Know what makes me terribly sad about some on these forums?

by Derrick 90 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Derrick

  Before I reply, correction to my last post:

  Scientific American (May 2003 issue) was referenced. When I said "current issue" I was thinkiing of the issue that was currently sent to subscribers, which I neglected to clarify. This shocking article on parallel universes as fact, not fiction, is found at this sciam.com link:

  http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?colID=1&articleID=000F1EDD-B48A-1E90-8EA5809EC5880000

  As a nice shoe-in to my following reply, I think it's interesting to note that some might hold my feet to the fire on my first post claiming that I literally referred to the CURRENT ISSUE of Scientific American (which is the April 2003 issue, not the May 2003 which I was really referring to). Furthermore, no less than an admission that I misstated the reference to the correct issue would be considered satisfactory. If I dared to state that I was really correct because from Sciam.com's standpoint the "current" issue is really the one out on newsstands, mailed to subscribers and on their web site, I would be faulted because the "current" issue could ALSO mean the current month (April).

  This is the kind of argument we find ourselves in about whether ONLY JWs will survive the big "A" or whether others will also survive.

  Dear Dedalus,

  You're like a lawyer that says "do you admit that you said JWs will not be the only survivors at Armageddon, then acknowledged that only JWs will survive?" to which I reply, "First of all, Dedalus, one person has already since acknowledged that the Society has said that Jehovah may spare those who have not heard the message." You're attempting to show that first I said JWs don't teach only THEY will survive, then did a classic Watchtower flip-flop by acknowledging they do. In fact, as in the example of my reference to the "current" Scientific American issue, isn't context at all relevant?

  I clarified that I said the Watchtower doesn't teach only JWs will survive by discussing the exegesis of the Jehovah's Witness teaching on divine execution which is filled with a combination of nuances and in other cases what seems like outright waffling due to them simply not knowing for certain. (And I explained in detail why they may have trouble knowing for certain.)

  If I tell you the article is in the "current" issue of Scientific American and then say "actually it's in next month's issue" then I did which of the following: (1) Corrected a miscommunication because although technically it is "current" because it is out on newsstands, some might think of it relatively speaking as NOT actually "current" but "next month's" issue (meaning they think of "current" as the current month's April issue), or (2) Corrected an outright wrong statement because there is no relativity of understanding about what is meant by a statement, rather, "current" absolutely means to EVERYONE the current month's issue (April) and EVERYONE knows the May issue is NOT current but next month's issue.

  You may answer (2) of this multiple choice, and I answer (1).

  Therefore, we spend time debating whether I was right in stating I was "clarifying" something when you claim I'm so petty that I won't simply admit that I was "wrong" and was outright correcting a wrong statement. Now if we were siblings in a family, I might finally say to keep the peace, "Okay, Dedalus, if it makes you feel better than I was WRONG," but then I might actually screw up my attempt at family diplomacy by adding, "Actually, it is technically correct that I was initially WRONG because even though I was technically correct that many people consider the 'current' issue as the one on newsstands, I failed to communicate this simple fact to my target audience. One could even argue that it's debatable whether someone could deliberately EXPLOIT their target audience by phrasing things in manner that is technically correct but they know will be misunderstood! Therefore to avoid that misconception I'll acqueise to your insistence that I admit that I was 'wrong', okay, feel better?" Of course most families know how that one ends. When someone insists that another admit they are wrong the last thing they want is explanations that seem to "excuse" the "wrongdoer."

  It might be more productive to admit that when the Watchtower says that only JWs will die, they teach this as a "caveat" since they qualify this teaching with the acknowledgement that

  • non-JWs who haven't heard the message might be spared by Jehovah
  • just because 99.9% of Earth's population dies in Armageddon doesn't mean that some unknown percentage, such as 60%, are not casualties of war and will be resurrected (with a mix of those that didn't hear the good news and faithful JWs amongst that 60% for instance)
  • Jehovah may "delay" worldwide destruction and nobody, not even the Son, will know about the delay let alone the actual "time" of the holocaust
  • last but not least, every divine execution during Armageddon will be perfectly righteous and such consideration overrides all statistical speculations (such as the 99.9% speculation).

  So you see, there were a lot of assumptions behind what I said then, and what I'm saying now. A good attorney will often nail down exactly what you said and no matter what you really meant, he/she will insist on a definition of what you said that most people will agree upon (but nevermind what you really meant or what you thought others would understand you to have meant). That is why in a court of law you dare not say anything unless your attorney approves it. Now for a while on JW forums I used to think through every angle precisely because someone would nail me on a technicality.

  Now I like to think that I'm grown-up enough to simply speak colloquially and clarify what I meant, ask others to clarify what they meant, until we flesh out what we're really saying.

  Incidentally, aren't we both a wee bit guilty of avoiding touchy issues in our replies? Didn't you surgically bypass any of my comments about the existence of God and the Bible's message itself (apart from the JW interpretation) in my last post? Then again, I shouldn't jump to conclusions because like you thought I had run away initially, so too I recognize that you might be ready to address those points.

  And if you don't address certain points, unlike some people, I'll try not to claim this proves those points are right. However, just like it's human nature to conclude that my failure to address certain points means that maybe I cannot adequately address them, same holds true with you and anyone else who bypasses certain points about God's existence and the logic that I presented in the last post about physics (which I backed with the above Sciam.com article).

  With that, I'll look forward to your reply.

  Derrick
• 

  Derrick

  Sorry about the broken link. I forgot that Scientific American has a method of dynamically changing the links to avoid outsiders linking to their site, so that link is "missing."

  Go to the Scientific American web site: http://www.sciam.com/ and look for this article: May 2003 issue Parallel Universes Not just a staple of science fiction, other universes are a direct implication of cosmological observations By Max Tegmark

  ---

  
  Overview / Multiverses

  • One of the many implications of recent cosmological observations is that the concept of parallel universes is no mere metaphor. Space appears to be infinite in size. If so, then somewhere out there, everything that is possible becomes real, no matter how improbable it is. Beyond the range of our telescopes are other regions of space that are identical to ours. Those regions are a type of parallel universe. Scientists can even calculate how distant these universes are, on average.
  • And that is fairly solid physics. When cosmologists consider theories that are less well established, they conclude that other universes can have entirely different properties and laws of physics. The presence of those universes would explain various strange aspects of our own. It could even answer fundamental questions about the nature of time and the comprehensibility of the physical world.

  ---

  Readers of this post might also wish to visit the author Mr. Tegmark's web site:

  http://www.hep.upenn.edu/~max/multiverse.html

  This proves that our definition of "reality" is about to face the shocking changes that past generations experienced in the days immediately prior to Newton and Einstein and other great luminaries of science.

  Derrick
• 

  berylblue

  Well then I have to ask you: How can you be blood guilty if you do not preach? If people who haven't heard the "good news" will not die because they did not hear your preaching and you in fact did not do any preaching then please explain it to me.

  Donkey,

  I'm so brain dead these days, I'm having a difficult time understanding your point. It's not you, it's definitely me!!!! Can you please help? This is a most interesting discussion, and I think you have something very important to say which I wouldn't want to miss or misconstrue.

  Rosemarie
• 

  berylblue

  Oh, wait! I got it, Donkey!!!! If persons aren't going to die because they don't hear the good news, then no one can be found blood guilty because no one has died. Is that what you meant? Okay....so, I guess the question which screams asking, then, is "why preach"?
  

  Good point.

  For myself, I absolutely never believed that only JWs would survive A. I knew that this was in direct conflict with what the WTS teaches, but that didn't stop me from voicing my views to others in the congregation. A very few agreed with me. As for myself, I didn't believe I would survive (and still don't....got a lot of thinking to do on that subject yet), but I also believed that genuinely good hearted persons would survive, regardless of how they responded or didn't respond to the preaching work. And I determined that among those who had not had the opportunity to hear the "good news", the genuinely good hearted ones would live, and the bad ones would die. Jehovah would simply read their hearts.

  Now I know all this is very self-serving and egotistical. "I" this, "I" that. My ideas don't matter much, do they. Jehovah's going to do what he's going to do, regardless of what any of us might believe. What did the bible say? Something like, "My thoughts are higher than your thoughts"?

  I have absolutely no basis for believing this. I just reasoned it out based on trying to reconcile my concept of a loving god with what I read in the Bible and the publications. I am intellectually lazy, and I never was very interested in reading the Bible beyond the Gospels and the Psalms. Quite frankly, it alternately scared and sickened me. I mean, all that carnage in the OT???? The way Jehovah treated people back then? I even told Jehovah in prayer that I was sorry, but I could only deal with his NT persona; the OT one was too scary, as was the Revelation one....

  Once again, rambling and going too many directions at once. Sorry, everyone.

  Rosemarie

  James Thomas...I need to start seriously considering some of your points.
• 

  dedalus

  Incidentally, aren't we both a wee bit guilty of avoiding touchy issues in our replies? Didn't you surgically bypass any of my comments about the existence of God and the Bible's message itself (apart from the JW interpretation) in my last post?

  I (still) don't have time to reply to all you've written, and I said as much in my last reply -- so I'm not "surgically bypassing" anything. (I especially don't have time since you want to broaden the discussion from the simple fact of a single religion's doctrine to the existence of the Almighty Himself). I did want to tie up the matter of God killing everybody not in his Organization, so we could move onto other things, but you still want to say it's not that simple, so we'll have to wait.

  I want to answer you in a way that will be productive and mutually interesting. And I just don't have the time to do that at the moment.

  Incidentally, I'm going away tomorrow and may not be back on the board until the weekend.

  Be assured that I will reply later, though, because I'm invested in this discussion.

  I appreciate your long and thoughtful responses and look forward to taking this all up again. I hope you'll be around to continue things when I return from vacation.

  Dedalus
• 

  Farkel

  Derrick,

  As always: "thank you for sharing."

  You said:

  The current Watchtower leadership IMO has engaged in manipulation of words on this teaching to keep the rank and file in line, WITHOUT actually teaching that non-JWs will be exterminated.

  Then I said:

  That's not the point, Derrick and you know it. The point IS that WTS leaders have not repudiated the teaching that 99.99% of the human race (including many dubs) will be massacred by Watchtower God in writing.

  Point of order: in all your further laborious comments, you never really addressed my assertion in that little yellow box above. In FACT, that is what they've stated and in FACT, they have not changed that doctrine. Do you deny this? If so, please present your evidence.

  After avoiding the real challenge I proposed to you, you said:

  : The question is, Farkel, WHY does the Watchtower pathologically imply that a large portion of mankind will perish in the great tribulation and Armageddon?

  Rick, I don't know WHY they do this crap. I can only guess. I do appreciate that you were wise enough to use the term "pathologically", because that describes the dub leaders better than any other word I can come up with.

  I will make a guess or two, but believe me, I have no insight into those poor souls locked in their Brooklyn prison, battling their own demons and battling Watchtower demons and trying to balance everything and still remain sane. God knows, that would be nearly an impossible place to remain sane.

  Here's my guess: they constantly imply that most of mankind will be destroyed because that is the only way they can justify their existence. They've been doing this since Rutherford's era from the late 1920's until now, and they know no other way to justify why they exist. Death, hate and destruction is all they know, and all they've been taught. Even their "Good News(tm)" of "God's Kingdom(tm)" involves mass genocide. What a sad life to live. Everything in dub-Land involves misery for most humans, at the doors where they knock, and misery for themselves if they don't deliver this misery at doors where they knock. They can sugar-coat it all they want, but their message is mass genocide from their "loving God."

  And that is it about that.

  Farkel
• 

  Derrick

  Rosemarie,

  Yes, those scare tactics used by the GB by threatening everyone with "bloodguilt" for not preaching as much as physically possible is indeed a complete contradiction to their claim that God will not penalize those who have not heard the kingdom message.

  Also, I always felt it was an insult to Jehovah by the GB in their claims that the actions of a JW in stumbling "weak ones" makes them "bloodguilty" if the weak ones "fall out of the truth" or "refuse to accept it" on account of the said JW's stumbling. This makes Jehovah look like he's willing to destroy someone because another person "stumbled" them. The scripture where the apostles warned against stumbling others is misinterpreted to literally mean that a stumbled individual will be destroyed rather than given the opportunity to be spiritually revived after the resurrection.

  Although the apostles taught that stumbling others was a serious offense, the act of stumbling was wrong because it demoralized the stumbled individual (just like raping them, robbing them or deceiving them was an evil act that caused demoralization). Obviously someone who is the victim of wrongdoing and as a result becomes deeply depressed and demoralized isn't going to be destroyed by God as a result. That is why Christ warned NOT to fear those who CAN DESTROY THE BODY BUT NOT THE SOUL.

  The GB seems to forget that errant actions by JW's in "stumbling" others or not delivering the good news of Christ's impending Kingdom cannot possibly result in the destruction of their souls. It COULD result in their not making positive changes to their lives, i.e., if they are drug users that are about to die of over-doses and bringing them the good news could have changed their lives (which has happened to many who have testified to the power of Jehovah's holy spirit in saving them from death by drug over-dose). Therefore, one COULD surmise that not "paying attention" to Jehovah's spirit through Christ in directing them to witness the good news to these ones in fact change their future; i.e., if those who heard the good news as they were about to over-dose on drugs and thus whose lives were saved in retrospect were NOT given the good news they in fact could have died of a drug over-dose.

  One friend in my congregation said matter of factly "I would have been long since dead for many years now, in some cemetary, if the kind elderly brother in our Hall had not visited our door." Like it or not, this is the truth that haunts many ex-JW critics who in fact know that the actions of JWs have saved many of those in these dire circumstances, and in fact the world needs an organization like JWs but in fact it is the current leadership that desperately needs reform for grievious errors. I was one of those people who was about to attempt suicide as a confused and desperate teen, but was given hope by a sister who might have preferred to sleep until noon after a long week at the office. Instead she dragged herself out of bed on a Saturday morning and, well, the rest is history. Here I am. A forum many know as "H2O" got its start because of that fateful morning when a young woman that represented a religion that one day would be shaken to its roots by places like "H2O" came to the door of someone who was so close to the grave. (If I didn't love JWs then I would have told my friends in Australia who started H2O to let them go f**k themselves rather than to try showing that it's not the religion but the human leadership that is the problem. And I understand that if I didn't accept their invitation to sys admin the site they would have probably never started it. I have been told that without the original AJWR and H2O sites working in tandem JW history as we know it today might be very different and not very recognizable.)

  So to veer back to my original point, it is the unselfish sacrifice of people who deliver Jehovah's good news that can save literal lives. No, it doesn't mean that if a current JW / former drug user who failed to hear the good news in an alternate timeline and died of an over-dose -- thus meaning they were never baptized -- would have any less of a chance to live forever. However, the clear message of the Bible is quality of life and life-long learning experiences, and about the importance of not missing out on life's journey if at all possible! Although death is certainly a "shortcut" to the Kingdom it is a selfish route born out of fear, and not allowing the human spirit to triumph over fear. Even though such selfishness might not mean loss of eternal life, it's a tragedy for the person who missed out because they lost the breadth of experience that deepens their appreciation of the gift of life and other spiritual treasures we might not presently comprehend.

  Derrick

  ---

  Note to Dedalus,

  I'll check back in a few weeks or sooner to read your reply. Take care!

  Derrick
• 

  Derrick

  Farkel,

  You said:

  The current Watchtower leadership IMO has engaged in manipulation of words on this teaching to keep the rank and file in line, WITHOUT actually teaching that non-JWs will be exterminated.

  Then I said:

  That's not the point, Derrick and you know it. The point IS that WTS leaders have not repudiated the teaching that 99.99% of the human race (including many dubs) will be massacred by Watchtower God in writing.

  Point of order: in all your further laborious comments, you never really addressed my assertion in that little yellow box above. In FACT, that is what they've stated and in FACT, they have not changed that doctrine. Do you deny this? If so, please present your evidence.

  The problem of what you said "that the WTS leaders have not repudiated the teaching that 99.99% of the human race (including many dubs) will be massacred by Watchtower God in writing," is that without any qualification it is an inflammatory statement.

  You seemed to ignore my exhaustive expository about God's ability to resurrect those who die and our lack of understanding as to why God will allow Armageddon. In the past I recall you have expressed outrage by using the analogy of a parent who allows their children to suffer horrible deaths but again failed to comment on my commentary about the fact the Jehovah -- unlike human parents -- is capable of resurrecting those who die, causing them to forget their past sorrows, and even controlling the laws of space and times in ways to eliminate any trace of evil anywhere in this multi-dimensional universe. (As a "bonus," Farkel, I even gave a link to the Sciam.com web site to illustrate my comments.)

  You also ignored my comments about the flood and 99.99% of Earth's population dying in that cataclysm.

  I wonder if you read any of my other comments, considering that you have not commented on anything I said? I sincerely hope you aren't just pasting boilerplate stuff because reading what I write is too thought provoking for you?

  Let's revisit the flood. Suppose it turns out that Jehovah resurrects those who perished in the flood? The Bible is silent on whether they will be resurrection, regardless of what the GB might have speculated about over the years. The Bible is also silent on what percentage who die as casualties of war (and not those who are divinely executed by Christ's armies of angels) will be resurrected.

  Back atcha, Farkel, after avoiding the real challenge I proposed to you and doing a fly-by over the lean meat of my posts, you attempt to answer a question I proposed:

  : The question is, Farkel, WHY does the Watchtower pathologically imply that a large portion of mankind will perish in the great tribulation and Armageddon?

  Rick, I don't know WHY they do this crap. I can only guess. I do appreciate that you were wise enough to use the term "pathologically", because that describes the dub leaders better than any other word I can come up with.

  I will make a guess or two, but believe me, I have no insight into those poor souls locked in their Brooklyn prison, battling their own demons and battling Watchtower demons and trying to balance everything and still remain sane. God knows, that would be nearly an impossible place to remain sane.

  Here's my guess: they constantly imply that most of mankind will be destroyed because that is the only way they can justify their existence. They've been doing this since Rutherford's era from the late 1920's until now, and they know no other way to justify why they exist. Death, hate and destruction is all they know, and all they've been taught. Even their "Good News(tm)" of "God's Kingdom(tm)" involves mass genocide. What a sad life to live. Everything in dub-Land involves misery for most humans, at the doors where they knock, and misery for themselves if they don't deliver this misery at doors where they knock. They can sugar-coat it all they want, but their message is mass genocide from their "loving God."

  Agreed! You seem to have the GB pegged and yet you absolutely refuse to try and remedy the situation through reform. With all due respect and without trying to insult you, but rather as blunt criticism, you remind me of those who criticized every step of the war with Iraq even though you're still glad the monstrous Saddam Hussein is no longer tormenting those poor Iraqi souls. Reformers are doing all the dirty work while you can't stop criticizing. In the end if they succeed in removing wrong teachings, i.e., the misinterpreted teachings on blood and disfellowshipping to name just two major doctrinal disasters, then will you try to "fine tune" JWs by moving on to your REAL bone of contention ....... their belief in the Creator and his message in the Bible? Isn't that the last bastion of JW stronghold that, after everything else is "reformed," is in your belief the final conquest?

  Come on, Farkel, stop playing coy on that score.

  Derrick
• 

  Farkel

  Rick, Rick, Rick,

  : Now we're getting down to the real target of your anger, Farkel, and that is your personal angst about the Holy Bible's teachings and your apparent feeling the Watchtower's literal interpretations are perhaps the s**t frosting on the cake from your standpoint.

  You are mistaking an actual argument for "anger." I don't give a RAT about dubs. I left thirty-three years ago, and I've on crusaded for the last six years ago. I have virtually NO energy on dubs. They (and you) can remain totally braindead until the end of time for all I care.

  Now, let's get down to your nonsense: you claim I have personal "angst" about the "Holy" Bible's teachings. This is like saying I "gnash my teeth" and such, right? Well, I don't suffer from bruxism. (Look it up.)

  Your whole argument boils down to the assertion that I'm somehow "angry" about the Bible and the Watchtower Corporation: as if that invalidates anything I said. Rick: If I was not-the-least-bit angry about the Bible and the Watchtower Corporation and presented the same argument, would it not be the same argument?

  Doh! As I said: you are an idiot, and you need a free "Farkel Home Bible Study." I do this for free and I don't report time, and I NOW live in your area. (I also don't sell books, promise salvation or bring dickweed COs along with me to harrass you.) I just visit you once a week and harrass you all by myself. I will never DF you, publicly reprove you or gossip about you behind your back. I will only spank you with facts you won't like to hear.

  First lesson I will teach you: ALL Bible prophets lied and NONE of their prophecies came to be. This includes: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Danie, et. al. And Jesus. Yes, Jesus. All of his prophecies never happened, either

  If you want a free Farkel Home Bible Study(tm) be prepared for some facts. Facts will shatter your superstitions forever.

  Farkel, as ever!
• 

  anti-absolutist

  There is one thing in this existence(life) that it worse than being in a high control org. like the JW faith. That is: Being a separatist of the same thing. To be a separatist, you still have to hold onto the beliefs that you were taught from the org. you are now separating from, yet, you now have to try to do everything in your power to prove that your new separatist views are better than the original.

  It seems that this is the sad state in which Derrick finds himself. I think that is why his posts are so damn long. He has to do a 450 degree turn with each point he is trying to make.

  I, for my part, Derrick, wish to not try to refute your indidvidual topics. They are your interpretation of God. I will say though that by your previous reactions to ANYBODY that DOES dispute your interpretations, the analysis that I have proposed of you being a separatist from the JW's and the subsequent damage you are inflicting on your own psyche, makes me feel sad for you.

  Brad