When something non-existent does something.

by Schizm 30 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  VM44

  The "non-existent" Kingdom certainly did not exist back in 1914/1918 or whatever. It took Rutherford until 1929 to "rewrite" doctrine to his own suiting before the THEOCRATIC KINGDOM was seen to have been established during those years. Indeed, Rutherfod did have an imagination to come up with his silly ideas of creative Biblical interpretation. Despite being a lawyer and a "Judge", he did not understand what the words "evidence" and "proof" really meant.

  Basically, the doctrines concerning "non-existent" things are merely wishful thinking along with some circular reasoning thrown to give justification for the existence of The Watchtower and its authority over its followers.

  It is the man-made efforts of The Watchtower organization (or business!) that accomplishes the "bringing in" work!

  --VM44
• 

  Country_Woman

  When something non-existent does something.

  would suggest that it is existing

  but the "doing something" could be the work of something quite differents.......

  This activity has resulted in the most significant movement of modern times—an international brotherhood of over 6,000,000 Christians in more than 230 lands of the earth. At international conventions of Jehovah’s Witnesses, observers are often astounded to see the love, peace, and unity among the vast crowds of people, transcending barriers of nationality, culture, and language. (Acts 10:34, 35) Would you not agree that for a government to be able to bring hundreds of ethnic groups together in peace and harmony, it must be effective and stable—and real?

  I remember that - on a bookstudy - they were telling us that we should know they have the True Religion, because they were a fast growing religion. On which I opposed that the Islam was( maybe is) the fasted growing religion (at that moment) thus that was'nt an argument at all.... Can't remember the answer.
• 

  wombat

  I think that Schizm may find it a bit hard to express what he means. Hey, that's normal. It's abig problem with me too.

  Maybe by "non-existent" he meant - something you can't see.
• 

  zagor

  Well it is no different than them interpreting things explainable everywhere else (except by wtbs) as a pure chance. How many times did they try to portray something as miraculous intervention of angels, and when you looked at it independently and wondered how come they can’t see that as normal part of life?

  So all that gathering, who is really doing it? Heavenly kingdom, angels? No, JW themselves.
• 

  AlmostAtheist

  >> If you don't get it now, you might consider forgetting it.

  I guess that's one way to handle it. But you're not an idiot, and if you think you've got something substantial here, I'd be interested in knowing what it is. You did, after all, consider it significant enough to start a thread on it. And I did consider it intriguing enough to ask you to clarify it. Perhaps you thought my motive was just to poke at you? Not true, I was (and am) genuinely interested in knowing what this is about.

  So I guess the one who is in a position to "forget it" or not, is you. Shall we just forget it, or are you willing to clarify it for those of us that aren't getting your point yet?

  Dave
• 

  VM44

  AlanF wrote something important concerning this subject:

  Carl Sagan's Remarks About Jehovah's Witnesses False Prophecies

  Alan Feuerbacher

  A few years after the complete collapse of everything C. T. Russell had predicted, J. F. Rutherford began a process of replacing Russell's unfulfilled predictions with a series of invisible and spiritual events associated with the years 1914 and 1918. By the early 1930s the process was complete.

  An interesting comment on this transformation was made by Carl Sagan in his book Broca's Brain (New York: Ballantine Books, 1979, pp. 332-333):

  Doctrines that make no predictions are less compelling than those which make correct predictions; they are in turn more successful than doctrines that make false predictions.

  But not always. One prominent American religion confidently predicted that the world would end in 1914. Well, 1914 has come and gone, and -- while the events of that year were certainly of some importance -- the world does not, at least so far as I can see, seem to have ended. There are at least three responses that an organized religion can make in the face of such a failed and fundamental prophecy. They could have said, "Oh, did we say '1914'? So sorry, we meant '2014.' A slight error in calculation. Hope you weren't inconvenienced in any way." But they did not. They could have said, "Well, the world would have ended, except we prayed very hard and interceded with God so He spared the Earth." But they did not. Instead, they did something much more ingenious.

  They announced that the world had in fact ended in 1914, and if the rest of us hadn't noticed, that was our lookout. It is astonishing in the face of such transparent evasions that this religion has any adherents at all. But religions are tough. Either they make no contentions which are subject to disproof or they quickly redesign doctrine after disproof. The fact that religions can be so shamelessly dishonest, so contemptuous of the intelligence of their adherents, and still flourish does not speak very well for the tough-mindedness of the believers. But it does indicate, if a demonstration were needed, that near the core of the religious experience is something remarkably resistant to rational inquiry.
• 

  VM44

  By saying something is caused by something invisible is a way of avoiding providing proof.

  One might as well say that the "Great Purple Unicorn" or the :"Flying Spaghetti Monster" caused the sun to shine this morning. How could you prove otherwise?

  Religions like to have doctrines in place that can not be verified one way or another! Then they can attribute all effects to its actions, and they don't have to prove anything.

  A fantasy world for those who want to believe it.

  --VM44
• 

  gumby

  Schizm....if a don't start bein nice to people.... I'll have to enter your thread and make you look foolish again like I always do.

  Gumby
• 

  Sunspot

  ***My "point" is staring out at you in the title of the topic itself.

  Please excuse US if we try to be involved in "conversation". I won't say "polite" conversation as you want to turn it into a confrontation.

  ***If you don't get it now, you might consider forgetting it.

  Great idea! What I DO "get" is that you are an arrogant asshole. I rarely express (or even think) this about anyone on JWD. You get a gold star for this honor.

  ***Don't you know that playing with my mind like that could result in your getting gray matter on your hands?

  Not to worry.....I don't wish to play with any part of you....and "gray matter" wasn't what I was thinking about ending up with on my hands.

  Believe me when I say I can stand up to the best of them.....and you aren't anywhere NEAR that.

  .
• 

  Schizm

  Gumwart,

  Would you come back into this thread and tell Sunspot "start bein nice to people"!

  .