and devestation. (IMH0).
The JW's don't have the lion's share of many of the problems Mr Brown lists.
I don't want to hijack this thread but please share your thoughts if you can, perhaps in a new thread. I would be very interested in knowing more about your views on this.
Dave Brown, welcome to you, good to have a variety of personalities around here!
daniel dennett has accused apologists of double-standards in a column in the washington post.. like all things that are worth saying it made me want to go away and really think it through for a while.
perhaps pat robinson was just being more honest about the real implications of faith?.
one of the striking differences between modern, "organized" religion and tribal or folk religions--religions without seminaries and theologians and official books--is that in tribal religions they have no double standard!
Daniel Dennett has accused apologists of double-standards in a column in the Washington Post.
Like all things that are worth saying it made me want to go away and really think it through for a while. Perhaps Pat Robinson was just being more honest about the real implications of faith?
One of the striking differences between modern, "organized" religion and tribal or folk religions--religions without seminaries and theologians and official books--is that in tribal religions they have no double standard! They thank their gods for the good stuff that happens and blame them for the bad.
The idea that God is a worthy recipient of our gratitude for the blessings of life but should not be held accountable for the disasters is a transparently disingenuous innovation of the theologians. And of course it doesn't work all that well. The Problem of Evil, capital letters and all, is the central enigma confronting theists. There is no solution. Isn't that obvious? All the holy texts and interpretations that contrive ways of getting around the problem read like the fine print in a fraudulent contract--and for the same reason: they are desperate attempts to conceal the implications of the double standard they have invented.
interesting article from time in 1937.. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,730814,00.html.
religion: judge rutherfordmonday, aug. 01, 1927.
"through the gracious providence of jehovah," the voice of judge joseph frederick rutherford, president, the international bible students' association, boomed from toronto last week to pass out from 53 separate radio broadcasting stations.
Good find, thanks. Never heard of cosmos in this context either, wonder if its the same as "epochs"?
do you ever post without quoting the bible?
why do you feel a compulsive need to quote scriptures in all your posts?
were you once a bible-thumping jw or are you just a born-again bible thumper who never was a jw and just happens to dislike jws?.
How come I am free to visit a "kingdom hall" any time I like but they could never visit my church?
That is a matter of style not substance - there are degrees of control in all religions. The borg is mega-controlling and exclusive other churches less so. (Lion/cage/enclosure)
Every group has a body of dogma that must be defended.
Every group depends on the individual surrendering their freedom of thought to a greater or lesser extent. The similarities are far greater than you imagine, I only realised in retrospect
do you ever post without quoting the bible?
why do you feel a compulsive need to quote scriptures in all your posts?
were you once a bible-thumping jw or are you just a born-again bible thumper who never was a jw and just happens to dislike jws?.
Hi Chalam, Deputy Dog
Wow! This could have come right out of the "Knowledge book". Is this how he thinks salvation comes? Did he think it was the "taking in of knowledge", or having the correct understanding, that causes salvation? Is that what it means to him, to be "born again"?
So I'd like to know what has changed? He was a humanist and a moralist as a JW, as a Christian, and now, as what ever he calls himself today.
Erm I can hear you DD!
I was a moralist as a JW? WTF!
The essay is not a testimony it is a look at the history of the WT teaching of the ransom as compared to the gospel, of course it sounds like something out the knowledge book, it was supposed to appeal to witnesses.
As I said I don't mind how you judge my previous life as a christian but I will just say very briefly that it was not an intellectual exercise.
In a nutshell I worshiped and adored Jesus from the moment I realised that Jesus do not die for Adam's sins but was crucified for my sins. I ceased to be a slave and became a son - excuse me if I can no longer muster the enthusiasm to gush about how awesome it all was, but at the time it really was.
Having experienced the WT, the evangelical church, and the experience of leaving both, I remain convinced that the difference is one of style rather than substance.
I believe that moving from the WT to the church is akin to releasing a lion from a cage into a large enclosure; its still not freedom but it does seem safe and familiar.
