Posts by rawe

111

" the universe made itself " but---

by prologos in

watching the fertilization of an ovum and subsequent cell division it appears that the new being is making itself.

parents were involved, unskilled labor, time, energy.

no thing has ever been observed to make itself, to my knowledge.

rawe

Hi Everyone,

In the universe of "origin of..." questions the universe itself is unique. A couple words that appear in prologos posts above is 'pre' and 'thing' (or 'stuff'). We say the universe came from 'nothing' not to be flipped, but to express this issue. All that relates to time (before, pre, now, later, etc) and material (stuff, thing, etc) is a result of the universe existing.

As to the origin of the universe it appears we can only be certain of two things, that it did happen and it was about 13.7 billion years ago. As to the origin of life, it of course must have happened, since life exists, but in this case we can talk about reasonable pre-conditions that naturally resulted in the first living thing.

The problem with God is the speculation is unconstrained. The observed expansion of the universe implies that it had a beginning. Computer models of how the universe expanded factor in known things like the four fundemental forces. In fact all of science works that way. But God can do anything, be anything, interact without normal means of detection and on and on.

That is a different kind of speculation than, say for incidence, the speculations of Roger Penrose in Cycles of Time, where he gets around the 'before' problem by looking forward in time to a vastly expanded universe that grows so big that it loses a grasp of time and space and thus sets up the next pop, or cycle, that looks for the world like a big bang event. Key to this speculation is massive black holes that echo across this boundary. This, if I have understood Penrose well enough (and I sure may not have), is key to what makes is speculation potentially observable.

Cheers,

-Randy

111

" the universe made itself " but---

by prologos in

watching the fertilization of an ovum and subsequent cell division it appears that the new being is making itself.

parents were involved, unskilled labor, time, energy.

no thing has ever been observed to make itself, to my knowledge.

rawe

Hi KateWild,

"That is exactly why many of us still believe in God. Because each time we question, why or how? The answers just become increasingly complex."

As an atheist, I believe God exists, but only within the mind of the believer. On the other hand, to believe God exists, is undetectable by normal means of measurement, and yet proactively interacts with our world to work out his purpose... actually means, nothing can be known, even in principal. In other words, we may think the sky is blue, but it could just be God fooling us, if such satisifies his purpose.

God is also, as a concept, the opposite of what we've discovered so far. That is physical processes, in particular biological evolution, have built up complexity over time. There is no indication of super-complexity (i.e. God) being at the start point.

Cheers,

-Randy

111

" the universe made itself " but---

by prologos in

watching the fertilization of an ovum and subsequent cell division it appears that the new being is making itself.

parents were involved, unskilled labor, time, energy.

no thing has ever been observed to make itself, to my knowledge.

rawe

Hi KateWild,

"I actually think God evolved gradually over billions of years before he was evolved enough to create the universe and everything in it. Kate xx"

Origin of the universe is complicated by the fact that time itself is a product of this event. Thus from inside the universe it makes no sense to talk about anything "before."

Cheers,

-Randy

111

" the universe made itself " but---

by prologos in

watching the fertilization of an ovum and subsequent cell division it appears that the new being is making itself.

parents were involved, unskilled labor, time, energy.

no thing has ever been observed to make itself, to my knowledge.

rawe

Hi Prologos,

"Watching the fertilization of an ovum and subsequent cell division it appears that the new being is making itself. but: parents were involved, unskilled labor, time, energy. No THING has ever been observed to make itself, to my knowledge."

These issues are "origin of..." questions. One of the mistakes we made as Witnesses (under the influence of the publications of course) was intermixing origin of questions. Making the assumption that understanding the origin of one thing can be easily transferred to an understanding of the origin of something completely different.

Biological reproduction and subsequent evolution of living things is not the same as other origin of quetions.

Not the same as origin of the first cell.

Not the same as origin of planets.

Not the same as origin of stars, galaxies and of course the universe itself.

The worse case of these intermixing is confusing the origin of human output like computers, cameras, cars, etc, with the output of biological processes such as living things.

And, if one is unable to answer an origin of question, this not knowing, should never be confused with knowing. We just don't know might be the answer for the moment. Naturally the unknown draws us in an fuels our imagination, and it may be exceedingly difficult to be content with our ignorance, but it is what is.

Cheers,

-Randy

99

Survey: Who Here Believe In God/The Bible? Who Are Not Sure? Who Do Not Believe?

by minimus in

jw
friends

i think there are many that still want to believe in a god but just aren't sure.. personally, do you believe in a god?.

are you a "spiritual" person?.

rawe

Hi Minimus,

"Personally, do YOU believe in a God?"

No

"Are you a "spiritual" person?"

I like reading the Bible, discussing religion and philosophy. Lately I've been attending a Unitarian Univeralist Congregation. So if that counts, then I am.

Cheers,

-Randy

97

First post

by thedog1 in

jw
friends

this is a very strange thing for me to do.

i have been an active witness for over 25 years.

i currently serve as an elder and i conduct the watchtower study.

rawe

Hi Thedog1,

"We are an English group sponsored by a local congregation which is not English speaking. . . .So I am the kingpin in the English group. . .everything. . .depends on me. Not complicated at all then if one is having doubts, eh?"

I can see what you mean. If you moved to serve where the need is great, can you make plans to return home? That might help. In the 1960s and 70s many in Western Canada moved to the province of Quebec to serve there, which of course included learning French. In a meeting setting the stories of "Jehovah blessing the work of these 'original pioneers'" would often be told. Yet, in a few cases, where I was able to talk more one-on-one with those who did this, you got a far different picture. Having an unshakable faith that you're doing Jehovah's will no doubt help one endure some of the challenges. Yet, as Jonh Cedars, of jwsurvey.org related in his life story, moving to an area where English was not spoken actually caused him to unplug from the constant stream of information one gets from the publications and meeting attendance.

In Quesnel, BC, Canada where I am originally from, a family moved to the Dominican Republic. The family spent one year there, then moved back. Again I got the feeling, although nothing too negative was ever said, that there were difficulties. Shortly after this, we made plans to move to Phoenix, AZ. But I made it clear to my friends, we were moving simply to give our girls a chance to see a wider world. We were Witnesses in Quesnel and we would be Witnesses in Phoenix. As things turned out we stayed and even eventually became USA citizens.

Ultimately though, the world of the Witnesses will continue on regardless of our level of involvement. And being part of something we don't fully believe is like trying to serve two masters. It just doesn't work, as even Jesus said.

Do take care. I hope you're able to find a resolution that works the best for you, knowing adjusting how we relate to this faith, is always a big change.

-Randy

97

First post

by thedog1 in

jw
friends

this is a very strange thing for me to do.

i have been an active witness for over 25 years.

i currently serve as an elder and i conduct the watchtower study.

rawe

Hi Thedog1,

I was baptized at age 16 in 1981 and left the faith in 2007 after a life-time of involvement. Although I did serve as an MS and later an elder, conducting the Watchtower study was only something I did twice. Once at the congregation and once as part of a circuit assembly. Living with concerns and doubts can be very difficult. After book study one evening I revealed more about my doubts than I should have to a young couple. After that I realized that I had to resign as an elder, which I did. Although I lost all my privledges, including being on the TMS and even saying public prayer, in general I felt the elders were kind and fairly considerate. Likely this had much to do with how non-confrontational I was about the issue, taking all of the blame for my doubts upon myself. This was in 2005.

For what it is worth here are few thoughts, considering of course, I do not know your circumstances. First, unless something is pressing the issue, there is usually time to think through the issues and do research. If you're uncomfortable with the idea of directly reading material critical of the Witness faith, I suggest either reading the Bible or a portion of it, outside of the TMS schedule. Doing this can really help one see the over all gist of what the various authors really wanted to communicate. Although it seems that "deep study" would imply diving into each verse and tearing it apart, there is much to be gained by reading the accounts at a quicker pace.

Another suggestion is to read an older publication. Reading Russell's Divine Plan of the Ages can really give one a sense of where the faith once was and how it developed into what we see today. Often through eBay or Amazon one can find copies of this book at a reasonable price.

As you know the organization stesses loyalty towards itself. Thus, most attempts to find a real true friend you can confide in, in regards to doubts, is near impossible. Even if the individual wants to be a friend, all we'll wind up doing is likely putting a burden on them. Although the faith presents itself as comitted to Bible truth, at the end of the day, it is run more like a business. Thus it tends to reward good managers, those who know the rules and are effective at organizing others around them and accomplishing things that fit the primary goal of the business. I eventually likened the organization to an out of control beast in the shape of printing presses -- a few fed blank rolls of paper in one end -- and the many had to run printed results out to the public. In many different ways we all sensed not all was right, but none of us knew had to make it stop.

For a short while, another way to cope is to rationalize your situation. Over the long haul I firmly believe this doesn't work and in my own case caused me to reach a breaking point, wherein I was out in service in the morning and left the faith that afternoon. But... while you're doing research and considering more deeply what you believe and where you want your life course to take you, rationalize... the faith is defined mostly by the Governing Body. It is those men who decide the format of meetings, what is published, etc. So while I was part of it, I always felt it wasn't my place to try and change it, but rather go along with the program. For me this relieved much of the stress and gave me a bit of room to breath -- eventually of course, I felt I had to leave.

Next, I think it is entirely reasonable to ask to be relieved of some of the burden of being an elder. This does not have to mean anything more than explaining that you're under some mental stess and need time to focus on yourself, your relationship with Jehovah and your family. I know in one case, an elder presented this case to the body -- he wanted to resign. We actually asked him to remain and not be deleted, but otherwise promised him that he would not have any assignments for awhile.

Just so you know. My doubts were centered around science and the theory of evolution in particular. My initial doubts about the existence of God eventually blossomed into accepting the fact that I was an atheist. Although some fellow atheists find it odd, I continue to be a Bible reader.

Take care,

-Randy

64

Look, Up in the Air...It's a Bird, it's a Plane...No, It's a JW!!

by Cold Steel in

for you ex-jehovahs witnesses...and even you current ones...have you ever contemplated your future existence in paradise earth, should you be fortunate enough to end up there?

during those raucous, fun moments at the kingdom hall when you were contemplating eternity and having the times of your lives...did you ever speculate about what life would be like?

for example, would you have to walk everywhere or would you be able to fly around like superman?

rawe

Hi Cold Steel,

"A translation is just taking the meaning of one document and changing it into a language that can be read by those who don't know the original."

Translation is of course exactly that. In the case of the Bible, the OT was written in Hebrew with a few small bits in Aramaic. The NT was written in Koine Greek. However, translating the Bible is a very involved process, that starts with reconciling all available ancient manuscripts to come up with a refined text. As time has progressed knowledge about the ancient forms of Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek have also increased. All of this goes into making a translation. The King James Version of 1611 took years and dozens of scholars to produce. According to a recent National Geographic I read, the KJV translators included an oral reading of their near-finished work so they could judge how the end results sounded.

One of the problems in discussing religious views is intermixing unverifiable claims with statements that are basic facts. For example, if we're religious we may get so use to saying "the word of God" or "when God spoke to Moses" that we forget such statements are not facts, but matters of faith. Yet, if we say, "the Bible is a collection of ancient books written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek." Such is just a basic fact, independent of religious views.

When discussing the Book of Mormon we run into this intermixing problem with the word "translation" itself. The idea the Book of Mormon is a translation of anything, is itself an unverifiable claim. Saying such a thing is nothing more than a statement of faith, of what you may believe is true. But outside the body of believers no one would seriously claim the Book of Mormon is a translation, as if such were a basic fact. The only portion of the Book of Mormon that involves any translation is the sections it borrows from the KJV -- but then the credit for the work of translating these bits goes to the KJV translators, not Joseph Smith.

"Finally, words like "Bible" and "hour" are not anachonisms. A bible is simply a collection of books, scrolls or codices, and an hour is simply a segment of time."

When creating a story set in the past, authors always must be mindful of anachronisms. A character being read their Miranda rights in a 1950s setting is flawed, since it didn't become a law until 1966. The Book of Mormon contains many of these issues. Having more recent words like "Bible" (2 Nephi 29:6) appear in an ancient setting doesn't work. If you read through the Bible you'll never run across the word "hour" (1 Nephi 8:8) to refer to time, until the NT era. But these anachronisms are mild compared to having some in an ancient setting quote Paul's writings in the NT (Hebrews 13:8 vs 1 Nephi 10:18) or as already mentioned a portion of the Lord's prayer, that itself, was a later addition to the Bible. This is not a question of what "Bible" or "hour" means, it is a question of when such words came into use along with the concepts they represent.

"If the text said "King James Version of the Bible," that would be one thing. But the prophets knew that a bible."

Yet, you don't see Jesus or other NT writers use the word "Bible", because of course neither the word nor concept existed in their day.

In reality I don't think these issues ever tell a full story in regards to our faith. Charles Russell of the International Bible Students movement and progenitor of Jehovah's Witnesses made a big deal out of the Greek work for "presence" (parousia) at Matthew 24:3. This was key to understanding Jesus had already returned and was invisibly present he claimed. Jehovah's Witnesses to this day make this claim. I was midly shocked when a friend of mine in the faith pointed out Mark 13 and Luke 21 parallel accounts do not even have this all important word. But this didn't cause me to lose faith in the organization. Because my life was so wrapped up in the faith, it would take a much bigger and more personal event to really move me.

Cheers,

-Randy

105

New Article on BEARDS and Attire of Jehovah's Witnesses

by jwfacts in

i have had requests to add an article about beards and jehovah's witnesses.

it is interesting that there is virtually no statement that says a witness cannot have a beard, yet universally they do not have beards.

i have scoured quotes from all the threads on jwn, all references to beard on the cd watchtower library, and copies of elders letters that i have.

rawe

Hi Jwfacts,

Many years ago in the 1980s one MS in Quesnel, BC, Canada grew a beard. He was deleted, but I recall talking with one of the elders on how they felt they basically had to find reasons in addition to the facial hair to recommend deletion. In the 80s I spent about a month in the hospital and at that time let my facial hair grew. Got several negative comments, but was so sick I didn't care. Now for "Movember" I am growing a beard again for the second time in my life.

In one of the publications there is a picture of the heavenly class, where Russell is pictured, but one notes that after his time the men are shown clean shaven. I do believe the primary motivation for the no-beard policy was two fold. Once Rutherford took over immitating him showed loyalty to his views in case their was any question of sympathy for Russell's older views. Showing Jesus as clean shaven seems to be part of the over-all anti-Christendom stances more fully expressed during the Rutheford era, especially after the 1925 failure.

I know of a couple cases where the 'student revolt' reference was appealed to, however since the 2002 directive came out, I'm sure it would be the one that would be considered the up to date directive.

Nice article!

Cheers,

-Randy

64

Look, Up in the Air...It's a Bird, it's a Plane...No, It's a JW!!

by Cold Steel in

for you ex-jehovahs witnesses...and even you current ones...have you ever contemplated your future existence in paradise earth, should you be fortunate enough to end up there?

during those raucous, fun moments at the kingdom hall when you were contemplating eternity and having the times of your lives...did you ever speculate about what life would be like?

for example, would you have to walk everywhere or would you be able to fly around like superman?

rawe

Hi Cold Steel,

"The answer is not complicated. The Book of Mormon is a translation into English. “Christ” is understood in English to be “Messiah” or “Anointed One.” If Smith had used the word “Messiah,” it would have been a Hebrew term, not Greek."

But is there an even less complicated answer? Searching for the most economical answer is a great way to uncover the underlying truth. Of course there are always ways to "explain" things that sort of sound right. What I've been told (please object and correct as needed) is Joseph Smith claimed he translated much of the work by peering to a hat and letters one at a time would appear to float in the air. If he thus saw C, h, r, i, s and t, what else was he to do? Disobey the spirit? Likewise when Sun Myung Moon received the Divine Principal there little a critic could say to convince a member it has issues -- because their arguments would go back to unverifiable claims of the faith.

The Book of Mormon is not a translation of anything. There is just no evidence of this outside the claims made by Joseph Smith. The first Book of Mormon that appeared was in faux 17th century English in the 1830s. Thus the most economical way to explain "Christ" and "Timothy" is Smith, being young and unschooled in ancient language, would not have known the source language, but wanted his work to sound like the Bible, which he likely equated with the KJV itself. When the Book of Mormon uses the word "Bible" and "hour" how is Smith to know he is creating an anachronisms with setting? When he includes the Lord's Prayer (3 Nephi 13:13) how is Smith to know in his day, the words "For thine is the kingdom , and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen" was never originally in the Bible, but a later addtion? He doesn't, so just adds them from the KJV source he believed was correct.

Cheers,

-Randy

ps. I'm not sure what you're point is about "Messiah" vs "Christ." I was pretty sure both words appear in the Book of Mormon. So I checked, they do, see 2 Nephi 25:16, where both words appear in the verse.