Posts by TD

83

World War 1 and 1914

by Schizm in

.

how did it just so happen that a world war took place in the very year that russell had attached so much importance to?

i realize that he expected 1914 to see the end of the world's governments, and of course that didn't happen, but it still seems to be quite remarkable that this war happened that very year ... a war that would later be construed to be the fulfillment of jesus' prediction in matthew 24:7.. the explanation given on the e-watchman site is that satan deliberately caused the war to happen so as to mislead jehovah's witnesses into thinking they had actually seen the fulfillment of bible prophecy, in order to make them think that jesus had returned invisably.. any ideas?.

TD

For some 35 years prior to 1914, The Watchtower (now the most widely distributed religious magazine on earth) had been calling attention to 1914 as a year marked in Bible prophecy. These prophecies began to have a remarkable fulfillment in 1914. One of these was Jesus' own prophecy, uttered 1,900 years ago, concerning "the sign" that would appear at the end of the system of things and that would prove that he was invisibly present with kingly power. In answer to his disciples' question about this "sign," he said: "Nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be food shortages and earthquakes in one place after another. All these things are a beginning of pangs of distress." (Matthew 24:3, 7, 8) In striking fulfillment, the first of the world wars started in 1914....

This is a from of dissemblance known as "Implication through ambiguity." This happens when statements which the target audience regards as true are strung together in a manner that conveys a false impression. What happens is that the frame of reference suddenly shifts in a manner that the audience will not grasp. This has been a favorite technique of politicians for time out of mind.

Let's take the statements one at a time:

A: "For some 35 years prior to 1914, The Watchtower.....had been calling attention to 1914 as a year marked in Bible prophecy."

--True:

(From this point on, the frame of reference shifts from what the Bible Students believed and taught prior to 1914, to what present day Witnesses believe and teach. However since the target audience is ignorant of many of these differences, they fail to grasp the misdirection and come away with the mistaken idea that the events which transpired in 1914 were predicted beforehand.)

B: "These prophecies began to have a remarkable fulfillment in 1914."

--Ambiguous in this context: True only from the standpoint of Jehovah's Witnesses today. False from the standpoint of Bible Students prior to 1914 who believed they began to have a remarkable fullfillment in the late 1800's.

C: "One of these was Jesus' own prophecy, uttered 1,900 years ago, concerning "the sign" that would appear at the end of the system of things and that would prove that he was invisibly present with kingly power."

--Ambiguous in this context: Prior to about 1930 it was taught that the end of the system of things commenced in 1799, that the parousia commenced in 1874 and that Christ received kingly power in 1878. Not one of these were regarded as true about 1914 in the 35 years prior to that date.

D: "In answer to his disciples' question about this "sign," he said: "Nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be food shortages and earthquakes in one place after another. All these things are a beginning of pangs of distress"

--Ambiguous in this context: In the 35 years prior to 1914 it was thought that these things were already under way. The dawn of the millennium in the fall of 1914 was in fact, supposed to put an end to them.

E: In striking fulfillment, the first of the world wars started in 1914....

--Ambiguous in this context. The "Striking Fulfillment" is not a fullfilment of what was preached during the 35 years prior to 1914. It is only a retrospective fulfillment of the end-time prophecies as understood by Jehovah's Witnesses today. None of the prophecies taught during that 35 year period prior to 1914 save the idea that it marked the expiry of the Gentile times are regarded by Jehovah's Witnesses today as true.

Statements B through E are therefore irrelevant to statement A.

12

Why Americans Hate Democrats?A Dialogue

by Elsewhere in

jw
friends

http://slate.msn.com/id/2109218/

why americans hate democrats?a dialogue

the unteachable ignorance of the red states.

TD

While I certainly don't disagree with Ms. Smileys lament over human ignorance and hatred, I have a hard time following her mercurial concept of the "Forces of Red and Blue." It reminds me of the ever-changing JW concept of the "King of the North and South."

What exactly are the forces of "Red and Blue?" Who compose the individual members thereof? Are they Republicans and Democrats respectively from the days of radical pro-slavery extremism (As typified by the Lawrence, Kansas atrocity) to the present? Unless Ms. Smiley is somewhat confused as to who the Republicans and Democrats were in her chosen historical context, having perhaps fallen asleep when her history class covered things like the Kansas-Nebraska act, the Missouri compromise, the Abolitionist movement, or what the invective, "Black Republican" meant, this doesn't seem very likely.

Are they members of states that went "Red" or "Blue" in the recent election? Again, given the broad historical context she meanders around in, this doesn't seem likely as it takes into account neither those states respective voting records in that context nor the sometimes slim margins by which they have "earned" their color in recent times.

Perhaps the "Forces of Red" are simply hate filled people down through history regardless of party affliation? Given her mention of William Quantrill, who was awarded if I'm not mistaken, a Captaincy in the Confederate army, this seems the most charitiable thing to assume of Ms. Smiley's grasp of history. However this disconnection would weaken an already tenuous concatenation of ideas in support of the notion that America hates Democrats by rendering her digression into the politics of the mid-19th century completely irrelevant to that idea..

As an attendee of recent pre-election rally in Tucson featuring Michael Moore as speaker, my observation is this: There's hatred to spare, and both sides need to tone it down. It is after all, easy to hate those whom you perceive as hating you and this seems to be the underlying motive behind this call to arms masqueraded as "Dialogue."

33

Depressed and doubting...

by dura-luxe in

jw
friends

i've been out for 8 years, and for the first time in my life i am doubting.. not big doubts, but little ones.

it's all the middle east and the "peace and security" talk.

i feel like armageddon is coming.. the brainwashing never ends.

TD

I could be wrong, but I believe it was an article written by Gregory Lester entitled, " Why Bad Beliefs Don't Die"

33

Depressed and doubting...

by dura-luxe in

jw
friends

i've been out for 8 years, and for the first time in my life i am doubting.. not big doubts, but little ones.

it's all the middle east and the "peace and security" talk.

i feel like armageddon is coming.. the brainwashing never ends.

TD

Don't feel bad about it. Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt are the downside of our unique ability to envision future scenarios in our minds. It's one of the things that makes us human, because animals don't seem to suffer from it. (If they did, they'd have invented religions too....)

All religions are simply systems for coping with "FUD." This can be a good thing, but also has a downside, namely the shameless exploitation of fear, uncertainty and doubt by religious leaders.

The JW's have been doing this for years. You should have seen them during the Cuban missle crises!

Eventually you have to stop and ask yourself, "Is this how the God I worship operates? When mankind was faced with other times of judgement, did God send forth spokesmen who got it wrong time after time after time? Does it make sense that God would hide himself from his children for so long that they begin to doubt his existence and then suddenly, one day kill everyone that did not listen to a small esoteric American religion with a 100% failure rate?"

9

Giving/Receiving blood fractions

by JH in

.

we all know that jw's don't give blood and don't accept it neither, but they will accept blood fractions.. .

so my question is: since they can receive blood fractions, can they give blood fractions....and how.. since giving blood is not permitted?.

TD

I can't answer the "can they" part of your question, but apheresis donation would be the answer to "how."

11

Can JWs vote now?

by BeelzeDub in

bob greene a jw from new haven mass, voted for kerry!

both parties made the iraq war and the war on terrorism key issues in their campaigns and voters responded at the polls.

bob greene, 49, of new haven, said he is a jehovah's witness and does not usually vote but considered this election too important to miss.

TD

I don't understand..... If JW's don't go to war even if they're drafted, what's Greene talking about? Maybe he's a JW and his sons aren't?

83

World War 1 and 1914

by Schizm in

.

how did it just so happen that a world war took place in the very year that russell had attached so much importance to?

i realize that he expected 1914 to see the end of the world's governments, and of course that didn't happen, but it still seems to be quite remarkable that this war happened that very year ... a war that would later be construed to be the fulfillment of jesus' prediction in matthew 24:7.. the explanation given on the e-watchman site is that satan deliberately caused the war to happen so as to mislead jehovah's witnesses into thinking they had actually seen the fulfillment of bible prophecy, in order to make them think that jesus had returned invisably.. any ideas?.

TD

I cant agree with that comment! The sheer technological innovations being brought out(Machine guns,planes,Tanks ,shells etc)meant a slaughter the likes of which had never been seen before!

If by this you mean that people were killed in new and different ways that had not been seen before, I'd agree. A huge amount of WWI casualties were caused by mustard gas for example.

However if by this you mean that the sheer number of casualties had never been seen before I disagree. Significantly more people died in the Taiping Rebellion (1854 - 1864) than died in WWI.

83

World War 1 and 1914

by Schizm in

.

how did it just so happen that a world war took place in the very year that russell had attached so much importance to?

i realize that he expected 1914 to see the end of the world's governments, and of course that didn't happen, but it still seems to be quite remarkable that this war happened that very year ... a war that would later be construed to be the fulfillment of jesus' prediction in matthew 24:7.. the explanation given on the e-watchman site is that satan deliberately caused the war to happen so as to mislead jehovah's witnesses into thinking they had actually seen the fulfillment of bible prophecy, in order to make them think that jesus had returned invisably.. any ideas?.

TD

What about the news report that said something like: The Bible Students for some time have been saying, "Look out for 1914". Didn't that show that a "time of trouble" was forcast for 1914?

The Witnesses today reproduce that quote regularly and often in their literature. Don't confuse it with what Russell actually stated in his lectures and printed works throughout most of his career. A few brief excerpts:

The Time Is At Hand p. 98-99

"True, it is expecting great things to claim, as we do, that within the coming twenty-six years all present governments will be overthrown and dissolved; but we are living in a special and peculiar time, the "Day of Jehovah," in which matters culminate quickly; and it is written, "A short work will the Lord make upon the earth...."

"In view of this strong Bible evidence concerning the Times of the Gentiles, we consider it an established truth that the final end of the kingdoms of this world, and the full establishment of the Kingdom of God, will be accomplished by the end of A.D. 1914."

p. 101

"Be not surprised, then, when in subsequent chapters we present proofs that the setting up of the Kingdom of God is already begun, that it is pointed out in prophecy as due to begin the exercise of power in A.D. 1878, and that the "battle of the great day of God Almighty" (Rev. 16:14), which will end in A.D. 1914 with the complete overthrow of earth's present rulership, is already commenced. The gathering of the armies is plainly visible from the standpoint of God's Word."

The Watch Tower January 1, 1892 p. 19

"The Scriptures give unmistakable testimony to those who have full faith in its records, that there is a great time of trouble ahead of the present comparative calm in the world -- a trouble which will embroil all nations, overthrow all existing institutions, civil, social and religious, bring about a universal reign of anarchy and terror, and prostrate humanity in the very dust of despair, thus to make them ready to appreciate the power that will bring order out of that confusion and institute the new rule of righteousness. All this, the Scriptures show us, is to come to pass before the year 1914 (See MILLENNIAL DAWN, Vol. II, Chapter IV.) -- that is, within the next twenty-three years."

The Watch Tower July 15, 1894 p. 266

"Seventeen years ago people said, concerning the time features presented in Millennial Dawn, They seem reasonable in many respects, but surely no such radical changes could occur between now and the close of 1914: if you had proved that they would come about in a century or two, it would seem much more probable. What changes have since occurred, and what velocity is gained daily? 'The old is quickly passing and the new is coming in.' Now, in view of recent labor troubles and threatened anarchy, our readers are writing to know if there may not be a mistake in the 1914 date. They say that they do not see how present conditions can hold out so long under the strain. We see no reason for changing the figures - nor could we change them if we would. They are, we believe, God's dates, not ours. But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble. We see no reason for changing from our opinion expressed in the view presented in the WATCH TOWER of January 15, '92. We advise that it be read again."

The Watch Tower September 15, 1901 p. 294

"The culmination of the trouble in October 1914 is clearly marked in the Scriptures;* and we are bound therefore to expect a beginning of that severe trouble not later than 1910; -- with severe spasms between now and then."

In fairness, it's true that as 1914 got closer and closer, Russell appeared to waiver and lose confidence. Witnesses today will sometimes present statements by Russell made just prior to 1914 where he allowed that everything he had expected might not come to pass before that year. These however are not indicative of what he had already taught for 30 odd years.

83

World War 1 and 1914

by Schizm in

.

how did it just so happen that a world war took place in the very year that russell had attached so much importance to?

i realize that he expected 1914 to see the end of the world's governments, and of course that didn't happen, but it still seems to be quite remarkable that this war happened that very year ... a war that would later be construed to be the fulfillment of jesus' prediction in matthew 24:7.. the explanation given on the e-watchman site is that satan deliberately caused the war to happen so as to mislead jehovah's witnesses into thinking they had actually seen the fulfillment of bible prophecy, in order to make them think that jesus had returned invisably.. any ideas?.

TD

Are you just kidding? Surely you must be. Did not Russell think a "great upheaval" was to take place in 1914, as based upon his understanding of the 2520-year theory (Da 4). And wasn't such 2520 years considered to be the period of the Gentile Times, which was thought to end in 1914?

Meaning no offense, but are you familiar with what Russell really believed? The Witnesses have indulged in a great deal of revisionism and very, very few who's knowledge of Russell was obtained through association with the Witnesses have actually read his books from cover to cover.

Russell envisioned the "Time of the End" (1799 - 1914) as a steadily worsening class struggle between capital and labor where society would gradually unravel into chaos. This protracted upheaval was to happen in the years prior to to 1914.

Ending this upheaval, bringing order out of the confusion and essentially rescuing mankind from itself would be the earthly millennial reign of Christ, which would start in 1914. In other words, 1914 was to be the dawn of the Golden Age.

1914 was to be the end of the upheaval, not its beginning. Further, the upheavel was to be primarily economic, not military in nature. Although Russell felt that wars could occur in the period leading up to 1914, he felt that all human institutions would have collapsed prior to 1914 and so a major war was not at all what he envisioned because the nations that participated in it weren't supposed to exist at this point.

When one considers how completely tangential the Great War was to Russell's teachings, I don't think simple coincidence can so easily be written off.

43

Question on Acts 15:28,29

by pc in

i just had a brief discussion with my brother who is an elder.

there might be a medical situation in his family.

i just put my 2cents in by saying"make sure you do some research about the blood issue".

TD

"according to the historian josephus (sp) early christians refrained from blood in all forms even refusing to use it as a cure for epilepsy" there by showing that blood WAS used as medicine and that early christians refused it... "

This is great example of the type of false analogy Witnesses resort to. Regardless of whether blood has been eaten as a curative or as a food, it has still been eaten --which is what the Law ostensibly forbade. The Law made absolutely no distinction on the basis of motive.

In contrast, receiving the kidney of a family member via transplant and eating that kidney for dinner are two entirely different things, neither morally nor physically analagous. This is the difference we are dealing with when we discuss transfusion.