by passwordprotected 40 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
We've just had a baby, their latest grandson. They've never really shunned us, although there was a stretch of a few months when they had nothing to do with me.
I was surprised at what I was able to say to them yesterday, but frustrated that they pull out all of the cognitive dissonance stops to defend their faith.
It really was released in 1993? Was there any release in 1992? This is weird. I definitely did not attend any meetings or anything JW related later than September 1992. There is no way I would have been at a convention in 1993. But I thought I was there when it was released. And I didn't get a copy because they released it only to baptized or mature JWs. Is that part right? Maybe my memory is wrong.
my copy has a copyright date of 1993
Password, rent the movie idiocracy and fast forward to the point where they are discussing Brambo, (gatorade), and it's use for watering crops. It's a circular idiotic discussion that so closley resembles an attempt at reasoning with JW's. I don't know whether I should laugh or get upset.
I am an outsider (never a dub), worldly (very), and so my views and opinions may not count for much.
When Russell started his religion (at a time and in a place where many new religions were kicking off) he was 'locked into' the 'science' of the time. Archaeology had not been accepted as a 'science', many thought - following Usher - that the world was 6000 years old, etc.
No problem - except for religions which taught (and still do, as far as I am aware) that their god was omniscient, all-powerful, and never changing. Whoops! Always big problems, of course, trying to reconcile the killing, raping, pillaging god of the OT with the Pauline liberal stuff in the NT, but as far as Russell and other loonies of their time (Smith, to name just one) were concerned they could speculate away 'safe' in their knowledge that nobody could contradict them.
Now we can - and the contradictions will only increase as scientific methods are developed.
To me, it's a bit like DNA - we can go back to 'cold cases' and re-investigate (cf. the poor bugger just released in the UK after serving 27 years for a murder he could not have committed).
If I was Mr Russell today, starting a new religion, I'd be a bit wary.
Hilarious if it weren't so pitiful.
They would rather lie to themselves so they can continue knock ing on strangers' doors asking unwelcome questions and preach LIES.
In spite of page 136 "Jesus did NOT return (even invisibly ) to the vicinity of the Earth in 1914" most JWs still say this was when he returned.
The WT has blurred this issue by using the word "arrive" in different ways, depending on what he is doing in the relevant scripture.
My mother actually said "even if it isn't true it's still the best way of life." With such an attitude I hope there is no Hell.
HB
Pretty boring, I think, only dealing with the Russell stuff. Trying to discuss who said what back in the 1860s, 70s or 80s is not THAT interesting. Why don't you try to focus on the organizational life of today in stead?
Basically she's inferring that the Proclaimers book is old light rather than being the official history book of the Watch Tower Society. In other words it's more acceptable for my mother to completely dismiss the Proclaimers book than accept what's written in it about the origins of the Organisation she obeys.
Password, that really IS pretty stunning. Thanks for your email letter to them also, your points are great. And thanks, Blondie, for this:
The proclaimers book is still current information. If it wasn't the WTS would have replaced it with a new book, that is their pattern.
Cult-think is terrifying.
It is a perculiar WatchTower society thing ... normally writings are considered more accurate the closer they were made to the history in question. They have convinced everyone that even what they said at the time wasn't accurate compared to what they are saying now (well over a hundred years later) without any questions being raised as to their honesty or WHY they are different at all.
@ oldhippie, that's a good point, however I was trying to get them to focus on the origins of their religion. They said that they tell people my wife and I have 'left the truth'. I objected to that and said there's no way their organisation can be called the truth when it was founded on lies, hence the reference to the Proclaimers book.
Password said: I objected to that and said there's no way their organisation can be called the truth when it was founded on lies, hence the reference to the Proclaimers book.
Bravo and oh, so true... oops, pardon the pun.
