Posts by shepherdless

30

Thoughts on JW funerals

by Syme in

i recently had the sad opportunity to attend 2 jw funerals.

the first was a few months ago and the second today.

the first was my grandfather's and the second of an old friend back from my jw days.

There was a sprinkling of non-JWs in attendance; neighbours of the deceased etc. They were easy to spot because they came dressed “smart casual” whereas JWs came dressed like that were attending the board meeting. I felt the urge to try to tell some of them, that I was one of them, but the opportunity didn’t arise. (I’ve never been a JW, but I was also dressed like it was a board meeting.)

The talk was by an elder who knew the deceased, and did talk a little about the deceased, including a few antidotes that I knew to be true. But of course Borg theology had to come into it.

During the talk, I could not help but wonder what the non-JWs would be thinking. The whole thing was rather formal and unemotional; which is weird for a funeral, especially as the deceased was not that old. Outsiders would not have realised that the person giving the talk was an elder.

The elder brought some biblical quotes into a funeral talk, which is not unusual in itself. The quote snippets he used flipping back and forth might have seen odd to someone paying attention. He emphasised Ephesians 9:5 (I think it was that one) which is an odd one to mention at a funeral, about the dead knowing nothing. I know how it fits with JW theology, but it wasn’t explained, and an outsider probably would have thought the speaker had lost his place and accidentally left something out.

Then late in the talk, the elder said something like, “and [the deceased’s] biggest regret would have been that he did not see Armageddon.” I think at that very instant, all non-JWs in the audience would have realised they were surrounded by a bunch of crazies.

9

Oh What Is That Sound?

by Simon in

jw
friends

o what is that sound which so thrills the eardown in the valley drumming, drumming?only the scarlet soldiers, dear,the soldiers coming.o what is that light i see flashing so clearover the distance brightly, brightly?only the sun on their weapons, dear,as they step lightly.o what are they doing with all that gear,what are they doing this morning, morning?only their usual manoeuvres, dear,or perhaps a warning.o why have they left the road down there,why are they suddenly wheeling, wheeling?perhaps a change in their orders, dear,why are you kneeling?o haven't they stopped for the doctor's care,haven't they reined their horses, horses?why, they are none of them wounded, dear,none of these forces.o is it the parson they want, with white hair,is it the parson, is it, is it?no, they are passing his gateway, dear,without a visit.o it must be the farmer that lives so near.it must be the farmer so cunning, so cunning?they have passed the farmyard already, dear,and now they are running.o where are you going?

stay with me here!were the vows you swore deceiving, deceiving?no, i promised to love you, dear,but i must be leaving.o it's broken the lock and splintered the door,o it's the gate where they're turning, turning;their boots are heavy on the floorand their eyes are burning.. - w.h.auden.

shepherdless

The soldiers are not any old mob, they represent the government or anyone the government allows to attack people or deny rights to.

WH Auden lived in Berlin in the late 1920s and that poem was published in 1934. My interpretation would be that he was describing the “Brownshirts”. Of course, each person to their own interpretation.

9

Oh What Is That Sound?

by Simon in

jw
friends

o what is that sound which so thrills the eardown in the valley drumming, drumming?only the scarlet soldiers, dear,the soldiers coming.o what is that light i see flashing so clearover the distance brightly, brightly?only the sun on their weapons, dear,as they step lightly.o what are they doing with all that gear,what are they doing this morning, morning?only their usual manoeuvres, dear,or perhaps a warning.o why have they left the road down there,why are they suddenly wheeling, wheeling?perhaps a change in their orders, dear,why are you kneeling?o haven't they stopped for the doctor's care,haven't they reined their horses, horses?why, they are none of them wounded, dear,none of these forces.o is it the parson they want, with white hair,is it the parson, is it, is it?no, they are passing his gateway, dear,without a visit.o it must be the farmer that lives so near.it must be the farmer so cunning, so cunning?they have passed the farmyard already, dear,and now they are running.o where are you going?

stay with me here!were the vows you swore deceiving, deceiving?no, i promised to love you, dear,but i must be leaving.o it's broken the lock and splintered the door,o it's the gate where they're turning, turning;their boots are heavy on the floorand their eyes are burning.. - w.h.auden.

shepherdless

Centuries ago, people were regularly convicted and executed (via various brutal means) for witchcraft.

if you look up the crime, you pretty quickly realise that it is basically an impossible crime to commit.

Convictions stopped, when Courts developed rules of evidence; in particular the hearsay rule. Essentially, rumours, gossip, and in this day and age, what an anonymous person spouts on the internet is not admissible evidence in Court, because of the hearsay rule.

Thankfully, in this day and age, if someone wants to make allegations (say hypothetically to take a current example) that someone witnessed voter fraud (just a hypothetical example as it appears to be a current topic), a Court would require testimony from the person who claimed to witness it, not second hand or third hand accounts from people who hear a rumour in the local town market place, or read it on the internet. This was a game changer, in terms of the conviction of witches, in the past.

The obvious problem with hearsay is that it can not be verified. The more subtle problem with hearsay is that it can not be verified by more and more hearsay. Larger and larger groups in the town market place repeating each other’s stories do not make those stories more true. Also, larger and larger internet circles repeating the same conspiracies in an echo chamber do not make the conspiracies more true.

Further, some of the vocal participants may have an agenda. To take another hypothetical example, a bad actor may spread stories that he or she has hundreds of affidavits confirming (for example hypothetically an election fraud) but never show them to anyone, even sympathetic media such as Fox News. Perhaps the bad actor has a hidden agenda, such as raising large amounts of money from the gullible? Perhaps we can detect the bad actor when he or she not only does not produce copies of such affidavits to the Courts, but does not produce such copies of the affidavits to the public either.

In this day and age, I am not concerned about the Courts or any modern country being fooled by such behaviour. What does concern me is that out in the community, where hearsay is still valid evidence, and there is someone with a loud enough megaphone with malicious intent, we are all at risk of the mob attack described by WH Audin, as Simon quotes above.

13

Australia Update

by Pants of Righteousness in

jw
friends

article .

shepherdless

Blues Brother, in answer to your questions:

Providing that their understanding is correct and the Governor General confirms it...

The GG will approve it. Essentially, under the Constitution, the GG approves whatever the Prime Minister tells the GG to approve. (There are exceptions in extreme circumstances, such as “the Dismissal” in 1975.)

[Edit.. why does the Queen's representative have to get involved? It ought to be down to the Aus. Government ]

There is a legal fiction that Australia is still ruled by Queen (or King) of England. Under the Constitution, the Queen appoints (or fires) the GG. In practice, the Aust Prime Minister appoints the GG, but the GG is often referred to as the “Queen’s representative.” The GG exercises the same powers in Aust, that the Queen exercises in UK. Just as the Queen stamps whatever law the UK Parliament sends to her, the GG stamps whatever law the Aust Parliament sends to him/her.

In other words, loss of charity status is a “done deal”. Just a formality from here.

34

Was Jesus Born on December 25th?

by Sea Breeze in

we were told by watchtower that no way jesus was born on dec. 25th.

.

what do you think now?.

shepherdless

Come on... everyone is told these days That December 25th is not really the birth date of Jesus. You can read that in lots of books, see it in tv documentaries....... the date is no longer an issue

Totally agree. My parents were staunch Roman Catholics and I went to Catholic schools, and as kids we were taught that:

Jesus was born some time between 7 BC and 4 BC, probably during a winter.
Early Christians used to mask their celebration by putting it on the same date as a celebration of a Roman god.

Not saying that that is 100% correct, or the full story, of course.

62

-0:6 negative growth 2020 service year

by Fadeaway1962 in

phttps://www.jw.org/finder?wtlocale=e&pub=syr20&srcid=share .

plus another increase in memorial partakes number etc .

shepherdless

Thanks road to nowhere.

62

-0:6 negative growth 2020 service year

by Fadeaway1962 in

phttps://www.jw.org/finder?wtlocale=e&pub=syr20&srcid=share .

plus another increase in memorial partakes number etc .

shepherdless

Just a question; how does Watchtower define an active publisher at the moment? I had thought publishers are not required to report their hours at the moment.

33

Maths Virus 1914

by Anna Marina in

this is my latest video.

it is part 1 of a series that reveals the mathematical trickery watchtower uses to con people about the 1914 doctrine.

it takes a radically different approach to that of carl olof jonsson who dealt with dates.. this video focusses on how watchtower misuses the numbers in scriptures and creates a mental fog that prevents people from understanding and therefore prevents them from challenging.. the full title of the video is maths virus - revealing the antivirus to 1914. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llkmrul3afg.

shepherdless

Quick comments, given comments directed at me:

Hi Jeffro, you might be misunderstanding my point of view. I am not saying that because the Bible is the only record of the destruction of Jerusalem, the event did not occur. I am solely focused on Watchtower’s strawman argument, where Watchtower claims that “secular” historians are the source of 586/587 BC. To repeat myself, outside of the Bible, there is no evidence of the event. Therefore, outside of the Bible, there is no date. The 586/587 BC date is a biblical date.

And in relation to whether it is 586 or 587, I leave that to others, because my understanding is that it is not so straight forward.

Hi Harry, your quoted text appears to confirm what I said, that the relevant Babylonian record is not available.

Hi Anna Marina, my comment was not directly aimed at your presentation. Your video did mention “secular”, which reminded me of the way Watchtower tries to rebut 586/587.

33

Maths Virus 1914

by Anna Marina in

this is my latest video.

it is part 1 of a series that reveals the mathematical trickery watchtower uses to con people about the 1914 doctrine.

it takes a radically different approach to that of carl olof jonsson who dealt with dates.. this video focusses on how watchtower misuses the numbers in scriptures and creates a mental fog that prevents people from understanding and therefore prevents them from challenging.. the full title of the video is maths virus - revealing the antivirus to 1914. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llkmrul3afg.

shepherdless

Thanks Anna Marina,

I very much look forward to the rest of the videos. The presentation is excellent.

For what it is worth, I wouldn’t call mathematics a branch of science, but that is neither here nor there.

Now throwing in my own 2c worth, on this topic generally:

One thing I have noticed that keeps getting overlooked, is the use of “secular” in the discussion on when Jerusalem fell. I think Watchtower started it, and others continually fall into the logical trap. Just it be clear; there is no “secular” date for the destruction of Jerusalem. The issue in its simplest form:

1. We know from multiple sources (Ptolemys Canon etc) that the reign of Nebuchadnezzar commenced 605BC;

2. The Bible says the destruction of Jerusalem occurred in the 19th or 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign (depending on which passage, and what type of “year” you use).

3. Therefore (assuming the Bible is true) the event occurred in 586 or 587 BC.

Babylonian tablets record events in some years of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, but the relevant tablet or tablets from (going from memory) the 11th to 20th years have never been found. The event isn’t mentioned by the Egyptians etc, either. Thus there is no record of the event outside of the Bible. Therefore 586 or 587 is not the “secular” date. It is the one and only biblical date. There is no “secular” date because the event didn’t occur, as far as secular history is concerned.

12

Kingdom Halls are been opened up now.

by joe134cd in

my fathers best friend passed away a couple of days ago.

admittedly, i live in a country that is covid free, although the local dubbies are still following the advice of not meeting in the hall.

with the death of my fathers friend, the local boe must have had a change of heart.

shepherdless

I think I live in the same country. Our local KH was opened for a funeral earlier this year, and has been closed since. A number of people “attended” via zoom.