Posts by Saethydd

60

Now I'm Convinced There Probably Is No God

by pale.emperor in

yesterday i made a visit to the museum in my city.

the top floor is the planetarium, which has a connecting room with a huge dome ceiling where they project lessons and lectures and you have a 360 view of the night sky etc.. this particular lecture explained about our galaxy, and how it's only one of billions in the universe.

and then we learned about each planet, some of their moons and the sun.

Saethydd

Here this should help you complete your transition to self-awareness.

I would also recommend Neil Degrasse Tyson's Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey if you wish to expand on your cosmic perspective.

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

To me it's very simple: the WT is full of --it.

Yes, that does seem to be the case, but I like to conclusively prove things where possible. Plus I imagine that this article may actually make some people stop and think, so it might be helpful to have some reasonable arguments laid out for them to consider. We certainly know they won't get that kind of mental stimulation at the meeting after all.

15

To love Jehovah more than friends and family.

by schnell in

jw
friends

when i was a believer, i endorsed this idea too.

i commented with things like "love jehovah more than your mate" or "love jehovah more than your friends".. it didn't occur to me as i was saying it that jehovah is an idea.

this god concept is an idea that should really pass scrutiny if you're supposed to love it more than anything else.. at best, this means that jehovah is real and you have to love jehovah more than the people in your life, no matter the despicable things he is said to have done, condoned and endorsed in his holy writ.

Saethydd

This time last year I had my first girlfriend, it was long distance but we would text, call, or video chat almost every day and I felt very close to her, from what little I know on the subject I came to the conclusion that I loved her. I was always careful though to say that I loved her second only to Jehovah, but I don't think I ever truly believed that, and certain actions I took which later resulted in my disfellowshipping definitely proved that I cared more about her wants and needs than the commandments of a likely imaginary god. How I wish now that I hadn't had a fit of guilt (and I suspect a sub-conscious desire not to have those events bite me in the butt 5-10 years down the road) that lead me to confess to the elders after we broke up.

10

Disfellowshipping - Quid Pro Quo - Satan's Accusation

by doublespeak in

.

if under jw doctrine, satan's accusation is that a human serves god for the purpose of what he can get out of it, does the disfellowshipping arrangement, exercised to the degree that the governing body deem to be appropriate, support this charge?.

taking for granted the jehovah’s witnesses are god’s chosen organization; on the assumption that the angels (who apparently cannot read heart conditions) looking upon humanity who are making a stand for the issue of sovereignty , are unable to discern those who are in the religion because of their family and friends.

Saethydd

What if the god of the Bible is actually just a test given by the true creator to see whether humans actually have any moral sense of their own, or if they would be willing to follow any God no matter how cruel a depraved his actions?

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.