Posts by Oroborus21

25

What is the current teaching on resurrection of a Jehovah's Witness.

by Triple A in

jw
friends

what is the current teaching on resurrection of a jehovah's witness.

if they are active when they die will they be resurrected?do they have to meet so many hours, so many books placed?.

the reason for this question is that my jw friend just had a very close jw friend of theirs die.

Oroborus21

Actually, if you consider what I said carefully you will see that what I wrote was correct and it is the present teaching.

What you are referring to with the CO's comment is something that I did not address in my post directly but only alluded to indirectly. I indicated that those WORTHY of resurrection would be either resurrected to life or to judgment. Those resurrected to life are primarily those that are granted (under JW belief) the positions in heaven but also a portion are those "ancient worthies" and other men and women of faith that are to serve as "princes" upon the Earth. Additionally, those with accurate knowledge of God (primarilly JWs who die before Armageddon and who die faithful) (again I apologize this is JW belief, not necessarily my own) may also be among this "class."

All others that are WORTHY of resurrection are resurrected to judgement. These primarilly are those that did not have the opportunity to gain accurate knowledge of God but who otherwise lived a life worthy of resurrection or in the least possess a "heartlike condition" that makes them worthy even if they lived a sinful life. The criminal that Jesus addressed on the Cross may or may not have lived a criminal and sinful life. (The fact is for all we know his crimes were minor or he may have even been unjustly punished by the Romans. We have only the bible account that LABELS him a criminal crucified along with Christ.) Whatever the case, he in rebuking the other criminal and by his statements obviously indicated faith in Jesus, especially in asking Jesus to remember him. Thus evidently his heart is good enougth that Jesus could reassure him that He would resurrect him post-Armageddon (in Paradise).

What the speaker's comment was referring to is something that I didn't address specifically and that is that those persons (non-JWs and "unfaithful" or even "disfellowshipped" JWs) KILLED during Armageddon would be receiving a judgement from God at that time and thus WOULD NOT BE resurrected. (This is similar to the traditional view of God's judgment upon Sodom/Gommorah and other nations and people that he has struck down in the past.)

As for your last citation of "All in the Memorial Tombs" you are evidently unfamiliar with the twist that JWs place upon the phrase "Memorial Tombs" because they give it more meaning than just the common grave. In this scriptural context it is given a similar meaning to the "names in the Book of Life" that is to say that these are persons of such stature that are again WORTHY of remembrance or memorial. Thus these scriptures again are seen to be reassuring that those deemed worthy of remembrance and resurrection will receive such, but it does not mean that all who die and who lie in the common grave or death are resurrected.

I assure you this information is current understanding and teaching.

-Eduardo

68

Is there proof of Evolution out there? help needed

by trumangirl in

i've faded, but i still would like to have faith in a creator/god.

but i am really not sure if my belief in god is the result of being brought up a jw and being stuck with a particular world-view.

the best thing i can do is challenge myself by reading some material that explains proof of the evolution, but i have not seen anything that does this yet, i've only seen explanations of the theory, not the proof.

Oroborus21

Hi I thought I would jump into the fray.

On Occam's Razor: It is a good rule of thumb but it isn't deterministic or without error or deviation so I wouldn't go on about how it supposedly disproves creationism. The fact is that from the Universe to subatomic particles (and stuff that hasn't even been discovered yet) there is a phenominally, mind-boggling amount of order, complexicity and design. If we did apply Occam's Razor it would no doubt shave off all of the phenominally, mind-boggling coincidences, stops n starts, periodic expansionistic, genomic mutations and other physical loop-de-loops that is Evolutionary Theory in massive waves and close nicks and thereby single out God faster than an ayatollah in a Guantanamo line-up.

HE, yes he is the Creator of the Universe and the only real question is whether things occurred as traditionally viewed in the Bible or some other holy scripture or tales. Occam's Razor does not support the idea that God utilized Evolution to create since that only compounds another layer of complexicity to the matter. By the way, It is isn't sexist to refer to the Creator in the male gender. Although God as a Spirit Being is neither truly male or female of course, we use words to describe things and in describing a thing it can be either gender specific or gender neutral. I don't know what dogs and cats and birds and fish call God if they think of Him but as for humans we utilize human concepts and wiht the human species it is the male that initiates the life process via fertilization of the egg of the female. Therefore, it is proper that God, the Creator, as the initiator of life is also referred to utilizing male gender terms. Get over it feminists.

On most Creationists: The vast majority of these are ignorant. They do a disservice to their cause and generally annoy the not-so-ignorant usually by their insistance to take the Bible so literally all the time.

Personally, I think that this is one area that Jehovah's Witnesses have stumbled upon that is probably closer to the real TRUTH, even if they are yet far off base. What I speak of is the JW view that the universe was created over millenia of millenia of years, that the earth, solar system, etc. are many billions of years old, that the basic order of life appeared (via Creation) on Earth over many millions of years and that Mankind is a very late arrival to the party.

In my opinion where JWs go awry from the above is again too heavily persistance in accepting the Genesis creation stories as true and accurate accounts, particularly with respect to Adam n Eve and that little gardening problem.

On Evolution: Reading books on Evolution by Evolutionists is like trying to learn about the benefits of real estate development by reading the Art of the Deal. (That'sby the Donald for all you under 30) (that's Donald Trump for all you under 25) (that's the guy from The Apprentice for all you under 20). I mean having an Agenda isn't a crime but it certainly suggests guilt or at the least mischievousness.

The central problem with Evolution is its utter lack of testability and observabilty. In other words the basic process of the Scientific Method cannot be applied to Evolution.

Yes scientists can do all sorts of neat things like get amino acids to form in a lightning bottle, but organic material does not equal life. The Cassini space probe just might find organic material on Saturn or its moons, especially when it drops its Christmas Present on Titan but one thing that Huygens will not find is life. Life will not be found on Mars, in fact it won't be found anywhere.

We live at the starting point of life in the Universe and so far we have been making the rest of it, as they say in Contact, "an awful waste of space." But all things have a starting point (with some exceptions like a Mobius strip and space itself) and the Earth is the Universe's starting point for life.

If Humans ever do get to live forever that sure will make a trip to Betelgeuse seem like a trip to the Bahamas.

ASide from its utter lack of testability, Evolution suffers from a bunch of misapplied concepts that have been wrongfully incorporated into by the misinformed and self-indulgent.

For example the notion of "Survival of the Fittest" is self-evident. It is so obvious that even a dummy like Darwin could understand it when he read about it. But that basic observable concept got and gets wrongfully microscoped and against all the precepts of Chaos Theory, it is applied and morphed into the Evolutionary hypothesis of Adaptation. Thus white moths are seen to have an "evolutionary advantage" over black ones at times but in later industrial periods when the coal has sooted the treebark, it is the black moths that have the advantage.

OOh ahh, Evolution some Do-Dos coo.

No stupid. Extenral conditions having nothing to do with evolution make it easier for predators to eat one over the other and vice versa thus leaving more of those moths to survive and to pass on the beneficial genetic trait to offspring that thus enjoy the same advantage (for a while at least.) There is nature involved sure and biological consequences yes. Evolution no, obviously not.

No testability, no clarity, lots of fervent desire that Evoluton is the only useful construct, the only workable paradigm because God forbid that we consider the only known alternative, Creationism. Why that might mean that we have to also consider other things about that Creator and *gasp* what He might want. No, no. can't have that. Pile on the books, we must have more books!

-Eduardo

6

JW's commit the biggest sin IMO, wasting time pretending that...

by Fleur in

jw
friends

people who are alive, are dead.. in their half witted brain washed wtbts indoctrination, they are taught that they have to shun people they love if they find themselves out of the borg's good graces.

doesn't matter what the 'crime' is, could be simply disagreeing with something in a wt article, could be any one of a million things.

it's not always the "big f" that gets people disfellowshipped.

Oroborus21

Well said, thoughtful and touching Fleur.

-Eduardo

13

Jesus Christ - just a myth?

by davit in

jw
friends

recently recommended to read a book called 'the pagan christ' asserting that the whole story is just a myth (beggars the imagination) and with parallel stories in most other religions preceding and borrowed by (so-called) christianity.

can anyone throw some light on this for me please or tell me where i should go next .

davit.

Oroborus21

It is fashionable and fun to wonder whether someone so remarkable to human history as Jesus is just a myth. No doubt writers who purport to prove that Jesus was just a myth have clear and not so clear agendas.

AS someone else said best, study the matter and come to your own conclusion.

But I think that one approach to history is what we always do whenever we are dealing with subjects that are not known to us personally and even when we are since we don't always have all the info and our own POV is biased. In considering any historical personage we have to look at physical evidence, testimonial evidence and other circumstantial evidence to reach any conclusion of the facts.

I believe that there is enough of the above both within the bible (which is itself a historical documentary source) and outside of the biblical records and texts to support the conclusion that Jesus was in fact a real person who lived about the time period generally given.

Everything outside of that basic fact is a matter of faith and religion and of course, argument.

-Eduardo

25

What is the current teaching on resurrection of a Jehovah's Witness.

by Triple A in

jw
friends

what is the current teaching on resurrection of a jehovah's witness.

if they are active when they die will they be resurrected?do they have to meet so many hours, so many books placed?.

the reason for this question is that my jw friend just had a very close jw friend of theirs die.

Oroborus21

Howdy,

That isn't quite accurate. The righteous resurrected to life are primarily those faithful servants of God who died faithful and are thus deserving of such life. The unrighteous resurrected to judgement are those judged by God worthy of being resurrected itself but who must prove by their seeking knowledge of HIm and their conduct whether they will keep that life. At the conclusion of the Millennial Reign all persons will face a final judgement.

However, JWs do not believe that EVERYONE will be resurrected. The above only applies to those deemed worthy of resurrection by Jesus. Death does not absolve a person from a heinous or evil course of life, it only renders those resurrected or those given a second-chance at life as it were, to get a "fresh start" without the sins of their former lives being weighed.

But if a person is evil and lived such a heinous life then Jesus may not resurrect such ones at all. Indeed many will not be resurrected.

Ok now to the oriignal poster, I am not quite sure of your meaning of your last question about what you should say. Kindness is always the best choice and it is best just to say you are sorry and ask if there is anything that you can do. You shouldn't get into religion at all. Let your friend believe whatever they choose to believe. If they believe the other friend will be resurrected allow your friend to be comforted by that belief, even if to your own mind it is absurd or wrong.

-Eduardo

70

Hi, I'm new to the site, and kind of don't understand...

by my-journey in

jw
friends

i was just curious as to the aim of this website?

i thought it was a discussion board for those interested in/ for jehovah's witnesses, but it seems like you're all former jehovah's witnesses?

so is this site just to bash jehovah's witnesses?

Oroborus21

Greetings!

Aside to the Maddening Crowd: Shush! Don't scare the new guy away! Jeez, there are lots of reasons why JWs don't come here, including cause they are told not to, but when one does visit, its like throwing a (insert your own analogy here)

Ok anyway, I just want to address one point and I am glad that if I hit send fast enought I will be right behind StilEXJWElder,

I think too that Quotes summed up the issue with the website's name early on but that touches on something dear to me and that is what I want to say:

The general topic here is Jehovah's Witnesses so on that basis alone the website is appropriately named.

From your post though it appears that you do not feel that it is right for a website that contains critical (or even anti-) information, commentary, etc. about JWs, the Society, etc. to be truly worthy of the label Jehovah's Witnesses.

Thus the underlying thought here is that real JWs are not critical, do not openly speak critically or even in many cases entertain thinking that may be critical of the truth, the Society and the Organization.

While that may very well be true for many Jehovah's Witnesses, I would like to assert to you that the real truth, the truth that the Society doesn't want you to even think about as a possibility is that there are many, yea even numerous, active Jehovah's Witnesses that have serious doubts, concerns and even disagreement on doctrine, procedure, culture, etc. etc. of the religion.

And no I am not talking about the thousands of persons who will soon be DF'd or who are on the brink of leaving the Organization each year. I am talking about persons that do not plan to leave for whatever reason.

Thus is this site accurately labeled? Yes it is. Not just because of the topical nature, but more importantly because it must be recognized that it is completely natural and in fact necessary for the future survival of the Organization that the friends accept that such disagreement is "OK."

Someday the Society/Organization will accept that fact and in doing so it just might save itself from total obsolescence.

-Eduardo

45

Ex-elders: did you ever confront anyone on FAKE HOURS

by Quotes in

jw
friends

a few recent threads have been about faking hours in field service reports (for example, this one: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/72429/1.ashx).

a number of posters said they would never actually go in service, but still magically get in their hours each month.

my question to you ex-elders: did you ever confront someone on this?

Oroborus21

Howdy,

Not sure how alive this thread is but I thought I would add my two-cents anyway.

I suspect strongly that the procedural changes that occurred recently (sometime in the past 2 years) were in part motivated by the concern of being able to more closely monitor reported hours.

The changes I am referring to are those pertaining to the book study and the turning in of the field service report itself.

Previously you may recall, Publishers received a reminder at the end of the month to turn in the report by the end of the month or no later than a few days after. This was simply done by dropping the slip into a box at the literature counter.

These slips were then simply transferred to the publisher's individual card and to a congregational report by the secretary or field service servant? Thus the likelihood was small that this person would be in the position to even be aware of any discrepencies between hours reported and "known" hours (those occassions during the month when you engaged in formal field service.)

Now however, the procedure is completely different. Instead of turning in the field service report by dropping it anonymously into a box, the reports are to be turned in directly to the publisher's Book Study Conductor. It is of course the book study unit that is organized for formal weekly service and therefore, this change in procedure thus makes it much more likely that the Conductor, who no doubt has been instructed to review the records as they are turned in, can easily identify whether the publisher is reporting accurate hours, at least in comparison to the "known" field service.

Of course none of the above has been explicity acknowledged or even hinted at by the Society. The only explanation for the change that I ever heard was because the new procedure would supposedly allow the Secretary to get the congregational report completed on time since the Book Study Conductors would be the ones to prompt their charges to turn in their reports on time.

Of course, even with the new procedure, and at least so long as "informal" witnessing continues to be "allowed," the ability to exaggerate one's hours remains. I would not be suprised if the report itself were not modified to make a distinction between "formal" hours and "informal" hours.

-Eduardo

40

Carl Jung and the Collective Unconscious,,Myths and Archetypes.

by frankiespeakin in

.

leolaia...recomended to me carl jung so i did a little search,,i find his theory of the collective unconscious fasinating here is a neat essay on the subject:.

http://lcc.ctc.edu/faculty/dmccarthy/engl204/seven-lecture.htm

Oroborus21

Hi gang,

Jung is certainly a pioneer in psychology. HIs major contribution to the field and most well known (other than the extrovert and introvert terminology) is the archetypes and theory of the collective unconscious.

Others such as Joseph Campbell have given their own spin to the basic idea.

I just wanted to point out that all of your cute little stories are NOT examples of SYNCHRONICITY and you are using the term and concept incorrectly.

Jung used the term synchronicity in conjunction with his research on parapsychology to account for paranormal and other puzzling phenomena such as omens and prophesies. According to Jung, there is no causal connection between, for example, two identical thoughts occurring to two individuals in different places at the same time or between a premonitory dream and the event which is seen to correspond with it (make it come true). Nor are such events (he postulated) due to pure chance. But there is MEANINGFUL coincidence, or synchronicity, between two such more or less simultaneous occurrences in that they represent a manifestation of knowledge ASSOCIATED WITH ARCHETYPAL PROCESSES IN THE COLLECTIVE UNCONSCIOUS!

Most of the stories contained in this thread are actually the product of mere coincidence, that is normal chance, and not a few are the product of what is called ILLUSORY CORRELATION, whereby a person attaches especial significance or finds a correlation in a "positive-response" event or situation while ignoring all the contrary data. The most typical example of this is the person who after you call says, "hey I was just thinking of you" (so you must have called for tha reason) obviously ignoring all of the many more numerous times when they thought of you and you did not call (forgetting those negative correlations because they were meaningless).

Even the story in this thread about the two persons visiting the train station, while a remarkable coincidental event, is not true synchronicity as there is no indication that archetypal processes were involved in the decision making.

Personally, I find Jung's theories about the collective unconscious and universal archetypes to be interesting and of some merit and usefulness at a macroscopic level, however, I am more interested in a pragmatic operating theorem useful to individuals. At this more realistic and practical level, the idea of a universal unconscious, archetypes, etc. is akin to the weak electromagnetic force between atoms, or to go the other way, dark matter in the Universe. It may be there but there are "bigger," and more concrete things to consider.

Incidently speaking of the physical world, you may wish to study futher about Bell's Theorem. Bell hypothesized that an unknown force, of which space, time, and motion are all aspects, continues to link separate parts of the universe that were once united, and that this force travels faster than the speed of light. (Theorys about Superstrings are somewhat similar.) What is remakable is that in the early 1980s, a French team tested Bell's criteria and a connection between widely separated particles was detected. Bell's Theorem is a discovery of "non-locality," the implications of which are still a matter of debate. In the laboratory, the product of Bell's Theorem is a very spooky effect, specifically the measurements made on one particle affect the measurements on a second, far removed particle. In theory, the second particle could be on the other side of the galaxy, with absolutely no (detectible) physical connection between the two. (Naturally physicists rightfully object to using Bell's Theorem to "prove" such things as psychokinesis or ESP.)

But the implications are quite interesting to think about. Jung was among the first to discuss the theoretical link between science and the human psyche. He asserts that it is the biological similarity of humans that gives rise to the connectivity and creation of the collective unconscious. He finds that the memory of the collective unconscious is rooted in the genetic inheritance passed down from generation to generation. More recent research into "genetic memory" demonstrates impressively that indeed with respect to very basic biological processes at least such memory is present. Of course this is a far cry from the world of archetypes and dream influence.

Oh and by the way to the person who wrote the terrible poem or lyric or whatever that was it is not pronounced like "Young" it is pronounced like "Yoon."

-Eduardo

Think about it.

Jung was

14

A time paradox with the Faithful and Discreet Slave

by gods vigilante in

continuing in my endeavor to find the truth i found something quite interesting about the "faithful and discreet slave".

according to the society they say that the faithful and discreet slave mentioned in matt.

24 : 45 refers to the anointed ones who have been appointed by their master over his belongings.

Oroborus21

Hey GV,

You are correct in your conclusion that the "slave" of Matthew is not appointed until after the Son of Man actually arrives (not just is "present" according to JWs), thus after Armageddon.

The traditional JW view involves the Parousia doctrine which arose out of Adventism and the disappointment that occurred when Christ did not bodily return as expected. In a nutshell, JWs believe that Christ "arrived" or was established by Jah to his heavenly throne ( thus he is now "present") in 1914. This action is also seen as the fullfillment of the ride of the rider on the White horse of the apocalypse from Revelation and of the War between Michael and the Dragon (Satan) where Satan has been "hurled down to earth."

But the "arrival" of the Son of Man is not known and this is seen as when Michael/Jesus finally "stands up" from the throne and begins the final war of Armageddon. The Bible clearly says that it is Christ's disciples that at this time are found either "faithful" or "evil" (unfaithful) but in order to warp the FDS doctrine into the scripture, the Organization attempts to create an application of the ILLUSTRATION and to personify the figurative slave and embody him in the form of a class of select individuals.

Totally wrong as you correclty surmised.

I have writen a paper re the FDS doctrine if you would like to read it just send me a personal message and would be happy to email it to you, or if you keep searching you will find much has been written on this topic by far better authorities than myself.

-Eduardo

12

Dress code

by Stefanie in

jw
friends

.

i hated wearing dresses to the meetings........... .

give me daisy dukes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oroborus21

Hi,

I just hope you have the body for it. NOT EVERYONE should wear such short-shorts, no matter how happy it makes themselves feel. Please have consideration for others!

Assuming you can pull off wearing them, I thnk the meeting would be inappropriate to wear Daisy Dukes to anyway.

I think there is nothing better than seeing a gorgeous sister in a dress (that is fashionable not too Molly), usually you only see these at Conventions. I don't mind short skirts, Daisy Dukes, etc. on a good-looking lass (hey I live in So. Calif. so I see all the time) but there is A LOT to be said for keeping some of the mystery. The imagination is often sexier than reality and frankly most women look way hottter and better with CLOTHES ON than off (even if it is only lingerie) and that is the TRUTH. (Can I get an Amen?)

As for your point though, that is just one of many facets of JW culture that needs to be left in the 20th Century. Sisters should be able to wear pants to the Meeting and in Service for goodness sake and in fact the whole Dress Code for both Men and Women needs to catch up to the 21st Century.

The Society's Rule of Thumb is that the brothers and sisters "official" dress should approximate what is acceptable of the "BUSINESS CLASS" of any particular locality.

The Society since at least 1980s must be having fits with the continued slide to "business casual" and non-tie wearing fellas like Bill Gates must ruffle their feathers. (This is all the Baby Boomers fault as they get older and fatter (and maybe the influence of Hip-Hop culture) as now everything is "Relaxed fit" this and "more room in the seat that.")

Anyway, the whole trend towards casual wear and the relegating of suits and ties to the closet is only going to continue and one wonders how long the Society will continue to cling such moronic standards. I wonder whether 20 years from now we will look at JWs wearing Suit and Ties as anachronistic as Amish attire is to us today.

-Eduardo