Posts by OldGenerationDude

59

REAL-TIME CIRCUIT ASSEMBLY UPDATE "DO NOT SHOPLIFT FROM JEHOVAH!"!!!

by Sunflower Samurai in

just a quick overview of some new light that is coming our way, forgive my posting via my cellphone.

audience is given ten questions and we have receved anwsers to r questions.. .

"we are stealing from jehovah, if we are worrying about problems in our life, congregation, or employment.

OldGenerationDude

Me thinks that I did hear the alarm buzzer go off.

11

Is Jehovah's Organization Truly a Bible-based Religion?

by Celestial in

some public statements are as follows;.

w87 10/1 pp.

6-7 can you find the right religion?

OldGenerationDude

Yes, the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses is very much a Bible-based religion. And that is what is wrong with it.

The Scriptures of the Jews was not the basis of their religion. The Jewish religion came first and was functioning for centuries before the texts of the Old Testament took the form that we see them in today. As can be seen by textual analysis and even from the writings themselves, it was not until after the return from Babylon did the texts finally become settled, sometime around the era of Ezra and Nehemiah.

As for Christianity, it flourished for three centuries before it made claim to a canon of inspired texts. The works found in the Christian Scriptures were written by Christians who already practiced an established religion, a religion that had not arisen from reading a book (that they themselves would have to write first before they could read it). The religion of Christians is based on their encounter with a person, Jesus of Nazareth, not a book. And Jesus never said that reading or studying the Bible was a requisite to gain God’s approval or be “saved.” In fact he taught the opposite, that nothing besides himself personally was the Way and the Truth that lead to life. While the gospels have words that tell of Christ’s teaching, Christ was the Word Incarnate--the Word that came before any of the written pages of gospel took form.

So yes, the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses is based on a book that tells about Christ, but Christianity is based on the Person of Jesus.

The Scriptures are a book that is a reflection of another tradition and its theology—not the basis, but again a reflection of what they already believed. And, as I've said before, if one follows a reflection for the basis of their religion, they are sure to get everything backwards as a result.

So yes, the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses is very much a Bible-based religion. And that is what is wrong with it. That is why it fails.

239

The Great Debate: "Has Science Refuted Religion?

by dark angle in

just want to share this amazing debate!

caltech cosmologist and physicist sean carroll teams up with skeptic magazine publisher and science historian michael shermer in this epic debate with noted conservative author and king's college president dinesh d'souza and mit physicist ian hutchinson as they go head-to-head over one of the most controversial issues of our age.

as science pushes deeper into territory once the province of religion, with questions such as why there is something rather than nothing?, where did the universe come from?, how did life arise?, what was the origin of morality?, and others, inevitable conflicts arise over the best approach to answer them.

OldGenerationDude

My apologies, VM44. My reply was meant to be seen as a bit of tongue-and-cheek humor (thus the reference to my bubee, who in reality has passed on). I forget that unless we make it clear, humor might not be read into our comments. I was trying to lighten things up a bit, lest I been seen as even taking myself too seriously.

And dark angle, the reference to an "open mind" is the one commonly used in the English vernacular, namely to be open to the possibilities, such as that my view on things can be incorrect. I'm sure, DA, that you wouldn't want me to close my mind to that possibility, are you?

But don't think I am looking down on atheism. In fact, I support atheists and have been active in fighting for their civil rights for a couple of years now. I don't have a beef against atheism.

What I do have a problem with is when we raise anything, religious or secular, to the same heights the Watchtower raises its doctrine to: the Great Panacea, and answer to all things.

And I also hate it when people claim that another ex-JWs beliefs or philosophies are "crap" or "junk." I don't believe atheism or religion is crap or junk. I do believe this particular debate about science vs. religion is misleading, but that doesn't mean that I think atheists are close minded or not grounded in reality for their beliefs. Why do you tear down your fellow ex-JW who may now embrace a religion or some aspects of spirituality by use of such language? Is it because you miss the feeling of having "the Truth" the Watchtower gave you? It's possible, because they taught us to feel that way. Should we leave that type of behavior behind with the Witnesses who love to be that and give each other support? We’ve all had so much rejection and hatred already from the JWs!

The reason behind what I posted and what I have been saying is not because I have anything against atheism or the general debate of science/religion itself. I am trying to expose how the Watchtower sometimes still infects our way of thinking and acting even once we leave. There's no difference between a Jehovah's Witness who claims they have it right and that other beliefs are crap and junk and ourselves if claim we have it right and are calling the beliefs of others crap or junk. We just changed brand names, but have kept the same clothing; we've adopted a new flavor, but its still "Kool-Aid."

Anyone who reads my words: if you are an exJW, no matter what you choose to believe after leaving the Watchtower behind, you have my support. I don't think anyone or their choices--unless they are just Watchtowerisms "wearing sheep's clothing"--are crap or junk. Even if you cherish conclusions and values different from mine, I will do more than tolerate them and you, I will always have your back and accept them and you. You don't have to believe like me to have my friendship, my love, my support and my respect.

239

The Great Debate: "Has Science Refuted Religion?

by dark angle in

just want to share this amazing debate!

caltech cosmologist and physicist sean carroll teams up with skeptic magazine publisher and science historian michael shermer in this epic debate with noted conservative author and king's college president dinesh d'souza and mit physicist ian hutchinson as they go head-to-head over one of the most controversial issues of our age.

as science pushes deeper into territory once the province of religion, with questions such as why there is something rather than nothing?, where did the universe come from?, how did life arise?, what was the origin of morality?, and others, inevitable conflicts arise over the best approach to answer them.

OldGenerationDude

Thanks for the welcome, everyone.

Oh, and VM44--Thanks, but you're barking up a tree without a cat in it.

I'm a Jew. I was born into a Jewish family, was a Witness for a brief time and now back on the outside, regardless if I am secular or religious or what-not, I am still a Jew.

Therefore the arguments in a book like this "God and the Folly of Faith" is just as close-minded an offering as that Awake! magazine was when it had that ridiculous lead series of articles about "CB Radio"! (I bet that flew over nicely in the rest of non-America.)

So don't give me some book that limits itself to complaints against Christianity. It doesn't apply to me. Not only is a Jewish perspective almost never taken into consideration by this author, there is even less room given to anything more Eastern, and even secular from an Eastern point of view. Christianity is not the only game in town. If this author were truly open-minded and enlightened he wouldn't have published such a narrow argument.

Besides, if we're not JWs anymore, why are we still pointing to books and other publications as if they hold all the answers or are the "nails into the coffin" on this subject? My bubbe would rather eat a pork chop than find me peddling books and tracts to strangers again.

239

The Great Debate: "Has Science Refuted Religion?

by dark angle in

just want to share this amazing debate!

caltech cosmologist and physicist sean carroll teams up with skeptic magazine publisher and science historian michael shermer in this epic debate with noted conservative author and king's college president dinesh d'souza and mit physicist ian hutchinson as they go head-to-head over one of the most controversial issues of our age.

as science pushes deeper into territory once the province of religion, with questions such as why there is something rather than nothing?, where did the universe come from?, how did life arise?, what was the origin of morality?, and others, inevitable conflicts arise over the best approach to answer them.

OldGenerationDude

While I am generally on the side of science regarding its findings, I don’t think that either science or religion can negate the other.

To do so would require that religion was the equivalent of science and vice versa. The two would also have to be interchangeable and supply the same needs of the other. I also think science and religion would have to make claim to same goal.

While I have met a few people who think that science and religion are destined by their nature to be in this type of conflict, I don’t see how accepting the finding of one negates the other.

Also, except for the horrid religion of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and few others, I don’t know any religions that take issue with the following questions or give any hinging importance to these:

Why there is something rather than nothing?

Where did the universe come from?

How did life arise?

What was the origin of morality?

While these are the arguments of some religious folks who like to debate the subject of the validity of religion, these same religious folk are shunned by the religious community as a whole. Judaism itself has no problem with the findings of modern science. What about the Pontifical Academy of Sciences of the Holy See? If science can do without religion and religious people, why did science eventually embrace the “big bang theory” which was discovered and formulated by a Catholic priest? And one has to be quite ignorant of history if we are to ignore the great advances and connections between science and the Islamic faith!

Some religions don’t even claim to be fonts of or concerned with morality or giving an answer as to how life arose, why matter exists, etc. What about the many Eastern religious faiths? How do any of these subjects raised and discussed disprove Buddhism?

Again I am on the side of science and its findings, but not on the side of the belief that one negates the other. The two are not equivalents. There are also different forms of religion that do not concern themselves with answering any of the questions of science and vice versa.

And while it can never be said that all people who like to consider these issues are this way, type of debate is a favorite of those with ambiguity intolerant personality traits. They serve the needs of those who find religions like the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Fundamentalism appealing (as well as some aggressive anti-religious movements). The ambiguity intolerant has a drive to compartmentalize all aspects of life, to have definite answers even for the most complex questions. For this type of personality all issues are settled, and anything that suggests otherwise is attacked, hated, even demonized regardless if the person is religious or not.

There is no “science vs. religion” debate on the larger scale of things. It’s as big a money-making racket as those who make a buck off of religion. It tickles the ego of those who like to feel that they have all the answers and that the views that they have selected for themselves are right. It endorses their beliefs because it teaches that those with the opposite view are wrong, thereby elevating the individual. And this individual is pandered to, some from a religious side that claims it has conquered science, and some from a scientific side who feeds the ego of the person who needs to hear that religion has been conquered.

It’s just Watchtowerism—the perception that one has found an objective set of principles which supplies the answers to everything and disproves all others that we put aside—Watchtowerism under another brand name, feeding it’s “panacea philosophy” to those who, like the Watchtower, like to find fault with everyone else except themselves, feeding the ego of those who want to make science it’s Truth just like they did religion.

And again, it only fuels those who will now follow my post with demonizing of me and what I claimed, because whether religious or secular, the person with ambiguity intolerance traits has a need to “make war” on anyone and anything that tells them life, whether viewed through religion or science, life gives no complete and definite answers on these issues raised at the beginning:

Why there is something rather than nothing?

Where did the universe come from?

How did life arise?

What was the origin of morality?

Sure these may have been "selling points" that may have made the Watchtower sound attractive to some us who got duped by its twisted bag of tricks, but these aren't questions people have that become the driving force for them to seek religion.

And anyone who thinks they have found such panacea, religious, scientific or otherwise, that gives us all these answers in such a way that the final bell has been sounded is only making a mockery of both science and religion.

2

Are righteousness and wickedness synonymous with right and wrong ?

by caliber in

what the cartoon expresses is .... should this go beyond state issue to .

federal issue or further still to divine issue ?.

those who recognize divine authority see the issue as what is righteous and what is wicked .

OldGenerationDude

We have to remember that "right" (meaning "correct"), "right" (meaning what one is "innately entitled to") and "righteousness" sound the same in English, but aren't exactly the same things, neither in Biblical terminology or moral theology. The same thing applies to what is considered "wrong" and "unrighteous" and "evil," which interestingly don't sound the same in English like the other words do.

The meaning of "righteous" in Biblical and moral theology basically means "justified," in the sense of two weights on opposite sides of a scale balancing out evenly between one another. It is a term that is applied to how God sees things, as whether something or someone meets an
established level of order regarding that subject's purpose.

However, what is "right" or correct may not necessarily agree with what is stated to be "just" or "righteous." For example, Jesus tells a Gentile woman who requests help that he shouldn't put serving her before the needs of his fellow Jews at Matthew 15:26:

" It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs."

The Canaanite woman replies:

"But even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall off their masters’ table."--vs 27.

In verse 28, Jesus grants the non-Jewish woman her request, but not because it is "justified" (according to what Jesus was sent out to do), but because it was the "right" or "correct" thing to do. That might seem contradictory because it is supposed to be. According to Christian theology there is a big difference between doing "justice" or "righteousness" (living up to the demands of the Mosaic Law, for example) and doing what is "just" or "right."

In the Bible, conforming to God's will is always "righteous" or "just." But this isn't always accomplished by means of following the letter of the Law or following a certain established rule of society or even logic. Remember how in Matthew chapter 3, John the Baptist doesn't want to baptize Christ. He already knows who Jesus is and it seems both illogical and not even correct to have a lesser one "baptize" a greater person.

"I need to be baptized by you, and yet you are coming to me?" Jesus said to him in reply, " Allow me to be baptized now. This is necessary to fulfill all righteousness ."--Matthew 3:14, 15.

It may not have made sense then, it may even have seemed contrary to the Jewish understanding of sacred things and holiness, but it fulfilled God's purpose, conformed to God's will which is often greater than what can be understood by a reading of the Law or limited by denominational and national boundaries.

So not everyone who believes in God has the same view of what is "right" and "righteous." The two are often linked, but not always the same. Someone in theory can do something which is against established rules, mores, and/or laws (what is "wrong" or "incorrect") but still be conforming to God's will. There are objectives that stay permanent, it is true, but according to theology God takes everything into account (what is relative) in ways that people still cannot comprehend. That is why people often make bad judges, especially when we claim to be doing so in the name of God, because we only have written objectives (the Bible) and not God's view of how the objective applies under certain situations or circumstances.

What is "evil" is also not the same as what may be "wrong" or "wicked." "Evil" generally means something which shouldn't be so but remains a constant, at least for a time. What is wicked or wrong usually describes a choice or action in relation to a set of objectives (like the Mosaic Law), but an evil can either be the result or something that even interferes and limits a "right" or "correct" action. We as people often do what is wrong, but we are not necessarily evil. We might even be at fault for creating a situation which could be described as an "evil," but that still doesn't change the characteristic of the person who caused the evil.

Of course there is a lot more about this in various religious schools of thought. I've just touched on some of the general Christian ideas.

It should be noted, however, that there is a significant difference in social views of justice and religious views. While there should not be a dichotomy between choosing what is evil over good in a religious sense, there is a dichotomy between the secular definitions due to the fact that more than religious people live in the world. For example, some may believe it is "right" to obey God, but it isn't "right" to force someone to do so or to accept another's view of who or what god to follow (if any). And just because a person doesn't believe in (and thus doesn't obey a) God, this doesn't mean the person fails to do what is "right" or just in either the secular or religious sense of the terms.

Even in Scripture we are told that humans will generally fail to judge persons accordingly and will be surprised to find out that the people they rejected or judged unworthy will turn out to be the ones who are the best examples of Jesus the world has ever seen.--Matthew 25:40-46.

16

What You May Have Missed While You Were Away

by OldGenerationDude in

after conversing with a few folks on this board, it came to my attention that a lot of what i've been writing sounds very foreign to a lot of people.

the reason is simple, really.. after talking with some of you here, i have come to realize that i am really from a very different era of the watchtower than a lot of you are.

i have much to learn from you guys (like i still can't figure out how anyone got that overlapping-generation fluff to pass-in my day we probably would have burned as a witch anyone who even dared suggest such a thing as "true doctrine" among the witnesses).. some have mentioned to me how what i've written about sounds "foreign" or even fabricated...that is until they look it up for themselves.

OldGenerationDude

Pistoff--

You keep stating again and again that I wrote that the Quelle hypothesis is being abandoned. I even showed you where I made a mistake and corrected a sentence from which you should be able to discern that it isn't being "abandoned":

I do note the error in this sentence:

Why abandon the hypothesis of Q? This is new and is happening now.

I should have written (and thought I did), "Why abandon the hypothesis of Q? This is not what is happening now."

All I mentioned is that there is a movement in academic circles, not attacking Q, but giving credence to the traditional view that the gospel of Matthew could have been written simultaneously with Mark or even independently, without using Mark as a source. This doesn't mean that Matthew was written by the apostle. It doesn't mean that Q didn't exist. It doesn't mean that Mark couldn't have been a source. It doesn’t' mean any of those things.

Why do you keep insisting that I am saying that Q is being abandoned?

Go back and count how many times I state that I never intended to say that Q was being abandoned. How many different posts of mine do I state that I Q is NOT being abandoned? How many times within these particular posts do I repeat that?

Then go back and count how many times you reply insisting or implying the opposite. Why do you insist that I say Q is being abandoned in the face of the many times you can count that I say it isn't? Why are you insisting, contrary to what can be read here, the opposite?

We are saying the same things, not the opposite, and you also keep ignoring that I am stating that Q is not being abandoned.

Is it that you are reading posts cynically, attributing a motive to support Watchtower teaching that these books were written by who they say they are? Reading something with a critical eye means analyzing, but reading with a cynical eye means not having trust. If I, a Jew, have an agenda, what would it be? Making a convert? To what? You can't become a Jew unless you were born a Jew. You might be able to convert to the religion, but that is rare and very hard to do because we aren't looking to convert people to our religion. Jews don't believe in Christianity's view that humankind needs to be redeemed from some original sin that marks all due to what Adam did. Why would I want to attribute Matthew to the actual apostle? Outside of hoping people leave the Watchtower, what does it really matter to me?

All I've been saying is that the Watchtower view is false, and that Watchtower view states that Q is false. I don't agree with that. I don't believe it is. And I never wrote that Q was being abandoned.

I have made this thread because I am against the Watchtower view, as I am in all my posts which can be examined. I am also against how it makes cynics out of people. We need to be critical, yes, in our approach. But cynical? If you don't trust that others can have your best interest at heart you might miss out on a lot.

We don't have to keep distrusting everyone or attributing some dark motive to each person who comes along like the Watchtower teaches JWs to be. True, there are people out there who want to cause others harm. But I tell you with all honesty, I am not one of them.

4

Achoo! Watchtower Bless You.

by okage in

this has been irking me for a bit.

many of us on here acknowledge the society's subtle demand to be worshipped like god.. they are god's mouthpiece, yet they make the claim "question the organization is like questioning jehovah.

" "accept what we say because jehovah is saying it.".

OldGenerationDude

I remember watching two films, practically back to back one weekend a year or two ago: one was about Joan of Arc and the other was someone I hadn't heard of but never forgot after I saw the film, Bernadette Soubirous.

Both were French girls, both received visions, both were called apostates by the own religious people, the Catholic Church (I believe the term they use is "heretics').

Not only were both films quite moving, they are somewhat embarassing not only to Catholics but religious people in general. When was the last time you heard of an atheist stoning one of their own heroes that revolutionizes their point of view or cause? That is what both these young women experienced from their own people--they both received revelations from heaven, had miracles produced through them, and still one, Joan of Arc, got burned at the stake, and the other was ostracized and even hated by many clergy in a way that was even more disrespectful than death. The two are now conisdered saints, and their visions and example that made them heretics now honored and championed.

If there is a God, then that's the way I would expect God to operate--to make fools of those who think so great of themselves, especially the religionist fools, and to their very faces. The heretic you stone today will rule you from heaven tomorrow.

Okay, maybe a little too much for some of us to take (no offense, my neighbor atheists). My point is that religions don't seem to learn this lesson very well, do they? So we're in pretty good company, my fellow apostates or heretics, for history is sure to repeat itself--and thus be warned Watchtower (and all you other religions, for that matter), forthe person you hate, reject, and think deserving of your judgment today will be the saint whose example you will fall short of living up to tomorrow.

16

What You May Have Missed While You Were Away

by OldGenerationDude in

after conversing with a few folks on this board, it came to my attention that a lot of what i've been writing sounds very foreign to a lot of people.

the reason is simple, really.. after talking with some of you here, i have come to realize that i am really from a very different era of the watchtower than a lot of you are.

i have much to learn from you guys (like i still can't figure out how anyone got that overlapping-generation fluff to pass-in my day we probably would have burned as a witch anyone who even dared suggest such a thing as "true doctrine" among the witnesses).. some have mentioned to me how what i've written about sounds "foreign" or even fabricated...that is until they look it up for themselves.

OldGenerationDude

One of the things I note that happens at times on this message board is that we often are still stuck in the Watchtower mode when we read things.

When I was a Witness I used to see all statements in black and white. Of course now I know that all things don’t work out that way in real life. You can have various possibilities to choose from for any dilemma. One of them could be the answer, or parts of this one and that could be the solution, or all could be wrong, or all could be incomplete—heck all can be right in some instances because all solutions could work. Who knows unless we try them out (which could take generations, so don't hold your breath).

Perhaps this is what has happened here (note I said “perhaps”). It's what is called "ambiguity intolerance." The Watchtower not only feeds on people who have a tendency for this type of personality, but it feeds the ambiguity intolerance as well by promoting that nothing ambiguous could or should be tolerated ("all things are either good or bad, for there exists nothing in between"). We need to be careful that any traces of this in us not cloud our reading of what some post on here. It could save us a lot of time challenging one another.

While I may not be the best at getting my thought across, I am definitely not directly challenging (or at least intended to do so) any thoughts or choices others make outside of Watchtower control. Sure, there is some ambiguity in what I wrote, but that is because I didn’t make it up. I have a lot of books opened on my desk and my desktop on my computer, and the ambiguity of many scholarly views (because these are generally all “theory”) are purposeful in most cases and get lifted along from there to what I write on the screen.

I’m Jewish and so I have to be careful that I write things that make sense in Christian thought (even a lot of atheists only tend to argue against Christian views with little or no arguments that have anything to do with the viewpoint of actual Jewish religious thought—which is hard to pin down at times, let me tell you!). So if I am a little too ambiguous, then maybe it’s because I’m trying to be cautious and not lose people in an outright kvetching against the Tower.

And yes, before you ask, I was a Witness. And no, I’m not now a Jewish convert. I am a Jew by birth.

16

What You May Have Missed While You Were Away

by OldGenerationDude in

after conversing with a few folks on this board, it came to my attention that a lot of what i've been writing sounds very foreign to a lot of people.

the reason is simple, really.. after talking with some of you here, i have come to realize that i am really from a very different era of the watchtower than a lot of you are.

i have much to learn from you guys (like i still can't figure out how anyone got that overlapping-generation fluff to pass-in my day we probably would have burned as a witch anyone who even dared suggest such a thing as "true doctrine" among the witnesses).. some have mentioned to me how what i've written about sounds "foreign" or even fabricated...that is until they look it up for themselves.

OldGenerationDude

I do note the error in this sentence:

Why abandon the hypothesis of Q? This is new and is happening now.

I should have written (and thought I did), "Why abandon the hypothesis of Q? This is not what is happening now."

Unfortunately my spell check doesn't help when I put the wrong words in. As long as I spell correctly is all that matters to that macro--and as you pointed out, that is not enough. And because I knew what I was saying, I glossed over it when I re-read it prior to reposting.

I am also certain that I never wrote that conclusions from source and textual critical method are losing favor. What I wrote was that the Q theory is currently challenged in some academic circles by what appears to be a swing in favor of an independent dating and composition theory of the gospel attributed to Matthew. This is due to some scholars developing a "no evidence for Q" theory. They aren't abandoning it, but like the Jamnia hypothesis some are merely giving a more balanced view when before it had been popular to say that there was no reason to believe the writings of the early Christians that attributed the Marcan account to the secretary or assistant of Peter. Saying that such could have been possible is not abandoning the Q hypothesis or stating that we know for sure who wrote Mark.

So while I understand how that first sentence I wrote was incorrect, surely if read back to what I wrote you will see I never meant to give the impression that critical theory was out the door.

On the contrary, the whole point of my posting is to show that we may have missed out on a lot that critical analysis has to offer because of the Watchtower and its leaning toward traditional views without consideration for the higher critics' approach.