Posts by Anders Andersen

9

When you were really "in", did you have a pet idea that would steer wt into divine favor?

by prologos in

wt writers ( klein) admitted at one time, that his majesty's doctrinal ship was zigzagging to find the right course, and many of us believed, that if we accepted the bible as true, cleaning up the teachings would establish the right bearing.

so: did you have a hobby-horse idea you were riding?

writing to brooklyn perhaps?

Anders Andersen

At two separete occasions single (divorced) sisters (one older, one younger) engaged me in a conversation about how they feared to end up all alone in Paradise.

Both were told by some nutcase JWs that 'in paradise nobody gets married anymore. So if you're single at Armageddon, you're single forever.' Thanks for making them feel better, @55hole!

Anyway, I told both of them that WT reasoning on this topic didn't make sense, and Jesus clearly referred to those with a heavenly calling only when he said they wouldn't get married but 'be like angels'.

Not long after we got some 'new light' saying we shouldn't be dogmatic on this point. Probably GB were getting tired of all the single sister writing letters to inquire about their paradise prospects to get lai....eh married.

Another topic was: will we see children that never made it because of a miscarriage in ressurection? WT said no, I said yes, no reason to think otherwise. WT also changed their position on that.

But so did I. That's the one thing I don't like about having discovered that the whole God/Bible thing doesn't make sense: I won't live forever with my wife and daughter. I will never get to see and hold my first child who unfotunately was never born. I won't see my father again.

But then again: if something "appears too good to betrue, it usually is. Don’t be quick to believe advertising claims and testimonials, thinking, “This is different.”"

150

Evolution: The Deal Breaker

by Hadriel in

first off i do believe there are some evidences of evolution or i should probably say adaptation.

i do believe this exists in various forms.. however the deal breaker for me with evolution is the chick or egg problem.

there are tons of theories that get passed around as proof of evolution however these are usually examples much further down the evolutionary chain.. what i mean is let's start at the beginning!

Anders Andersen

Hadriel,

I know you're sincere in wanting to know. We are sincere in trying to explain.

It's possible initial life was Created and it still evolved by undesigned biological evolution. However such a supernatural Designer isn't a solution to any of the questions you've asked at all.

And I still fail to see how our lack of understanding of how life began influences or even invalidates our knowledge of how existing life evolved.

And what if we apply your line of reasoning wrt biological evolution to the other side of the story as well:

We don't know where a Creator/Designer/First Cause came from, nor have we any evidence of its existence. Without Creator nothing can ever be created. Hence I can't accept the creation story.

This together with your reasoning means that lacking any good explanation of how it all started, we neither evolved nor were we created, ergo we can't exist. Yet we do exist, even without a clear explanation how life began.

I'd love to have a conversation about the science behind what or how evolution began

Then let's discuss abiogenesis and chemical evolution, without needlessly conflating the discussion with biological evolution or supposed supernatural entities ;-)

BTW 'life' is an artificial, invented label. Where do we put it? At what specific point lies the boundary between 'just' a chemical process, and at what stage can we call this process 'alive'?

Jehalapeno, I'd upvote your comment much more if I could...

150

Evolution: The Deal Breaker

by Hadriel in

first off i do believe there are some evidences of evolution or i should probably say adaptation.

i do believe this exists in various forms.. however the deal breaker for me with evolution is the chick or egg problem.

there are tons of theories that get passed around as proof of evolution however these are usually examples much further down the evolutionary chain.. what i mean is let's start at the beginning!

Anders Andersen

@Esse Quam,

Your 'I am waiting for cofty to explain' emotions and mental features seems like a veiled statement instead of a sincere question.

Your question seems to indicate that you think those questions can't be answered by biological evolution.

If so, do you have an idea of how emotions and such came into existence? Please share with me because I am eager to learn from anyone.

Mind you, invoking a supernatural Cause that bestowed these features upon humans doesn't answer any of your questions. It just makes a rephrase necessary: how did Supernatural Cause receive/develop/have these features?

150

Evolution: The Deal Breaker

by Hadriel in

first off i do believe there are some evidences of evolution or i should probably say adaptation.

i do believe this exists in various forms.. however the deal breaker for me with evolution is the chick or egg problem.

there are tons of theories that get passed around as proof of evolution however these are usually examples much further down the evolutionary chain.. what i mean is let's start at the beginning!

Anders Andersen

@Hadriel:

That's what evolutionists want. Common ancestry and genetic code means only one catalyst or origin. That is unwise.
Are you guys telling me that you know unequivocally that the common genetic code we see that it could have only started one possible way, that being happenstance?

Either someone forgot tot tell you, or you missed it: LUCA means Last Universal Common Ancestor.

Please note the Last, as opposed to First. LUCA was not the first life form. Nor was it all alone in itself time. Most likely it was a member a very interesting and crowded community of different primitive microbial life forms. It's also likely that at that time horizontal gene transfer took place (e.g. between different life forms, in addition to vertical gene transfer from generation to next generation), so different life forms influenced each other.

Formal testing has pointed to a single organism being the LUCA to all organisms currently alive (that we know about). This is much more likely than current life having multiple, non-related ancestors.

What does all of this mean for you?

No happenstance. Life probably started in different places, in different ways, with different life forms as a result.
Somewhere down the line all lifeforms died, except descendants of a specific lifeform we now call LUCA.
'Evolutionists' (is that similar to Gravitationists?) don't point to LUCA as a result of a single catalyst. LUCA points to a bottleneck sometime long ago.

Think of it this way: according to the Bible myth, Noah is mankind's Last Common Paternal Ancestor. That does not mean he was either the first man, or the only man in his time.

I hope this clears thing up a bit for you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_universal_ancestor?wprov=sfla1

22

When a crime is commited?

by Drifting Away in

jw
friends

i responded to someone on another thread, but would love to know this answer.. if a victim adult or child goes to elders and claims they were abused, don't they have to have clergy confidentiality?

so i was told that they encourage the victim to contact authorities , and they contact bethel, but arent there hands tied if the victim does not want to go to authorities?

an elder made the comment to me once.

Anders Andersen

As for the confessional confidentiality privilege:

Criminals confess child abuse and should be reported.
Victims don't confess child abuse, they report a crime.
A judicial committee is not setup for confession, but for investigation and judging.
In many cases the elders initiate an investigation of some kind, and whomever they speak to didn't come to freely confess their sins
Most important: even when a criminal freely confesses to a single elder, his JW confession will not be kept confidential. Confidential means 'between you and me only'. Every JW knows that a confession with 1 elder is shared with a 2nd one. Then 3 others are involved for the judicial committee. Then they call Bethel with specifics about your case. The CO may be involved, and 3 or 4 more elders in a appeal committee. And finally all notes are archived and a form about the offender is sent tot Bethel and archived there as well. In JW land no confessional confidentiality exists at all. But JW leadership claim it exists when they failed to comply with mandatory reporting laws.

I have always sort of thought the whole confessional secrets stuff to be strange for any churches. For lawyers I get it: you have to be able to prepare a defense properly. For medics, well at least they bring some real benefits to the table (as in people's health is improved).

For clergy... What do they offer? They make you feel better about yourself, help you handle your guilty conscience after a crime by offering an ear to confess to. Well guess what, you could always confess to the police to actually do something useful with your guilty conscience.

(End of rant)

Of course things are not so black and white...

21

Interesting statement regarding "this generation"

by InChristAlone in

jw
friends

i keep up with allexperts.com, and i noticed an interesting question to "brother rando".

his statement surprised me, and i am wondering if i missed some new light along the way.. question:.

"hello bro rando.

Anders Andersen

@wizzstick,

Nice one.

Probably some day in future, they will start this line of reasoning:

We know that the 'days' in Genesis creation account - although each clearly divided by a single night from the previous day - lasted many thousands of years each. Likewise the 'last days' can last many thousands of years each.
In the past some have jumped to the conclusion that Armageddon would come during their generation. However, when Jesus spoke about this generation he clearly referred to the generation that would be alive when Armageddon starts.
Don't blame Jehovah for tricking you again. Just be patient, happy with the increased understanding He gives us. Oh and fork over your money.

150

Evolution: The Deal Breaker

by Hadriel in

first off i do believe there are some evidences of evolution or i should probably say adaptation.

i do believe this exists in various forms.. however the deal breaker for me with evolution is the chick or egg problem.

there are tons of theories that get passed around as proof of evolution however these are usually examples much further down the evolutionary chain.. what i mean is let's start at the beginning!

Anders Andersen

Just my two cents without having read all posts in detail:

1) As others commented, the chicken-egg 'problem' isn't solved by pushing the origin of life back in time by assuming design/creator, whether that be a divine entity, or just extraterrestrial life forms (even in it's simplest form). Somehow life started when no life existed before, or life always existed (although that seems implausible to me).

2) The fact that we currently don't have a full understanding of how life began, doesn't invalidate what we do know further down the chain.

When we find a dead John Doe with bullet wounds, and a gun which ballistics characterics match it to to bullets in the victim, we're quite sure what killed the guy. Even when we don't know who pulled the trigger, or why the victim is in a closed vault.

Still, I'm very interested in abiogenesis. And I love the research that Craig Venter does re artificial DNA.

52

Any thought behind your " Avatar"

by The Rebel in

jw
friends

i think that's the correct phrase?

anyway when i first came here, that little picture that "the rebel" hides behind, was a self portrait of a very sad man, who simply had too much knowledge.

now i feel after 7 months here, i should repaint that " avetor" give some happiness to the eyes, and a contented smile to the lips.. in short my " avetor" was a self portrait of a man with too much knowledge.

Anders Andersen

Mine is an atheist logo, that incorporates the science 'logo'.

As a coincidence the A from Atheism could also be interpreted as A for my first name.

I love science. Always did. Very curious too. It was this curiosity that killed the cat :-p

Since I'm out there are no mental blocks that keep me from researching the more interesting topics in science :-D

4

g81 3/22 - The Electric Church

by Anders Andersen in

from awake!

1981, 3/22:the electric church turns onthe preacher wears no black robes.

instead, he glistens in a three-piece white polyester suit.

Anders Andersen

From Awake! 1981, 3/22:

The Electric Church Turns On
THE preacher wears no black robes. Instead, he glistens in a three-piece white polyester suit. He presides over no altar, but roams over the multilevel stage of his television “cathedral,” bathed in klieg lights. Polished to a mirror finish, with every step outlined in flashing lights, and numerous backdrops constantly changing the scene, the stage itself seems to be the star of the show.
It is time for prayer, but this is no ordinary prayer. The preacher pauses before a table full of letters from his “prayer-key family” and settles down on one knee before the table, hands reverently clasped together. His freshly scrubbed choir takes its place, forming a semicircle behind him. As the preacher prays, the choir hums along, the lips of each member just caressing a microphone, nightclub-style.
At the close of the prayer the scene dissolves to a videotaped commercial plugging the preacher’s “prayer-key family.” It is very professionally done. An elderly woman, obviously devout and lonely, is shown writing the preacher a letter. In the voice-over she tells how her loneliness, and most of her other problems, have vanished since joining the “prayer-key family.”
Now we return to the preacher, just in time for his sermon. There is no Bible-waving. The sermon is “cool,” in TV jargon, which means the preacher is talking to you as he would if he were in your living room. Again and again he makes the same point. If you want your prayers to be answered you must join his “prayer-key family.” Where does the key fit in? “Prayer is the key,” he earnestly intones, “that unlocks the bank of heaven.”
This is one example of the attention-grabbing phenomenon in American religion—the Electric Church. Its newly attained sophistication and popularity are sending religious and political shocks through the United States. Its brightest stars are taking in more money than most large American denominations. Who are they? Where did they come from? What do they stand for?
The Electric Church consists of TV preachers who buy their own air time and use it to get contributions with which they buy more air time, and so on. Of course, most TV stations are leery of selling time to a preacher who is only going to dun their viewers, so the preachers have elaborate ways of avoiding the appearance of asking for funds over the air.
What are some of these? They encourage their viewers to write in for a free pin or “prayer key,” at which point the viewers are put on a computerized mailing list, and then the hard sell begins. Or they offer a televised “counseling service,” and those who call for help are later contacted by mail. Computerized mailing has made the Electric Church a very profitable business. How profitable? Here are some typical figures:
Oral Roberts, former Pentecostal faith-healer, now somewhat toned down as a Methodist, $60,000,000 a year.
Jerry Falwell, Lynchburg, Virginia, Baptist with a strong political message, over $50,000,000 a year.
Pat Robertson started the first popular religious guest interview show and now has his own network broadcasting from his new $20,000,000 headquarters. His Christian Broadcasting Network took in $70,000,000 last year.
Jim Bakker, formerly associated with Robertson, has started his own guest show, and his network grosses $53,000,000 a year.
Rex Humbard, with his “Cathedral of Tomorrow” and its spectacular stage, takes in $25,000,000 or so.
The list goes on and on. All told, the top start of the Electric Church are able to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to buy air time every year. Where do they get it?
Most of the people who watch the Electric Church are not rich. Benjamin L. Armstrong, who coined the term “Electric Church,” explains: “As part of the Electric Church concept, the listener is conditioned to give.” Most of those millions of dollars come to the Electric Preachers $25 or $50 at a time. Jerry Falwell, for example, may get 10,000 letters in a typical day’s mail, over half of which contain contributions.
A prisoner in Pontiac, Michigan, was surprised to receive a computer-written request for $35. Why? He says: “The machine-printed note explained that a friend of mine, who wished to remain nameless, had . . . requested that a special prayer be said in my behalf on the air . . . The prayer had been said, but my friend had not responded to the subsequent required ‘donation card’ that had been mailed. Would I be kind enough to send a check?”
Sometimes the pitch for money is more subtle. “I saw a television show the other day that epitomized my fears about paid religious broadcasts,” said one observer. “The preacher put two phone numbers on the screen during the program. One was a toll-free number for those viewers who wanted to make contributions, and the number for people who wanted counseling was not toll-free.”
Why the constant demand for money?
One reason is that the Electric Church has been made possible by a great deal of very expensive technology. Most religious broadcasters could never compete with regular network programming for the America mass audience. When a religious program comes on TV, most people, bluntly put, turn it off. The problem for the Electric Church is: How can they reach the dedicated minority of viewers who want to watch religious programs?
The answer? “Revolutions in satellite technology, breakthroughs in computer applications, and the advent of cable TV systems and new over-the-air stations are turning the U.S. into a global village and making it economical to ‘narrowcast’ to a relative handful of supporters,” as Forbes magazine points out. “So what if not everyone wants to watch a religious program? . . . TV, like magazines, can now cater to specialized audiences.”
The result is a different economics for the Electric Church. The viewers do not support these programs indirectly by purchasing soap flakes that have been advertised on the show. Instead, they must support the programs directly with their contributions. Soliciting and maintaining those contributions has become a massive computerized operation for most of the stars of the Electric Church. The computer is as vital to the Electric Church as the television tube.
The need constantly to raise money traps Electric Preachers in a boom-or-bust cycle. Big projects, like “cathedrals” or universities or hospitals, are started, followed by desperate pleas to the faithful for more money to “finish God’s work.” As a local banker said of one Electric Church superstar: “There’s only one problem with a ministry like Jerry’s. He can’t stop raising money; if he does, it all falls apart.”
This aspect of the Electric Church may remind thinking Christians of Jesus’ words found in the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus pointedly said, “No one can slave for two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will stick to the one and despise the other. You cannot slave for God and for Riches.”—Matt. 6:24.
With the preachers of the Electric Church constantly in need of vast contributions from their viewers, is it likely that they will risk offending those viewers? Hardly. The theology of the Electric Church, not surprisingly, is simplistic and self-gratifying. “Ask not what you can do for your religion; ask rather what your religion can do for you,” as Forbes put it.
Even some sympathetic to the Electric Church admit that it has little content. As evangelical theologian Carl F. Henry observes: “Much television religion is too experience-centered, too doctrinally thin, to provide an adequate alternative to modern religious and moral confusion.” In other words, TV religion cannot really help you to solve life’s problems.
Instead, as Harvard divinity professor Harvey Cox notes, the preachers of the Electric Church “are merely perpetuating and deepening the values of a materialistic consumer culture. They are helping people to accept some very shallow values, while promising easy salvation in the most commercial setting.”
How does that message square with Jesus’ warning that the road to life is not easy, but difficult—“narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are the ones finding it”? (Matt. 7:14) Does that sound as though eternal life can be yours merely by dialing Channel 21?
Consider this further admonition from Jesus Christ: “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross [torture stake, New World Translation] daily, and follow me.” (Luke 9:23, Authorized Version) Does a person deny himself and take up his “cross” daily propped in front of the TV? Could Jesus Christ really approve of a religion that promises people easy salvation—no torture stake, no self-denial—for just a monthly check to somebody’s “worldwide TV ministry”?
Rather, it looks as if the Electric Church is a 20th-century example of what the apostle Paul warned Timothy about when he said: “For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the healthful teaching, but, in accord with their own desires, they will accumulate teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, whereas they will be turned aside to false stories.”—2 Tim. 4:3, 4.
Why are people willing to give millions of dollars to support the Electric Church? Because they are being told what they want to hear. They are assured that God will answer their prayers. They do not have to deny themselves or ‘bear a cross’ or do the work Christ did, but they are “saved” and God loves them—just as long as they keep those checks coming in.
However, even if the theology of the Electric Church is vague and imprecise, its politics are clear and specific. That is the subject of the following article.

They probably went over the top with the paid phone-numbers.
A website where you can swipe your credit card is good enough.....

But at least their sermons were cool...

28

Anthony Morris claims "dogmatic" does not apply to GB.

by Sanchy in

jw
friends

so i was scrolling through the latest morning worship videos and found our good friend tony m. explaining why the gb is not dogmatic.

.

you can find hirs reasoning at around the 3:30 mark here..

Anders Andersen

The only reason the GB claims not to be dogmatic is so they can backtrack later, completely change the crazy doctrines that every JW was forced to accept, and then say 'we told you we are not dogmatic!'