I just wanted to add that in my opinion, theologians know as much about the nature of the universe as politicians do about medicine.
2 questions for JW's from a Christian
by solafide 39 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
solafide
Thanks for your answers everyone.
If I had come out of the JW organization too I would be an atheist also. Having a glossy eyed politically correct brain washed instutution be my standard of truth and character would make me go nuts. I'm glad I'm a Christian, however. And one for good reasons as atheism can't account for a real morality which tells us how we "ought" to think, act, and intend. For further discussion on this, go to the top of my blog at restorethegospel.wordpress.com
Now, getting back to this thread.
It seems to me after learning more now that JW use the book of Daniel, the date 607 BCE, along with their prefered interpretations of the historical data, to point to the year 1914. All this is like Matthew 16:18 is for the Catholic Church, in proving their justification for their organization.
The Catholic Church appeals to its interpretation of a words Jesus spoke to Peter within Scripture as the bases of its institution, while JW appeals to its interpretation of prophecy within Scripture supposedly being fulfilled in the year 1914 as the bases of its organization.
The question I now have for JW and ex-JW is why is 1914 so significant? Is it because Jesus supposedly returned (even invisibly) on this date? If that's the significant reason, then how do JW know this is so?
It seems like there's so much discussion about proving that 607 BCE wasn't the fall of Jerusalem, but its so simple to just look at the date of the supposed fulfillment. What the hell was fulfilled??!!
In other words, check this out:
http://www.watchtower.org/e/bh/appendix_10.htm
At the bottom is says:
"Just as Jesus predicted, his “presence” as heavenly King has been marked by dramatic world developments—war, famine, earthquakes, pestilences. Such developments bear powerful testimony to the fact that 1914 indeed marked the birth of God’s heavenly Kingdom and the beginning of “the last days” of this present wicked system of things."
So we know that 1914 is significant because that's when war, famine, earthquakes, and pestilences started occuring? Not a year before or later? Not a centurey before or later? Can anyone say self-fulfilled prophecy whereby the fulfillment is occurences which have always been occuring?
-
yknot
The WTS uses Matt 24:45-47 for it's justification
1914 within the WTS started back with 1874.......and Russell suggesting that the harvest period had started, 1878 enthronement was when the 'saints' first started being resurrected.....1914 40 years from 1874 was still then the average lifespan of a man.
Fast forward to 1914, nothing happens....Nov ZWT rolls off the presses as usual. Russell suggests 1915..... than Russell dies in 1916. In 1917 Rutherford has Fisher and Woodworth slap together "The Finished Mystery" as Russell's final book in the 'Millennial Dawn/Study in the Scriptures' series.
The first edition of the 'FM' predicted the end of WWI erroneously and this along with letters of sedition to enlisted got Rutherford & Co in serious trouble. Instead of working on his defence Rutherford thought he could sweet talk the AG's office into dropping the charges by removing the offending passages from the "FM"......the justice department didn't buy it and he was sentenced to time. His incarceration and the illness he contracted within that period drove him to start asserting this time was compared to the 1260 days......and from the enthronement was moved to 1914......years later after jettisoning much of Russell in 1930 Rutheford changes 1874 to 1914 as the parousia but then goes back to 1874 in his later books, he also retro-changes 1878 resurrection to 1918 and says that holy spirit has become obsolete during this period and angel are directing the organization......this remains so until Franz recoordinates the chronology in 1943 to 'fix' the previous gaps, restores holy spirit and this is what is the party line to this very day.......
In a nutshell we are, have been, and for as long as the WTS doors remain open be revisionist.
Beyond that you would need to go back to the Russell chronology which is more or less based on William Millers ideas regarding the first printing of the Bible in 1799-1804 has the two witnesses and 3.5 years of oppression by the RCC to keep God's Word from the people.
Honestly for as much as the WTS has rallied against the RCC, they are mirror them in many ways.....albeit the WTS only has 7 mil adherents.
WWI was just a fluke....... had there been some other event the WTS would have attached importance to it......
In many ways one has to put themselves in the time period in which these myths were first penned.........similarly to the way one must approach Pauline Xianity.
-
Nathan Natas
Solafide, I'm not sure I'd use the term "politically correct" to describe Jehovah's Witnesses.
They're the ones who won't salute the flag. They're the ones who won't vote. They're the ones who would rather die than take a blood transfusion. They're the ones who won't allow women to "teach the congregation" - well, on that they agree with catholics. Jehovah's Witnesses don't let their kids celebrate birthdays or holidays. They might have a turkey dinner around the end of November, but only "because turkey is on sale." They encourage their young men to become felons by not accepting alternative millitary service. They wake you up early on Saturday morning selling their silly tracts. Why would you describe them as "politically correct"?
There are a few who visit this board who were JWs but have converted to Catholicism. You'll probably hear from them eventually.
-
AwSnap
Because as a Witness, at every turn they were bashing Catholics, so I did too.
And I believed that we were the only true religion because our religion said it was.
-
solafide
Nathan, I just said they were "politically correct" because when they try to convert you, like most cults, they are very indirect and subtle at first. I didn't mean they are "politically correct" in the way you described. Just to clarify where I was coming from.
yknot,
It's good to know they us Matt 24:45-47 for justification too. I would ask them the same question even with this verse. Verse 26 says "It will be good for that servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns." So this beggs the question. How does the JW know they are the one's
"doing so" and that "they" (the organization) should have even formed in 1914 (Biblically speaking)?Why are they the ones "doing so" and not anyone other than their oganization?
I thought this forum would have more JW on it, maybe I will also ask these things an another forum. :)
-
Perry
What is the most fundamental reason you do not accept the Roman Catholic Church to be the one true institution of God?
Solafide,
The above link historically illustrates why organized religion doesn't work. Christ is the head of the congregation and the believer is indwelt by the Holy Spirit. This is why a religious superstructure is an abomination to God. It is God's job to lead and manage born again believers, not man's. Trying to micro manage born again believers is like trying to herd cats. Born again believers simply do not follow organizations very well in matters of faith.
In my opinion, religionists form a maladaptive relationship with their "religion" because they cannot bear the thought of being alone with God against the challenges of this life. They fail to realize that if God is within you, what else could possibly be needed more than that? What could there be that is more than that?
Our own experience as ex-jw's with a hierarchial religious structure bears out the same murderous techniques employed by the Popes of the Catholic Church - disfellowshipping for asking the wrong questions.
The watchtower has implied in writing that they would be OK with capitol punishment for questioning them if secular laws did not prohibit it.
-
LouBelle
1. I do not belive that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true organisation/institution/religion - there is no religion / organisation / institution that is.
-
teel
I thought this forum would have more JW on it, maybe I will also ask these things an another forum. :)
solafide, the Watchtower society advises strongly against most Internet activities, especially ones involving other persons. If you find a JW somewhere openly debating some points, he/she is already somewhat rebellious, even if he doesn't realize it. As soon as the elders learn of it, he will most probably face a "scriptural readjustment". Most of the time on the Internet you will only get from them a "hit and run" tactic, spewing up Watchtower quotes, then leaving the board altogether.
If you truly want to hear a JW answer, ask them for a "Bible study". They will be more than happy to go to your place and discuss. Just be careful then and remember they can be really sneaky with questions involving the Society. These are the kind of questions they prefer noone asks before baptism. If they are asked, they usually say that you will learn the deeper truths later. However, once you are baptized, you are forbidden to ask questions any more. Anything the Society says, it's the Truth™.
-
Tuesday
If I had come out of the JW organization too I would be an atheist also. Having a glossy eyed politically correct brain washed instutution be my standard of truth and character would make me go nuts. I'm glad I'm a Christian, however. And one for good reasons as atheism can't account for a real morality which tells us how we "ought" to think, act, and intend. For further discussion on this, go to the top of my blog at restorethegospel.wordpress.com
This has been discussed ad nauseum in several different mediums, the Bible doesn't exactly scream morality. It also doesn't teach anything about morality or whatever, it's society that deems the morality then they adjust the bible to fit their morals. Slavery for instance is perfectly acceptable according to the bible, yet nowadays we'll use the bible to prove why it isn't acceptable. If my child sinned, would I be justified to infinitely torture them for their sin? If I decided to burn my child daily because she purposely spilled milk on my kitchen floor I wouldn't be considered moral, yet this is a principle in this book you say gives us our morals. Pedophilia is not condemned in the bible whatsoever, does that mean it's OK to engage in it? The bible doesn't condemn having multiple wives, does that mean it's OK? Really, if you're going to say some stupid statement like the above please educate yourself as to all the arguments that just dismantle it. This is all available in print whether it's Richard Dawkins or even Charles Darwin, since I'm guessing it's not really your forte to actually read the arguments against your position for your viewing pleasure....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0-yK9ENfmY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSW_L-6vNZY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0mp8oGja0I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlZp5NPCnY0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5J4vZTxYEI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlV3YxgwaF0