Posts by deegee

Religious people often want to treat morality as though it is an absolute truth, however while absolute truths exist, morality is relative. Morality is relative to human beings. We are the only creatures that have our own morality, and our morality was constructed over tens of thousands of years of social development.

Everybody knows that killing is wrong. But if morality was absolute then killing would always be wrong. And we know that it is not. If someone tries to kill you and you kill them, then killing is not wrong. If you go to war and kill someone, killing is not wrong. If you were leaning over a cliff holding onto a person with each hand but you knew that you didn’t have the strength to pull both of them up so you had to let one go in order to save the other then you would not be wrong. So we can see that killing is wrong, except when it isn’t.

The other important thing to remember is that absolute truths are true for all creatures, but morality is not true for all creatures.

When an animal kills another animal it does not have a lack of morality. Animals kill each other all the time for food, for territory and for mating rights. These animals are not bad, they are just acting in accordance to their survival instinct. Animals also steal and rape, but we don’t consider them to be evil for doing so. But these animals are still subject to absolute truths.

Gravity still applies 100% of the time for animals as well as humans. This is the distinctive difference between an absolute truth, or a scientific law, and a moral value which is relative to species. But as social creatures we have developed a way of getting on and a set of rules that allow us to organise ourselves into societies.

For our purposes these moralities are “true,” but they are not real truths, they are true only in relation to human beings. And only because we have formulated them over time and mutually agree to consent to them.

It is not always convenient for us to not murder or steal, but the laws of the land are constructed based upon our ancient humanistic principles in order to hold us to these values.

Christians will often talk about natural moral law, an idea that God has placed an understanding of morality inside human beings so that every person knows right from wrong. No real evidence exists for a natural moral law, but even if it did it would only suggest that human beings carry a genetic predisposition towards the sociological behaviour that has been pounded into us over generations. For this reason I don’t take particular issue with the idea of natural moral law, just with its origins.

The idea of natural moral law is just another example of religious people putting the cart before the horse. All religions like to identify their own deity as being the source of human morality. But indeed, if religions were constructed by humans, and I believe they were, then it is fair to say that the religions were simply injected with the morality of humanity. This was then passed off as originating from their favourite deity.

Morality originated with humanity as we developed into social groups, it was necessary for our survival. In order for social groups to function properly there must be trust, and morality, a way of acting and treating one another, provides that trust. Over time these practices became more and more ingrained not only in our social groups but in our thinking.

We developed laws around these morals, fixing them into our societies. The morals also became more refined and detailed, in order to deal with the massive variety of moral based issues that arose.

And morality has not stopped developing either. As we create genetically engineered crops, cloning technology and soon artificial intelligence, we must also develop a morality around their use.

Morality is an ever evolving facet of human society. We created it and we will continue to refine it ad infinitum. The development of morality will only stop once all scientific knowledge is attained and all human progress and evolution has been expired.

92

Does Morality Exist?

by Fisherman in

some people believe that stealing, lying and killing, is not moral.

some people don't.. does morality exist?

if so, prove it..

deegee

Interesting article regarding the OP:

https://thoughtcontrol.wordpress.com/the-evil-god/god-or-evil-part-5/#_ftn13 :

Absolute morality does not exist.

According to the Bible, morality is absolute but also malleable, depending upon what God wants to do at the time.

God commanded rape, murder and genocide in scripture. They would not only be not sinful, but in fact moral, because God had commanded them.

This means that there are no absolute moral values, according to Christianity. Instead, morality is only what God commands at any given time.

If you consult scripture you can see that this is quite arbitrary. The Ten Commandments are supposed to provide an absolute set of moral rules according to orthodox Christianity. However, God both ignores the breaking of these rules in scripture on numerous occasions, and in fact commands people to perform sins from this list on numerous other occasions:

- In Exodus 20:16 God says “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.” But in 1Kings 22:22 we find God lying: “And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so.”

- In Exodus 20:13 God says “Thou shalt not kill.” But in Exodus 32:27 God commands men to kill: “And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.”

If something is right because God commands it then murder is both wrong and right depending on whether God had commanded it or not.

In the Bible, God has both condemned killing in a general sense but commanded killing on numerous occasions. One can only presume by this reasoning that murder is neither wrong nor right. It is only the specific and “relative” circumstances under which God commands it that determine whether it is right or wrong.

In this reasoning there is an obligation that comes with God’s moral commands. This obligation swings both ways. In the above instance a person is both obligated to not kill under certain circumstances and obligated to kill under other circumstances. So by this reasoning the foundations of morality become arbitrary.

Biblicists would say that for any particular action that God commands, he commands it because it is morally right. But this approach offers a new problem: “If God commands a particular action because it is morally right, then ethics no longer depends on God in the way that Divine Command Theorists maintain. God is no longer the author of ethics, but rather a mere recognizer of right and wrong.” The implication of this is that God discovers morality rather than inventing it. God is no longer the foundation of ethics but rather a subject of an external moral law. This would take away his sovereignty.

Morality is objective. Morality is quite conceivable as a construct of biological social development. It can be identified in all mammals. Morality would seem to be associated with the development of the mammalian brain, and in particular found in those creatures that have developed to interact socially.

It is not unexpected that human beings, as the highest form of intelligence on the earth, would have the most sophisticated form of morality. But this in no way suggests that the morality is objective to some external force.

Morality seems to be based upon a collective agreement of what best benefits the individual and the social group.

The Bible makes all sorts of moral claims, some of them good and a lot of them ridiculous.

Why is it that most people seem to be able to differentiate between which biblical commands to follow and which ones to reject?

This is because we read the Bible through the filter of our own morality and are able to determine which statements are acceptable and which ones are not. The implication of this of course is that we do not get our morality from the Bible or God, we bring our morality to the Bible and in effect evaluate and judge the Bible’s legitimacy based upon our own morality. The claim that the Bible is the source of Christian morality is rubbish. Christians bring their already in-tact morality to the Bible and then conveniently filter out the parts of it that don’t fit into their morality. Excuses are made for the presence of these contentious verses and they are typically dismissed without too much thought.

Almost universally Christians who read the Bible accept at face value the command “thou shalt not kill.” But at the same time there seems to be a universal rejection of the biblical command to stone a woman to death at her father’s door if she is discovered not to be a virgin (Deuteronomy 22:21).

Different religions frequently give opposing religious commands, and even within the framework of one religious writing it is easy to find contradictory commands. A good example of this has to do with the biblical injunctions around women teaching in the church.

Therefore the Divine Command Theorist must decide for themselves, using reason, which God or religious concept to follow, and then which understanding of the divine commands to follow within their adopted tradition.

This behaviour is no different from that of any secular person in determining their own moral code. They may draw their foundational moral conceptions from any source but must ultimately determine themselves which to follow and which to reject. In many respects a church or organised religious set is simply a group of people that has determined to follow the same moral code as one another more or less. They have determined to interpret their particular writings in a specific way and agreed to follow them collectively.

But the problems only start here, what if you are following the wrong religion? It is only those who follow the correct religion, and also the correct interpretation of that religion, who are moral. This is because morality seems to shift and undulate with God’s, apparently, ever-changing moods - killing is bad in most circumstances, but it is good when you are trying to eliminate tribes who are occupying your land. An obvious implication of this is that God changes his mind and therefore is not immutable.

59

Need help understanding the Overlapping Generation teaching

by Jules Saturn in

so this is a topic that seriously boggles my mind and please correct me if i'm wrong.

to me, the jw definition of the overlapping generation teaching is that the lives of the anointed from 1914 overlap with the lives of the anointed right now.

david splane used the example of fred franz and how he finished his "earthly course" in 1992 but while he did, he had a lot of "contemporaries" that outlived him and are currently living today.

deegee

Preterism claims that Jesus returned in an invisible manner at the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70 CE by the Romans.

The gospels do not say that Jesus will return invisibly, but that “all the peoples of the world.......will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with great power and glory” (Matthew 24:30); "Every eye will see him even those who pierced him" (Revelation 1:7).

Nor could he have returned spiritually because it was promised during Christ’s bodily Ascension into heaven, that at his Second Coming “he will come the same way as you have seen him go”, that is, bodily on the clouds (Acts 1:11).

If Jesus came invisibly in 70CE and is to come again for the final judgement then Jesus would come THREE times and not TWO as the Bible claims.

59

Need help understanding the Overlapping Generation teaching

by Jules Saturn in

so this is a topic that seriously boggles my mind and please correct me if i'm wrong.

to me, the jw definition of the overlapping generation teaching is that the lives of the anointed from 1914 overlap with the lives of the anointed right now.

david splane used the example of fred franz and how he finished his "earthly course" in 1992 but while he did, he had a lot of "contemporaries" that outlived him and are currently living today.

deegee

Matthew 24 is not the only passage where Jesus promised that he would return before his own generation passed away.

One of the clearest statements of this promise was made in Matthew 16:27-28:

“For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works. Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”

Jesus was describing the final judgment when he would come with his angels and reward every person according to his works BEFORE the people who were standing there listening to him died.

This did not happen.

Preterism is just an attempt to explain away the obvious failure of Jesus’ promise to return during the lifetime of his generation:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070301122226/http://www.theskepticalreview.com:80/mainmenu.html
(See “Preterism: Phase 1 to Phase 3)

https://infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/prophecy.html

http://www.religioustolerance.org/end_wrl16a.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/symes05.htm

59

Need help understanding the Overlapping Generation teaching

by Jules Saturn in

so this is a topic that seriously boggles my mind and please correct me if i'm wrong.

to me, the jw definition of the overlapping generation teaching is that the lives of the anointed from 1914 overlap with the lives of the anointed right now.

david splane used the example of fred franz and how he finished his "earthly course" in 1992 but while he did, he had a lot of "contemporaries" that outlived him and are currently living today.

deegee

Jules,

Jesus said in Matthew 24:32 – 34:

“Now from the fig tree learn her parable: when her branch is now become tender, and puts forth its leaves, you know that the summer is nigh; even so you also, when you see all these things, know you that he is nigh, even at the doors. Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place”

"All These things" referred to all of the events that Jesus had said would accompany the destruction of the temple. The problem is however, that not all of the things which Jesus said would accompany the destruction of the temple occurred in 70 CE.

ABOUT THE FULFILLMENT OF THE GREAT TRIBULATION (GT):

In Matthew 24 (Mark 13, Luke 17 & 21) Jesus said that here would be great tribulation which has not occurred since the world’s beginning and which will never occur again.

There is general agreement among New Testament scholars that Jesus was telling his disciples of a great tribulation that would happen when Jerusalem was destroyed.

HOWEVER, most Christians maintain that the GT is yet to happen as Jesus said that there would be no event that could compare to the GT and it would occur only once.

ABOUT THE FULFILLMENT OF THE OTHER EVENTS:

In Matthew 24 (Mark 13, Luke 21) Jesus said that:

- Immediately after "the tribulation of those days" certain celestial signs would be seen: the sun would be darkened, the moon would not give its light, the stars would fall from heaven, and the powers of the heaven would be shaken. There is general agreement among New Testament scholars that Jesus was telling his disciples of a great tribulation that would happen when Jerusalem was destroyed. Jesus was saying that these signs would come immediately after "those days" of the tribulation that accompanied the destruction of Jerusalem.

- After the appearance of the celestial signs, which would follow immediately after the tribulation of those days, "the sign of the Son of Man" would appear in heaven. All tribes of the earth would mourn, and they would see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven. He would send his angels forth with a great sound of a trumpet, and they would gather together his elect from the four corners of the earth.

- All these things would take place before his generation had passed away.

Matthew 24 is not the only passage where Jesus promised that he would return before his own generation passed away. One of the clearest statements of this promise was made in Matthew 16:27-28:

“For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works. Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”

Jesus was describing the final judgment when he would come with his angels and reward every person according to his works. The New Testament teaches that the second coming of Jesus will signal the end of the world, at which time there will be a final, personal judgment on the basis of what each individual did in his/her lifetime:

- The apostle Paul said: "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad" (2 Corinthians 5:10).

- The book of Revelation closed with a warning of this final judgment: "Behold, I come quickly and my reward is with me, to render to each man according to his works" (Revelation 22:12).

- In his interpretation of the parable of the tares, Jesus was very clear in saying to his disciples that the final judgment would take place at the end of the world:

Matthew 13:37 – 43:

“He that sows the good seed is the Son of Man; and the field is the world, and the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one; and the enemy that sowed them is the devil: and the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are angels. As therefore the tares are gathered up and burned with fire; so shall it be in the end of the world. The Son of Man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that cause stumbling, and them that do iniquity, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He that has ears, let him hear”

None of these things occurred when the temple was destroyed in 70 CE. These are just some of the things which did not occur. For a discussion of the events which did not occur when the temple was destroyed in 70 CE see:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070301122226/http://www.theskepticalreview.com:80/mainmenu.html

(See “Preterism: Phase 1 to Phase 3)

https://infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/prophecy.html

http://www.religioustolerance.org/end_wrl16a.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/symes05.htm

Christianity has taken different approaches to the events which were unfulfilled when the temple was destroyed in 70 CE:

The destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70 by the Romans signalled Christ’s return, but in an invisible manner. The unfulfilled events were referring to symbolic fulfillments, which happened during the time of the generation that Jesus was speaking to. This is known as PRETERISM which has variations such as Partial-Preterism, Full-Preterism.

Although Jesus’ words are presented as a continuous sequence of events, conservative Christians believe that the first part of the prophecy relates to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, whereas the remainder refers to Jesus' second coming in the future. The unfulfilled events are projected into the future. Jesus was addressing his statements to a remotely distant generation of people:

- JWs stipulated that this was the generation that saw 1914;

- Other Christians maintain that Jesus was talking about the generation that would be alive when the nation of Israel was restored in 1948.

This is known as DISPENSATIONALISM which has variations as well but essentially the Tribulation is believed to precede the second coming of Christ. The Tribulation is followed by 1000 years of peace when all live under the authority of Christ. Afterwards, in a brief, final battle, Satan is permanently conquered.

Both approaches attempt to explain away the obvious failure of Jesus’ promise to return during the lifetime of his generation. Refutations of PRETERISM can be found at the links provided above.

Consider also when the various books of the New Testament were written.

If I’m not mistaken, John’s Gospel was written 90 or 95 CE, his 3 letters were written between 96 and 98 CE years after Jerusalem’s destruction in 70 CE. If John had believed the event in 70 CE to be the fulfilment of Jesus’ prophecy about the end coming within his generation, wouldn’t he have stated that in his writings? But he did not. Wouldn’t it have been the best way to silence the doubters? But he didn’t even refer to it. To the contrary, the context of his letter shows he was still expecting Jesus’ prophecy to be fulfilled. 1 John 2:18:

“Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour.”

Revelation was written in 95/96 CE after Jerusalem's destruction in 70CE and mentions that Jesus was still yet to come.

Matthew and Luke were written 80 or 85 CE. They record Jesus' prophecy about the world ending in his generation but there is no mention of a fulfillment in 70CE.

Couldn’t help the long post.

21

What is the latest trend in jw land

by bola in

jw
friends

i want to know the latest trend in jw land.

after i have disassociated from jw land last year, now my father has forced me to write a reinstatement letter.

and i will soon be reinstated back very soon because those cult elders will meet with me.

deegee

Bola,

See the following links for the

Shepherd The Flock of God handbook, Elders' manuals etc.

http://avoidjw.org/en/publications/manuals/elders/

http://avoidjw.org/handbooks/

Hope this helps.

41

JW Elder fired from bank for privacy violation regarding fellow JW employee

by Zoos in

"thou shalt spy on and report your brothers and sisters to hq.".

https://www.tv6tnt.com/news/local/industrial-court-finds-there-are-limits-to-freedom-of-religion/article_5a485b94-a327-11e7-9c32-57b15184bc6a.html.

editor's note: due to the nature of this story we've changed the names of the parties involved.

deegee

disrupt the free flow of the Holy Spirit in the Christian congregation

If God’s Holy Spirit is so grieved by the JW sister’s actions then why doesn’t it itself tell the body of elders about what the sister has done? Why does it have to take another human to report the sister to the body of elders? Shouldn’t God’s Spirit speak for itself since it is so grieved?

22

Parents who try to make you feel guilty.

by NJ501 in

when parents say all the things we've done for you and your not doing anything for us in return like going to meetings, witnessing, answering up etc... how do you respond to parents?.

deegee

If you were born-in:

Mankind's Search for God,1990

PG. 8 – 9:

“We usually follow the religious ideals of our parents and grandparents. Is it reasonable to assume that the religion imposed at one's birth is necessarily the whole truth?”

For all adult children of JWs:

Watchtower, Feb 1st, 2012, page 19 in box :

“Witness parents strive to inculcate love for God in their offspring, just as the Bible commands them to. Nevertheless, they realise that WHEN A CHILD BECOMES ANADULT, HE or SHE WILL MAKE A PERSONAL CHOICE WITH REGARD TO WORSHIP.”

Let your parents know that you followed the WT's advice:

"Test every inspired expression to see if it originates with God or not" (1 John 4:1-4).

and the WT came up short.

16

I have enjoyed the shunning in the past. But why not now?

by sinboi in

i am prepared for shunning when i send in my da letter.

my dad was furious when he comes back from overseas and find out that i have da myself.

yes, i do regret not talking to him first before i da...i also know that my mom is crying in her room.. but they didn't chase me out of the house.

deegee

Sinboi,

Do you have other family members who are not JWs?