Posts by kepler

15

If you are dating or married to a JW: A few questions

by Lady Lee in

if you are dating or married to a jw: a few questions.

i am going to be addressing the international cultic studies association (icsa) in july at the conference in montreal.

my focus is on 3 groups.

kepler

Number 5: Yes. But not on line.

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.

kepler

Since I last checked in, there was an astounding amount of material covered on this thread. Which left a lot of reading to do. BotchTower, Ziddinia and New Chapter have given a grand tour pro and con - or con and pro.

Walking away with some impressions: In reading B's material, there was reference to a number of other physicists and astronomers, examining their philosophical or religious points of view- and Z countered that there were many fallacies in their arguments for a patriarchal deity or a deity at all. It was also noted by Z that Judaeo-Christian ideas were of fairly recent vintage, and counter to this there were a number of very ancient cultures which had identified creation with goddesses. So you might say that there was a hybrid pitch for religion based on physics and astronomy figures with objections and a cultural anthropology based pitch for religion with a different slant on who or what God is.

On the last, I should note that I use to hear a different variation on this. My high school friends and I used to comment on our religion teacher (an unordained brother in a religious order) and his claim that the prophets and other figures of the Bible knew more about religious truths than we did because they were closer to the Creation. Speaking of astronomy, my father once quipped we move the Sears refractor telescope from the porch stoop to the street curb, so we could get a closer look at the moon - a few years before Brother F. made his assertion. But at the very least he would have understood the line of reasoning, even though he might have raised objections over some details.

Later in life, if it is not too much of a digression, I did get to meet a couple of the people under discussion. Enjoyed talking with F. Dyson at a conference - like getting a ball autographed - and having got through a presentation without any visible disturbance in his face. Though I don't know much about the beliefs of most astronomy physics instructors, the first one I did any work for turned out to be a Unitarian...

But back on track. As an outsider drawn into these arguments by seeing my ex getting sucked back in, I notice or sense some other things. Perhaps it is a leap, but it seems to me, that there is or was an assumption in the "Science Refuted Religion" debate, that is:

"If the Bible or other religious sources can be shown NOT to be inerrant, then everything about religion is crap."

On the other hand, if a scientific theory is shown to be false in a particular instance, the scientific community goes back to the workshop and modifies it or comes up with a new concept. E.g., Newtonian theory does not explain all dynamics; general relativity and quantum mechanics prop its classical dynamics up. And the structure is imperfect. But my other correspondents say, "We're working on that." And having a great time.

What an easy break!

As I said elsewhere, getting drawn into this, I was confronted with Biblical quotes that said that cities were destroyed by God as punishment or else rebuilt as prophesied. And I was also told that the people who were pointing this out to me were that same God's spokespeople for any other urban renewal that was to come. I would look at the historical record and see no confirmation of these claims, and then the spokespeople would point more forcefully to the chapter and verse... And then sometimes the "effect" had to happen, because the text was "prophecy" and therefore it had to have happened.

I had moved into The Looking Glass World.

Unfortunately (?), many of the claims made can be demonstrated as false. Or else those making the claims can be spotted in the process of building their fraudulent evidence. Each of us can cite and trade these stories.

So does this mean that all religious endeavor is bunk, or is this a reaction to a breach of trust?

For me, doing the research to detect the lies of so-called Bible-based religion has been a very disturbing thing. I found more deceit and distortion than I had bargained for. At this point, I admit, that I cannot judge all the ramifications. I do not know what I should tell or share with a child.

But does that mean that there are no lessons in faith? Does that mean that just because those who call everybody else "Satan's organizations" are shown wrong that there is nothing of worth anywhere?

How do we even know?

Is all that is claimed miraculous simply superstition? Is history without any plan or is there ever any intercession? Does science explain why I perceive the world as "conscious" as, I presume, so do you? Does it explain how we can pass on out of it and the world keeps going on? Or can it provide a convincing proof? Do we ever get postcards from the other side? Would science know one way or the other?

If we limit the discussion to the Bible and its basis, even in studying to find that many things I am being led to believe or had believed already were wrong, I still do not exactly understand what had happened (E.g, what did the 6th-4th century BC Persians really have to do with all of this?). Scinces such as archeology or study of contemporary cultures might provide more information.

Of course, the issue of inerrancy is by no means simply an issue of the Society vs. the world. Beside 2nd Adventists in the 19th century there wree numerous groups that latched onto Biblical inerrancy, but as Karen Armstrong notes, it was almost a defensive reaction to 19th century science findings. Cases such as Galileo's were exceptional since only with the printing press did Scripture go into general circulation at all. In the course of compiling a Bible, some scriptures had to be ruled of insufficient pedigree and others, owing to recorded debates, surely barely passed. If nothing else, we have record of Augustine trying to make sense of how Methuseleh could live his alotted years without drowning in Noah's flood.

Augustine also argued in behalf of Christians to be open to ideals from beyond the pale. To give one example:

Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances, and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.”

-Augustine, “De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim”

Some other anecdotes:

Shortly after the invention of the telescope and Galileo's initial discoveries, the Jesuit Gassendi was observing predicted planetary transits and writing attempts to reconcile the atomist theories of Democritus and Lucretius. But if one were to read the recent best seller "Swerve" about the Roman poet, one would find no mention of this. It would conflict with the story's strict dichotomy.

Elsewhere, the story of Lemaitre was mentioned. And it was in the 1950s that Pope Pius XII attempted to get involved in the cosmology that resulted. Lemaitre advised him to sit on the sidelines and let science and its ax let the chips fly where they may.

30

Some observations on Animal Farm by George Orwell

by WinstonSmith in

i recently finished reading animal farm, written by george orwell.

as someone who has recently awoken to the truth about the truth, this book blew my mind.

the parallels with the watchtower society are quite astounding.

kepler

Had been thinking about Animal Farm and 1984 for some time too. Finally placed a post on a topic related to revising text:

http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/225914/2/NWT-2012-Revision-Your-Suggestions-Please

It's not just that Orwell's commentaries on totalitarianism serves as a well-fitting shoe, but the states he described did as well - and its citizens often remarked on it. Studying Russian/Soviet history, the parallels are remarkable: the mass rallies, the official paper Pravda, the enemies of the people, special terminologies, heroes of labor, stakhanovites, informers. Overseas delegations always had to stay together. Interpreters even translated Russian into Russian or English to English.

Then, there is this portrait of one Joseph that resembles another. It goes on book after book, but here is an excerpt from Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's "First Circle". In the English version, it's chapter 20, "Give Us Back Capital Punishment, Iosif Vissarionovich".

"But he could not trust even this understandable Abakumov [minister of state security]. Mistrust was Iosif Djugashvili's determining trait. Mistrust was his world view.

"He had not trusted his mother. And he had not trusted God before whom he had bowed his head to the floor for eleven years in his youth. Later he did not trust his own fellow Party members, especially those who spoke well. He did not trust his fellow exiles. He did not trust peasants to sow grain and reap harvests unless they were coerced and their work was regularly checked on. He did not trust workers to work unless production norms were set for them. He did not trust members of the intelligentsia not to commit sabotage. He did not trust soldiers and generals without the threat of penalty regiments in their rear. He did not trust his intimates. He did not trust his wives and mistresses. He did not trust his children. And he always turned out to be right.

"He had trusted one person, one only, in a life filled with mistrust, a person as decisive in friendship as in enmity. Alone among Stalin's enemies, while the whole world watched, he had turned around and offered Stalin his friendship.

"And Stalin trusted him.

"That man was Adolf Hitler...

3

The Arab Spring and Geography Lessons with Yearbook 2011

by kepler in

as an outsider doing research of a sort, my readings of yearbooks has not been extensive.

but i studied 1928 and 1934 very carefully - and then picked up the yearbook for 2011 on line.

the first two told me a lot of things about the organization's early days, the thinking of its leader, how books, pamphlets and bibles were produced and distributed - and a lot about a very simple dualistic faith in the near term, terrifying end.. then i encountered the 2011 yearbook which seemed like a collection of anecdotes about mission work in remote parts of the world.

kepler

Thanks, cedars.

Your previous research of this and subsequent discussion was informative. And for anyone who happens to hit this topic without seeing the previous discussion, I would certainly recommend it.

It is understood from the beginning that most of the places under discussion are dangerous places to go if you are a Christian missionary of any stripe. And I would not want to be sitting on the sidelines daring people to go into such harm's way. But at the same time, as an outsider who has been proselytized and having experienced the schism over this belief system, I have a perspective on this matter as well. Some of it is supporting people of my own faith who were involved in missionary work; being aware of that faith's historic missionary work ( No joke!) and the risks some of my own friends, schoolmates and teachers undertook to go to places to conduct it themselves. That Brother who taught me freshman English in high school was at work in Idi Amin's Uganda. He still is there for all I know.

Despite all the translation work the society performs, it is clear that most of it is commentary on the Bible - which when you follow it, jumps all over the place, out of context and many other things. If other Christian faiths are satan's organization, I can't imagine how these pamphlets would make any sense to anyone who hadn't been exposed to Christianity from another source. Would the Society's doctrines have made any sense to a 16th century Aztec? Or a present day Korean who had not already become familiar with the Bible via another missionary source? To me it looks pretty clear that for the Society to get anywhere it is dependent on a large Christian herd to prey on. In its hundred thirty years, it has accomplished nothing like the conversions of the New World, the Philippines, the communities in East Asia that have remained resilient in Japan and China despite persecutions of centuries, or the nations to the north of the Roman Empire a millenium before.

Nor has it done anything comparable to what Islam did in its first hundred years. And still maintains. By a different set of principles? Well, I wonder what it would be like if the Society and Islam changed places?

3

The Arab Spring and Geography Lessons with Yearbook 2011

by kepler in

as an outsider doing research of a sort, my readings of yearbooks has not been extensive.

but i studied 1928 and 1934 very carefully - and then picked up the yearbook for 2011 on line.

the first two told me a lot of things about the organization's early days, the thinking of its leader, how books, pamphlets and bibles were produced and distributed - and a lot about a very simple dualistic faith in the near term, terrifying end.. then i encountered the 2011 yearbook which seemed like a collection of anecdotes about mission work in remote parts of the world.

kepler

As an outsider doing research of a sort, my readings of yearbooks has not been extensive. But I studied 1928 and 1934 very carefully - and then picked up the yearbook for 2011 on line. The first two told me a lot of things about the organization's early days, the thinking of its leader, how books, pamphlets and Bibles were produced and distributed - and a lot about a very simple dualistic faith in the near term, terrifying end.

Then I encountered the 2011 Yearbook which seemed like a collection of anecdotes about mission work in remote parts of the world. As the negative guy I have become, I didn't know what to make of it, at first. But then again...

A lot of the work to spread the word is done very selectively. But where to start to discuss this?

One thing about the "missions" discussion throughout. The focus is international. But to the outsider there is an unexpected surprise. To illustrate, for 1934 the distribution (1933) in Great Britain was as follows.

ACTIVITY IN BRITAIN - Yearbook 1934

The number of service units is 368, of which an average of 342 have regularly engaged in the service work month by month and reported to this office. There are 5,403 company workers who hold the Society’s permit, and of these, 3,897, on an average, have engaged in the work monthly, representing 72.1 percent; this is an increase of 12.1 percent as compared with last year. The hours reported reach a total of 486,608, a decrease of 37,108; nevertheless, a total of 1,206,617 pieces of literature was placed, consisting of 117,632 bound books and1,085,449 booklets, and including 3,536 Bibles. In placing this literature the brethren gave 4,793,892 testimonies, and 966,163 members of the public took literature from us, which represents an average of 1 book or booklet placed after giving 4.9 testimonies…

Take a look at the ratio of bound books or booklets to Bibles. The assumption here has to be that people are already reading their own Bibles and they are doing it incorrectly. They need the Society's help or they are doomed. While the argument goes that this dissemination is fulfilling a Biblical direction described in Matthew, Christianity had yet to confront the issue: to whom was the message addressed? Jews who read Scripture or Gentiles who did not? But I digress.

In countries where the 1934 Yearbook tallies similar but smaller statistics ( China, Japan, Brazil, Syria), it is clear as well that they are dealing with either small ex-patriate Christian communities or the legacy of someone else's proselytizing and converting. For example, 16th century Jesuits. Usually the tribulations reported back via Joseph Rutherford recounting were conflicts with the local resident Christian authorities - in say, Nagasaki. No explanation of how these communities is formed save other than an evil influence of the Catholic church.

And from time to time I am reminded of their activities. Whether it is from a high school friend who sent crates of his 6th volume of Biology to our former high school teacher for use in his classes at a mission in Uganda. Or the recent French film, "Of Gods and Men" (2010 - des hommes et des dieux) about the fate of a community of French Trapppist monks; or an interview this morning on public radio with a Pakistani novelist who writes of a Catholic charity hospital in his country based on events in his youth...

As for the film, it won the Cannes Grand Prix and went on to a box office success in France. The monks, who interacted with the Islamic community as physicians died amid the Algerian civil war in 1996. They had made a conscious decision and vote to stay.

Now, let us look at the Yearbook for 2011 which announces "Preaching and Teaching Earth Wide".

I cannot find the country Algeria. There are no population statistics or ratio of publishers to population. Is this what happens when one divides by zero?

Well, how about Morocco where the movie was filmed? Same thing.

Pakistan, the country of the Mohammed Hanif and author of "Our Lady of Alice Bhatti", it is noted that it has a population of 177,276,594 and 967 pulbishers. Ireland, a population of 6,245,700 has 58,333 publishers for a ratio of 1 to 1071 inhabitants. I guess the publishers there are going to free the Irish of child abuse.

There were other countries that I was unable to locate in the 2011 document which figured in the so-called Arab Spring.

Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Syria ( though it was in the earlier yearbooks), Iran, Iraq, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain.

I am not a missionary, minister, publisher or much of anything else save for now a chronic complainer. But I should add that when my someone left to become one, I noticed that she left her passport behind.

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.

kepler

Ziddina,

RE: But it's a convenient compromise for a man whose career largely depends upon the scientific community's good will...I assume you also noticed his membership in an evangelical scientists' group??

----

As for myself, I am not interested in the particulars of Gingerich's evangelical beliefs, nor more than similar or dissimilar beliefs of his colleagues down the hall. This man functions in the scientific community, searches for natural truths that will shape his philosophy and does not take the position that "science has refuted religion". The kicker for me was this:

For Gingerich, as for many scientists, the only contemptible people are those who refuse even to look. Those who secretly fear that their faith cannot stand up to the cold logic of science. Those who, when they perceive a threat to their faith through science, actively ignore any evidence that might breach their protective layer of ignorance. People like Galileo’s contemporaries who decried his work but would not look though a telescope to see for themselves the moons of Jupiter or the phases of Venus. Or even people today who believe that they cannot hold both evolution in their brain and God in their heart.

None of us have to chose between a theocrat and a technocrat.

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.

kepler

Think this is a great topic with great responses. Had to wonder how I could add anything beneficial to it, save for a matter that was lingering at the back of my mind. As luck would have it, someone or something came to my aid this morning in the e-mail. It was in a circular I usually disregard, but the interview with astronomer Owen Gingerich ( not to be confused with Newt Gingrich!) discussed both science and religion - matters with which Professor Gingerich (Harvard - astronomy) is very much concerned.

Some excerpts:

The professor emeritus is well known for cataloguing every surviving sixteenth century copy of Renaissance astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus’ seminal work, De Revolutionibus. (Photo: Mark Zastrow)Professor emeritus Owen Gingerich’s office is like a dragon’s lair, if the dragon in question was fond of books. Tucked in a corner of Harvard’s astronomy building and filled with the usual accumulation of dusty tomes, the office also hosts a paper replica plane, a perfectly preserved fossil, a model Renaissance telescope, and a large chunk of one of the ten most common elements in the universe...

Solving mysteries even extends to the mystery of God. In his book God’s Universe, which collects three lectures he gave at Harvard, Gingerich explains his views on science and religion with the same logic and methods he uses to investigate all problems. From a sheltered rural Mennonite to a world traveler to a respected scientist to a passionate historian, Gingerich has maintained the faith that brought his ancestors to America many generations ago.

Owen Gingerich was born in 1930 in Iowa, from a long line of Mennonites. His first introduction to the world outside his safe and sleepy Midwest home was a mission of mercy he took with his father in the months following the end of World War II. His father, like his son an ardent pacifist, took a temporary job as supervisor of the U.S.S. Stephen R. Mallory - a liberty ship bearing 847 horses bound for Poland as part of UN relief efforts. He roped his son into becoming a cowboy - helping to keep as many of the horses alive as possible over the long and accident-prone voyage.

It would be natural to assume that an astronomer turned historian, who thinks like a scientist and studies the most controversial astronomers in history, might begin to doubt the worth of religion. Renaissance Italy in particular was notorious for persecuting astronomers, although not always for their science. Galileo died under house arrest and Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake. But the line of faithful Gingerich Mennonites remains unbroken. He sees the universe through the lens of science, but with the awe of devotion. For him, there is no conflict between science and God, only between man and ignorance.

For Gingerich, as for many scientists, the only contemptible people are those who refuse even to look. Those who secretly fear that their faith cannot stand up to the cold logic of science. Those who, when they perceive a threat to their faith through science, actively ignore any evidence that might breach their protective layer of ignorance. People like Galileo’s contemporaries who decried his work but would not look though a telescope to see for themselves the moons of Jupiter or the phases of Venus. Or even people today who believe that they cannot hold both evolution in their brain and God in their heart.

To inspire better relations between faith and science, Gingerich has begun research for a new book on some exciting advances in the theory of evolution, interspersed with ruminations on the supposed conflict between science and religion. For Gingerich, science explains everything within its’ framework, but God can be seen in the details. Every random chance that led to the evolution of intelligent life could be seen as stemming from a guiding force. But Gingerich believes it is a force that uses science, and does not need to circumvent or overrule it. Science and logic were built into the design.

----

So that's something of a lodestar position. If we investigate God's creation and find that it isn't as we were led to understand it, then we continue to examine it and search for the higher truth or stay buoyed by the faith that something better will come of it: A faith intaking part in God's plan, whatever that might be. For the scientist, the inventor, the crusader for a cause, it might not be riches or acknowledgement in this life. Or the next for that matter. But perhaps in the overall balance they or we will serve honorably and give something of value to others.

39

NWT 2012 Revision - Your Suggestions Please

by cofty in

so if its true that a new 2012 version of the new world translation is to be released at this year's dc what changes do you think they will have made?.

don't forget your square brackets for interpolations.. .

"this good news of the kingdom will be preached to all the [developed] world and then the end will come" - matt 24:14.

kepler

Animal Farm, available to read on line, provides many anecdotes about how to proceed with a needed revision. Here's a bit from the end of chapter 8.

--------------------------------------------

About this time there occurred a strange incident which hardly anyone was
able to understand. One night at about twelve o'clock there was a loud
crash in the yard, and the animals rushed out of their stalls. It was a
moonlit night. At the foot of the end wall of the big barn, where the
Seven Commandments were written, there lay a ladder broken in two pieces.
Squealer, temporarily stunned, was sprawling beside it, and near at hand
there lay a lantern, a paint-brush, and an overturned pot of white paint.
The dogs immediately made a ring round Squealer, and escorted him back to
the farmhouse as soon as he was able to walk. None of the animals could
form any idea as to what this meant, except old Benjamin, who nodded his
muzzle with a knowing air, and seemed to understand, but would say nothing.

But a few days later Muriel, reading over the Seven Commandments to
herself, noticed that there was yet another of them which the animals had
remembered wrong. They had thought the Fifth Commandment was "No animal
shall drink alcohol," but there were two words that they had forgotten.
Actually the Commandment read: "No animal shall drink alcohol TO EXCESS."

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?

kepler

Early on in what unfolded into the sequence of events that drew me to this website, someone close to me came up to me one day out of the blue and asked, "Don't you think you need someone who is an expert to talk to you about the Bible and what it means?"

I was rather surprised by that. I had presumed that since JWs were a branch of the Protestant movement and Luther's objections in 1517 were in large a reaction to having just that sort of expertise hanging around already, I was taken aback. It started me reading about Protestantism, a book titled "A Dangerous Idea", which was about the history of the Protestant idea of the common man and his direct interpretation of the Bible. It was interesting, but prepared me not at all for the issues within the 2nd Adventist movement.

But back to Bible-based. Isn't everybody?

I just ended my last post on an angry note. So I am going to try to change course. How about instead of answering the posed question, maybe more questions should be asked:

What does it mean to have a "Bible-based religion?" Is that even a good thing? Are some religions more Bible-based than others, and if they are, does that make them any better off?

At least three times the Bible addresses the creation or beginning. In Genesis 1 and 2. And then in the first verses of John's Gospel. I suppose discussions in Hebrews and elsewhere could be added. If a religion is going to explain things, it would seem as though it would have to address some fundamental things. And then move on to an incident like Moses at Sinai bringing down rules from on high.

But a whole lot of the Bible reads of violence, vengeance and murder. These are literally Chronicles with a point of view, but a very taciturn one at that. Why Josiah might be a better king than Manesseh or David better than anyone else, one is left to a lot of conjecture.

But let us examine one issue - genocidal war. When I asked the brothers/elders who used to meet with me about incidents related in Joshua, they went off in a huddle and came back the next week. "Yes, genocide is acceptable when it comes under God's sanction like it did at Jericho and Ai." But otherwise it is a sin. The younger of the two who had been instructing me, told me how he had once struggled with the idea, but came to terms with it and was convinced. Subsequently he referred me to a couple of articles in the WT on the evils of war that made the same point.

Parenthetically I wonder what was the content of the radio broadcasts about two decades ago that kicked off the action in Rwanda? I don't know for sure. But by the same logic of the WT and that brother who was instructing me on "What the Bible Really Teaches", that's where one can end up anyway: Unthinking allegiance to a theocrat (the Organization) that has already declared on this issue - and one broadcast away from taking up a machete. Rationale: Bible-based.

There is still the conundrum that here in the "West", most of our notions of justice and mercy are derived from the Biblical record. Our codes of ethics are Bible-based. Our desire to attempt to be the Good Samaritan is Bible based.

The mesages of Joshua's conquering campaigns, Christ's parables and the Sermon on the Mount are in the same bound book. How do we draw distinctions? Or do we let an expert authority take care of the matter for us?

14

8/15/12 WT- Article of NONSENSE!

by stillstuckcruz in

the first article in the study edition is full of lots of little holes and contradictions.. pargraph 4:.

4 however, in the 1870sabout four decades before the last days begana small group of sincere christians in pennsylvania, u.s.a., met together to study the bible diligently and to search for the true knowledge.

(2 tim.

kepler

PARGRAPH 4:

4 However, in the 1870’s—about four decades before “the last days” began—a small group of sincere Christians in Pennsylvania, U.S.A., met together to study the Bible diligently and to search for “the true knowledge.” (2 Tim. 3:1) They called themselves Bible Students. These were not “the wise and intellectual ones” from whom Jesus said that knowledge was to be hidden. (Matt. 11: 25) They were humble people who sincerely desired to do God’s will. Carefully and prayerfully, they read, discussed, and meditated on the Scriptures. They also compared Bible passages and examined the writings of others who had made a similar search.

-----------

"to study the Bible diligently and to search for "the true knowledge"... These were not "the wise and intellectual ones"... they were humble people who sincerely desired to do God's will. Carefully and prayerfully, they read..."

How does this disembodied narrator know all this?

Who attended? What did they say? Were people that were too wise, too intellectual or not humble enough turned away? Could they have sneaked in and said nothing? Or were they perhaps in charge of the whole thing? Were these Pennsylvania Bible Students more attentive than people you or I ever attended a meeting with? Or more attentive than any of the people who were engaged in prayer or meditation in either hemisphere before that? After all, there must have been about 1800 years of other such meetings where everyone evidently struck out. And as pointed out these people were not even on target according to today's doctrine - "the present truth".

How fortunate they were to have met only a few years before the great invisible events that they prophesized awaited them. The next 140 years could have been nothing like they would have ever imagined.

What? Is there someone over there who is "puffed up with pride"? For years I was told by the same person who claimed I was not assertive enough in business, public or social settings that I was "puffed up with pride" as soon as I raised any objections to the present truth or the exact statement of "fact" in the pamphlets she was bringing home from meetings.

Curious. I found on the kitchen table notes one day, "that man was never meant to govern himself". 1800 years is a long time to be on your own if that is the case. And this is the country where one of the greatest funeral orations in history was rap on how precious that privilege is. Not that it should be unique here from where I write, but that it could perish from the earth were it not for those that would try to preserve it at the risk or loss of their lives. How grateful should I be though that I have lived to see something that with all the compassion of a Joseph Rutherford or a Fred Franz and the vision shared with an H. P. Lovecraft dedicated to bring this all about?