i'm interested to know common phrases jehovah's witnesses use, but don't actually apear in the bible (even the nwt).
especially phrases most jw's would assume are in the bible.
e.g.. "paradise earth".
they had to invent kingdom hall, the word church has pagan connotations. it comes from circee(sp) an ancient goddess of trances and medicines. funny but true.
According to Wikipedia, at least, the word "church" is derived from the Greek kyrios ("Lord") by way of the Germanic, not from the goddess Circe. However, the JWs still couldn't use the term despite its lack of pagan origins, because then they wouldn't be different.
in 1823, john aquila brown (a man who is not mentioned in any wt publication) came up with a bizarre mathematical calculation which totalled 2,520 years (in an unauthorized attempt to predict the end of the gentile times).... several religions recycled this bizarre calculation, including the adventists and the bible students... when armageddon didn't come on the variety of early 20th century dates predicted by several "dooms-day" religions of that time (including charles taze russell's bible students who predicted that the big a would start in 1914), they all finally realized that this 2,520-year calculation was nothing more than arbitrary mathematical speculation derived from erratic biblical extrapolation.... except for the bible students who continued to move up the date for armageddon 2 more times (1918, 1925) and then decided to use wwi as the starting point for the "last days".. all the while, one thing that seems to remain intact is the october 2, 1914 date.
oddly, for the watchtower bible & tract publishing cult, this particular date still marks the end of the 2,520-year period (that john aquila brown referred to in his bizarre 1823 book "the even tide")... again, no mention of this in any watchtower publication.
but, for jws, that date still remains the starting point for the period of time often referred to as the "last days" or even "the generation that shall not pass".. because of this, the governing body has been forced to change the definition of "the generation that shall not pass" countless times since the early 1970's.
the expiration date of this latest definition is quickly approaching
Actually, they've bought themselves another good 50 or 60 years if the drones accept the "overlapping generation" teaching.
Well, if the whole point is that everyone needs to apply critical thinking to his or her beliefs, I would agree with that. But usually, the argument in the graphic is thrown at Christians to imply that, because their beliefs may have been geographically derived, therefore they are almost certainly wrong. It proves no such thing, and there is no relationship between geography and truth claims; that was really my only point in commenting here. So yes, SweetBaby, I would agree with what you say, for the most part. Intellectual vigilance is necessary in maintaining (and, if necessary, modifying) any belief structure.
Leaving, thanks for the Plantinga link, I've saved it for near future reading.
anyone else watch community?
i love the show, and it just happens to have the only openly jw lead character in the history of tv.
but whenever they'd bring up that troy was a jw i'd cringe a little, back then because how easily he would go against those beliefs and now because of how innocent they make it out to be.
There was an article about it that generated a ton of comments here. I got kind of hot and heavy into it, since it ticked me off that the JWs were just doing "drive-by shootings," popping into the thread to say the article was full of lies and misinformation without actually specifying any lies or misinformation, then disappearing when they were challenged.
martha liverance, 85. wednesday, november 23, 2011. the gazette (hawthorne edition).
hawthorne martha liverance, 85, died nov. 2.. .
she was a 45-year resident of ridgewood and a long-time member of the wyckoff congregation of jehovah's witnesses.. .
Wow, that's very local for me; she has sons living in the same town as me.
It sounds as if you are saying that, because there are many wrong religions, it is not possible that any of them are true. Otherwise, what is the significance of the fact that most people are born into religions that are not true? I would agree that the matter of which religion is correct deserves serious investigation. Those who investigate seriously should be able to determine what is true and what is not (though I acknowledge that the issue is a complex one). But the argument presented in this thread, that of geography determining religious belief, and that fact somehow contra-indicating the truth of all religions, seems to be along the lines of the well-known "one less god" argument. The fact that many beliefs are false does not mean that one belief is not true. Atheists happen to believe that atheism, among all the belief systems of the world, is the correct one. Theists would disagree. But the fact that atheism (or, by extension, any form of theism) is one belief system among many certainly cannot be used to argue that it is therefore necessarily false. If there is one God, then the fact that many people believe in gods that do not exist is hardly an argument against the existence of the one who does, any more than the infinite number of potential wrong answers to the question of what 2+2 equals means that there is no correct answer. The geography argument simply presents a logical fallacy, as does the "one less god" argument. Neither speaks to the actual question of the existence of a true God.
Unless critical thinking is first and foremost, Unless a "belief system" has built-in corrective measures as far as testing its own truthfulness, then is would be correct to assume it is wrong.
edit: of course these corrective measures would be biase to support the "belief system's" viewpoint.
I'm not sure how that relates to the discussion at hand, that of beliefs being determined by geography. My point was that this sort of argument (that of beliefs being determined by geography, as advanced in the graphic in the original post in this thread) is often raised against theists, but it really proves nothing. How we acquired a belief in no way relates to whether the belief is true or not. The same could be said of atheists and agnostics in this regard as of theists.
One might also wonder what "corrective measures" are in place to test the presupposition of materialistic naturalism that forms the basis of the atheist's belief, and whether such corrective measures (if they exist) might be biased in favor of that belief system's viewpoint. Ultimately, all belief systems - including atheism - are based on presuppositions that cannot be absolutely proven.
ok... i know the answer... absolutely not..... but where does the watchtower get this idea that satan will be released in the year 2914 (1914 + 1,000) to test the faith of jws who have been cleaning up the planet for a thousand years?
which bible texts have they taken out of context to arrive at this bizarre and exclusive jw teaching?.
also, what are they saying will happen to the those who fail this "final test"?
I don't believe I've ever seen it in a WT pub where they specified that 2914 would be when Satan would be released. In fact, their teachings would seem to argue against that date. The 1000 years begin at Armageddon, not in 1914. Satan is released at the end of the 1000 years. Since Armageddon has not yet occurred, the 1000 years have not begun, therefore, could not end in 2914. Do you have a citation from a publication where it mentions this date?
just wondering if this is only a regional thing.... i've been in two kingdom halls in the 90's where the parking was basically shared or public... so every 15 minutes, baptized publishers (who were not irregular or inactive) were rotated and had to stand outside in all kinds of weather just to watch everyone's vehicles.
when the weather was nice, it was a good opportunity stretch out to take a break from the borefest.
but i always thought that this was so contrary to their belief of "putting kingdom interests first"... i even approached an elder one time about this and asked: "why are we putting material things ahead of listening to the public talk?
I think we only had it at the Memorial, but I lived in a pretty low-crime area. Except for higher crime areas, where it may have been necessary, it wasn't a big thing that I was aware of. However, I wouldn't be surprised if they had instituted it even in low-crime areas to prevent apostates from coming in and pamphleting cars during the meeting.
And if you were born in certain secular areas of Europe, you'd probably be atheist or agnostic.
None of which says anything about the truth or falsity of the given belief systems. The argument presented in this graphic is often used against anyone who believes that their particular belief system is true, but it really is no argument. The prevalence of belief or unbelief in certain geographical areas is unrelated to the validity of those beliefs. Citing the cultural, emotional or psychological reasons why someone believes only tells you something about that person, not about the truth value of his or her belief system. As an argument, this could actually be seen as a form of the genetic fallacy, since it seems to imply that belief systems are wrong because of how they were acquired, and not because of their merits as truth claims.
As C.S Lewis wrote,
" Suppose I think, after doing my accounts, that I have a large balance at the bank. And suppose you want to find out whether this belief of mine is "wishful thinking." You can never come to any conclusion by examining my psychological condition. Your only chance of finding out is to sit down and work through the sum yourself. When you have checked my figures, then, and then only, will you know whether I have that balance or not. If you find my arithmetic correct, then no amount of vapouring about my psychological condition can be anything but a waste of time. If you find my arithmetic wrong, then it may be relevant to explain psychologically how I came to be so bad at my arithmetic, and the doctrine of the concealed wish will become relevant — but only after you have yourself done the sum and discovered me to be wrong on purely arithmetical grounds. It is the same with all thinking and all systems of thought. If you try to find out which are tainted by speculating about the wishes of the thinkers, you are merely making a fool of yourself. You must first find out on purely logical grounds which of them do, in fact, break down as arguments. Afterwards, if you like, go on and discover the psychological causes of the error."
In the same essay, Lewis also wrote,
You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly. In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it "Bulverism". Some day I am going to write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father — who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than a third — "Oh you say that because you are a man ." "At that moment", E. Bulver assures us, "there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume that your opponent is wrong, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the national dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall." That is how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth Century.
