Posts by Saethydd

26

Feb. 2017 "Who is Leading God's People Today?"

by Saethydd in

i know that i am not by any means the first person to take note of this article, but today i finally got around to reading it.

i quickly found the now infamous line "the governing body is neither inspired nor infallible.

" in the interest of fairness, however, i decided to finish the paragraph, which led me to finish the lesson.

Saethydd

Instead of expanding on their "evidence," they decide to end the paragraph with a vague rhetorical question about something that they have yet to verify, namely how it is they know they aren't in the same "spiritual darkness" that they are convinced has plagued mankind for "centuries." So the first evidence they offer seems to be a bit of a bust, so moving on.

14 Evidence of angelic assistance. The Governing Body today has the colossal task of overseeing an international preaching work involving over eight million evangelizers. Why has that work been so successful? For one, angels are involved. (Read Revelation 14:6, 7.) In many cases, publishers have called on individuals who had just been praying for help!* The overall growth of the preaching and disciple-making work despite fierce opposition in some lands has likewise been possible only with superhuman assistance.

"It rained once after I did a rain dance that's how I know it must work." That's about the same logic being used in this paragraph. They make the classic of mistake of assuming that a correlation means causation. Firstly, since these supposed angels are invisible and unwilling to testify there is no way to verify their involvement. Secondly, the fact that "many" (a rather vague amount if I do say so myself) cases have a publisher calling upon someone who has just prayed does not prove angelic direction, especially when one takes a moment to consider numbers that are involved. With several million people spending almost two billion hours year (over 5 million man hours a day) then a number of them are bound to come across people who have been praying recently.

The last sentence of the paragraph likewise makes no sense, there have been many unpopular ideas that manage to flourish for a time despite intense opposition from superior forces. ISIS is one that comes to mind, there are many countries right now trying to destroy them, but so far their efforts have failed. Does that mean that ISIS is also receiving "superhuman assistance?"

Onward to the final piece of evidence.

15 Reliance on God’s Word. (Read John 17:17.) Consider what occurred in 1973. The June 1 issue of The Watchtower asked the question: “Do . . . persons who have not broken their addiction to tobacco qualify for baptism?” The answer was: “The Scriptural evidence points to the conclusion that they do not.” After citing several relevant scriptures, The Watchtower explained why an unrepentant smoker should be disfellowshipped. (1 Cor. 5:7; 2 Cor. 7:1) It said: “This represents no effort to act in an arbitrary, dictatorial manner. The strictness really proceeds from God, who expresses himself through his written Word.” Has any other religious organization been willing to rely fully on God’s Word, even when doing so presents a real challenge to some of its members? A recent book on religion in the United States notes: “Christian leaders have regularly revised their teachings to match the beliefs and opinions gaining support among their members and in the larger society.” If those of the Governing Body allow God’s Word rather than popular opinion to guide their decisions, who is really leading God’s people today?

I certainly don't need to tell you people that the Society is by no means the only organization who attempts to make their views fit the Bible, and in the end, this largely comes down to which sections are interpreted literally and which are interpreted figuratively, and which scriptures you tack a mountainous stack of guidelines onto (like the concept of disfellowshipping for example.)

Well, I grow tired of this exercise in critical evaluation and now leave the results to be examined by my peers. As always I welcome your comments and critiques.

P.S. Sorry that this in two posts, I got a weird refresh error in the middle of writing this.

26

Feb. 2017 "Who is Leading God's People Today?"

by Saethydd in

i know that i am not by any means the first person to take note of this article, but today i finally got around to reading it.

i quickly found the now infamous line "the governing body is neither inspired nor infallible.

" in the interest of fairness, however, i decided to finish the paragraph, which led me to finish the lesson.

Saethydd

I know that I am not by any means the first person to take note of this article, but today I finally got around to reading it. I quickly found the now infamous line "The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible." In the interest of fairness, however, I decided to finish the paragraph, which led me to finish the lesson. Below are my notes on the article which I will place here for anyone who wishes to reference them.

12 The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible. Therefore, it can err in doctrinal matters or in organizational direction. In fact, the Watch Tower Publications Index includes the heading “Beliefs Clarified,” which lists adjustments in our Scriptural understanding since 1870. Of course, Jesus did not tell us that his faithful slave would produce perfect spiritual food. So how can we answer Jesus’ question: “Who really is the faithful and discreet slave?” (Matt. 24:45) What evidence is there that the Governing Body is filling that role? Let us consider the same three factors that directed the governing body in the first century.

The first thing that jumps out at me is the use of the word "Clarified." I am no English Professor, but I know and have confirmed through research that to clarify something means to "to make (an idea, statement, etc.) clear or intelligible; to free from ambiguity." Thus, this word carries the connotation that original idea has not been changed, but rather that it has simply been presented in such a way that it makes more sense. A more appropriate title for that heading would be "Beliefs Rescinded," because to rescind something means "to invalidate (an act, measure, etc.) by a later action or a higher authority," which is a more accurate definition of what happens when a religion has a major doctrinal change.

Regardless of that troubling semantic issue, however, I decided to delve into the resource they mentioned. To start with a great number of the links don't go anywhere so there is no way to examine what they say unless you happen to have your own copy. Another thing is that many of the links that do work only link back to the "God's Kingdom Rules!" book which itself contains a doctored version of history and thus does not have any complete versions of the original articles so that the reader can determine for themselves what Russell thought was coming in 1914.

Moving into the end of the paragraph, the writers seem to indicate that some sort of evidence exists which back their claim to the title of "Faithful and Discreet Slave," so once again in the name of fairness, I decided to examine that supposed evidence.

13 Evidence of holy spirit. The holy spirit has helped the Governing Body to grasp Scriptural truths not previously understood. For example, reflect on the list of beliefs clarified that was referred to in the preceding paragraph. Surely, no human deserves credit for discovering and explaining these “deep things of God”! (Read 1 Corinthians 2:10.) The Governing Body echoes the apostle Paul, who wrote: “These things we also speak, not with words taught by human wisdom, but with those taught by the spirit.” (1 Cor. 2:13) After centuries of apostasy and spiritual darkness, can anything other than holy spirit explain the rapid increase in spiritual understanding since 1919?

If there is anything resembling evidence in this paragraph I'm afraid I couldn't locate it. The first sentence seems to indicate that either: the Holy Spirit did not convey the proper "truth" to the Governing Body when they originally published it (in which case how do we know that the Holy Spirit hasn't dropped the ball again with the new revelation), or the Governing Body didn't have the guidance of the Holy Spirit when they made their first attempt tp explain that "truth" (in which case how do we know they have it now if they also claimed to have it the first time.) Furthermore, that sentence itself seems to contradict their earlier admission that they are "neither inspired or infallible," for to be inspired by something is to be "influenced, impelled, communicated with, or suggested by." If the Governing Body is not being influenced by the Holy Spirit, then how does it help them to "grasp" anything?

In the next couple of sentences, they refer back to the list of "clarified" (rescinded) beliefs, as if that somehow proves that they have the Holy Spirit. I fail to see how doctrinal changes prove divine guidance, for there are many religions that have altered their beliefs over the years, especially within the first couple of centuries of their inception. The Catholic Church, for example, is a much different entity than it was 500 years ago, after all, they don't burn people at the stake anymore, does that also indicate that they have been guided to make those changes by Holy Spirit?

19

My Thoughts on the Subject of Faith

by Saethydd in

i've had several discussion about the basis for faith in an all powerful creator for the universe, and it seems as if the conversation often comes back to, "well, either way, you have to have faith either in a creator or in the process of evolution because you can't observe that either.

" setting aside the issue of creation and evolution (where i currently sit at undecided), i was also troubled by the tendency to treat faith as a static or absolute concept when in reality it is far more complex.. to begin with, faith isn't just about belief, it combines the concepts of belief and trust.

for the purposes of this discussion, i will be focusing primarily on the second attribute.

Saethydd

"Well, either way, you have to have faith either in a creator or in the process of evolution because you can't observe that either."
This is a statement from someone who is uneducated in the process of evolution. It is observable.

Sadly, that comment was made by my father, a man that I know to be very intelligent. He reads literature on math and physics for fun and he plays chess whenever he can find a willing opponent, but obviously even all of that is not enough to counter the cognitive dissonance caused by the Organization. He is also a skilled debater and has become well-versed in the seemingly reasonable arguments given by the Society, yet he has no desire to push beyond the walls they put up and truly give the theory of evolution a fair hearing. I think that if he had not been a Witness, he would have made a brilliant engineer or scientist.

53

My Dad wants to study with me

by BlackWolf in

jw
friends

so my parents continue to pester me about getting baptized.

the other day my dad told me that i was old enough to make a decision, and was wondering why i wasn't ready (assembly is in a few weeks) so i told him calmly that i have many doubts and if i were to get baptized it has to be 100 percent my idea.

he was a little annoyed by this, and now wants to study the "is there a creator that cares about you" book (which is complete bs) with me.

Saethydd

Pete offers sound advice, your own internal voice holds much power over your happiness. Additionally, trying to understand another person's point of view is also a worthy endeavor. Such an understanding attitude helps to temper negative feelings.

98

Beards - September 2016 Watchtower

by Listener in

the issue of whether beards are acceptable or not is addressed in the september 2016 watchtower - well sort of.

it is as clear as mud as to whether they are allowed in places like australia, usa and britain.. 17. what are some factors that may affect whether a brother wears a beard?17 what about the propriety of brothers wearing a beard?

the mosaic law required men to wear a beard.

Saethydd

Coincidentally, a couple of months before my judiciary committee met I had a debate with one of the elders who ended up being on that committee, and the debate was on this very subject. At the time I was wanting to grow a beard to make myself appear older, (I have a young looking face and felt that it might be affecting how I was perceived at the door in the field ministry), and he kept coming back to whether it was the norm in the area that we live. I pointed out that it wasn't that uncommon with professionals such as doctors and businessmen and such, and then he switched tacks to saying that it had to be the norm among Jehovah's Witnesses. Now earlier in this debate he had told me in no uncertain terms that if I grew a beard I would not be assigned to carry the mics or read the Watchtower, so I asked him whether he thought it would become the norm if they didn't have this policy against beards. (Mentioning that I could name a half a dozen brothers off the top of my head who would grow a beard if it wasn't frowned upon) He refused to acknowledge that there was any policy against them. I don't know about how you view it, but making brothers choose between having a beard and having those precious "privileges" that are made to seem so important certainly sounds like a policy to me.

19

My Thoughts on the Subject of Faith

by Saethydd in

i've had several discussion about the basis for faith in an all powerful creator for the universe, and it seems as if the conversation often comes back to, "well, either way, you have to have faith either in a creator or in the process of evolution because you can't observe that either.

" setting aside the issue of creation and evolution (where i currently sit at undecided), i was also troubled by the tendency to treat faith as a static or absolute concept when in reality it is far more complex.. to begin with, faith isn't just about belief, it combines the concepts of belief and trust.

for the purposes of this discussion, i will be focusing primarily on the second attribute.

Saethydd

Logical reasoning (for whatever that is worth to a religious person) can certainly be used to grant such professionals a higher credibility, and this argument has nothing with education, but rather motive.
I wonder where did you get that. How do you back that up? It's juts curiosity. How do you conclude that? I am honestly inquiring, not confronting.

With regards to my comment implying that religious people don't value logic, I suppose it is based primarily on my own somewhat extensive experience dealing with them, seeing that I live in the South Eastern United States I deal with many more religious people than just JWs. Though perhaps they are not all like that, it's just how most of my experiences go with them. Additionally, I personally have not been able to find a logical reason to believe in a personal creator when this individual has not deigned to speak directly with a large group of people in 3,500 years. (And that event is only recorded in a single source and may have been written long after the day it is supposed to have happened, so who knows if it really even did happen at all?) I recognize that personal experience isn't the strongest basis on which to build an argument, but it is all I have in this case.

If you meant, "How did I conclude that professionals deserve a higher regard in terms of credibility?" That was the topic of the paragraph following that sentence. I'll try and clarify my point though. What does the scientific community as a whole have to gain by purposefully skewing evidence against the Bible? As far as I can tell they would gain nothing by doing that. In fact they would be setting themselves up for a tremendous failure when they were proved wrong. On the other hand, the religious community as a whole does have a motive to only point out the evidence that supports their view. It allows them to appear open-minded, when in fact anything that conflicts with the beliefs they already hold is simply discarded, no matter how much evidence there is or how large the consensus view of that evidence.

19

My Thoughts on the Subject of Faith

by Saethydd in

i've had several discussion about the basis for faith in an all powerful creator for the universe, and it seems as if the conversation often comes back to, "well, either way, you have to have faith either in a creator or in the process of evolution because you can't observe that either.

" setting aside the issue of creation and evolution (where i currently sit at undecided), i was also troubled by the tendency to treat faith as a static or absolute concept when in reality it is far more complex.. to begin with, faith isn't just about belief, it combines the concepts of belief and trust.

for the purposes of this discussion, i will be focusing primarily on the second attribute.

Saethydd

I've had several discussion about the basis for faith in an all powerful creator for the universe, and it seems as if the conversation often comes back to, "Well, either way, you have to have faith either in a creator or in the process of evolution because you can't observe that either." Setting aside the issue of creation and evolution (where I currently sit at undecided), I was also troubled by the tendency to treat faith as a static or absolute concept when in reality it is far more complex.

To begin with, faith isn't just about belief, it combines the concepts of belief and trust. For the purposes of this discussion, I will be focusing primarily on the second attribute. Trust is an interesting thing because it is not an absolute value (not for me anyway), instead, it is relative, in that I can trust two people but not necessarily to the same degree. Furthermore, my trust is not all-encompassing, for example, I might be willing to trust someone with my life, but that doesn't mean I'm going to trust their views on quantum mechanics to be accurate.

So in my view, it is perfectly all right, even wise to have "faith" in biologists to explain biology, and in historians to explain history. That "faith" however should not be absolute, but it can certainly be to a higher degree of trust than is given to a theologian. Logical reasoning (for whatever that is worth to a religious person) can certainly be used to grant such professionals a higher credibility, and this argument has nothing with education, but rather motive.

The fact of the matter is, that the processes that scientists use to prove their ideas are not at all impacted by whether or not the Bible is true, for if the methodology is really flawed then it will be discovered one way or another. The same principle proves true for archeologists and others who study history. So when these groups of people tell us that something in the Bible is not supported by their findings, what possible motive would they have for lying? (I'm referring to the communities as a whole, not individuals) Theologians on the other have a vested interest in the Bible being true, which will often cause them to simultaneously use historical evidence to verify their belief in the Bible, meanwhile, any evidence that contradicts the Bible must be wrong, based nothing other than the fact that it contradicts the Bible.

Anyway, those are just some of my thoughts on the nature of faith. Anyone else have thoughts they would like to share, or critiques of the logic I used? After all, I don't claim infallibility.

15

A Question about Spiritistic Books

by schnell in

jw
friends

i have a nearly academic interest in the occult, though i am not a spiritualist and remain a skeptic.

i've come to learn that demons are based on everything from dust devils in the desert, to diseases, to actual people.

probably most of all, demons are a tool of good ol' fashioned con artists and fear mongers.. but here's a question.

Saethydd

That bad feeling you get from dark spaces isn't a ghost or a spirit, it's the Vashta Nerada. As proof, I offer a source that is about a credible as the Bible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOE90ZSundc

58

watchtower lapel pins

by wannaexit in

jw
friends

i've been noticing lots of these pins on lapels.

i could almost understand the jwdotorg pin because the new mantra is to go to the website.

but why on earth are they sporting a building?

Saethydd

While the Society may not endorse the wearing of the JW.org lapel pin, a while back they did in fact, mandate that all Kingdom Halls (in the United States anyway) put up a square JW.org sign on their building. So isn't that the similar to churches putting steeples and crosses?

58

Mexico branch......Now closing!!!

by krismalone in

a circuit overseer friend of mine serving in latin america called me today to say hi.

i asked him what's new and he dropped the news that they have received notification that the branch in mexico will be closing!!

this branch also called the central american branch (although located in mexico) oversees all of mexico's 800,000+ publishers plus all 7 countries of central america of over 100,000 publishers.

Saethydd

If that CO thing turns out to be true, I already know which scripture they are going to use to justify it:

2 Thessalonians 3:8 - nor did we eat anyone’s food free. On the contrary, by labor and toil we were working night and day so as not to impose an expensive burden on any one of you.

Possibly it will be

Acts 18:3 - and because he had the same trade, he stayed at their home and worked with them,+ for they were tentmakers by trade.