by Sea Breeze 156 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Adjoining hotel rooms with an interconnecting door, plus very similar arrangements in The Judge’s private railway carriage? (And they very definitely weren’t married!)
What was that about an unmarried couple being “under the same roof for the entire night”? Certainly enough to get mere mortals disfellowshipped - these days, anyway.
Sea Breeze, did you notice that the webmaster of the site with the article about Rutherford's female companions (the article which you use as documentation) is an ex-JW who is now an atheist and who even has a book called State Atheism - Why is it necessary?. Considering your belief in God, isn't that ironic for you? See https://www.watchtowerlies.com/state_atheism_why_is_it_necessary.html and https://www.watchtowerlies.com/contact.html for proof of the views of the webmaster. The webmaster/author (writing in the third person about his views) says the following about himself. "Atheism was not a choice, but a conclusion to which his mind and heart had no choice but to arrive." Perhaps your following the evidence will eventually lead you to the same view.
One of the author's web sites pages is https://www.watchtowerlies.com/is_the_bible_really_god_s_inspired_word.html and it makes the claim that the Bible is not God's inspired word and states some reasons for the view. See also his page at https://www.watchtowerlies.com/debate_evolution_or_creation.html which makes a case for evolution.
Thanks for directing me to a source which has ammunition against God-belief. I much appreciate it. Considering your belief in God and creationism, isn't it ironic that you directed me to a site (in support of your accusations against the WT and Rutherford) which argues against those religious views of yours?
At one time in my life I thought I would someday write a book about the Rutherford years, and started collecting literature (WT and non-WT) of the time period. I came to believe/theorize that a lot of Rutherford's books can only be understood in the context of the time and knowing what he was trying to accomplish. Much of it had to do with the ongoing battle for the loyalty of the Bible Students, when as many as 75% left the WT for other groups of Bible Students. For one instance of many, the WT rejected Christmas in about 1925. Why? Because it was a time with family members, some with WT loyalty and others who had left, would get together and associate. He wanted to break that association to retain the WT adherents. They rejected the cross in the '20s. Why? Because the cross figured prominently in the Bible Students (the cross and crown pin, Cross on the old WT), and he wanted to distance his WT from them.
In time I kind of lost interest in the subject and dropped the project.
Thanks for directing me to a source which has ammunition against God-belief. I much appreciate it.
Your Welcome. Most of the stuff is available on Wikipedia as well. Here's the last big thread on the topic from this forum in case you missed the links at the bottom of the article.
Concerning the current WT cemetery at Wallkill, the burials are accessible online:
https://www.findagrave.com/cemetery/2403939/memorial-search?page=1#sr-86507218
Rutherford is not listed there, I don't think this graveyard existed in the '40's. The oldest burial I see is AH MacMillan in '66. Curiously, there are entries for a number of people who haven't died yet, maybe they have gravestones there in advance for some reason. Hmmm.
There have been threads on this site before about Rutherford's burial. If I remember correctly, they wanted to bury him at Beth Shan or Beth Sarim, but the zoning authorities wouldn't allow it. Where he ended up I don't know, but other websites suggest the WT had a cemetery on Staten Island where he was buried.
Dis, just because there might be some truth to what a person says, it doesn’t make the person necessarily worthy of reading their writing. You can read anything you want of course but you seem to justify Rutherford in some instances because he may have said something that is true. As I recall in scripture, Satan can be an angel of light. Even when trying to tempt Jesus he used scripture to make his point. I look at Booze Rutherford in the same light as the Devil.
minimus, in light of principles you espoused in your post does that mean you did not vote for Donald Trump as President, since he is known to lie numerous times and that multiple women accused him of sexual harassment, or did you vote for him anyway thinking he had some good policies and made some truthful statements?
The comments I made about Rutherford were because I wanted him to be presented accurately and for discussions about him to not be entirely one sided. Furthermore when I began reading his books, I was not convinced of any of the accusations about him being a bad person (whether a drunkard, an adulterer, or a crook, or a liar). I am still not convinced of the accusations, though they now seem more plausible to me. I will have do more reading about the matter. But it is hard for me to believe any of the current and former Government Body members are (or were) very bad people while serving on the GB (or as President of the WT), due to my personal experiences with the religion and due to the emphasis in the WT literature of very high strict moral standards. But even if some have or had major flaws while leading the WT organization, every person alive has flaws and I try to acknowledge the good in people (even Donald Trump, despite me strongly disliking him), while acknowledging that certain ones have obvious major moral flaws. For example, many of the early USA Presidents owned slaves, but that doesn't mean their good actions shouldn't be acknowledged. Perhaps you think they should be 'canceled' from the history books (or that their good actions should not be mentioned in the history books) and that their statues should be toppled over and/or removed. I guess you feel I should "disfellowship" Rutherford in the sense of thinking I should cease all fellowship with him (in the form of reading his literature). What specific things did I write about Rutherford that you think were acts of me justifying him?
My studying his books helps me to be more aware of the religion I was raised in from infancy and of the degree of accuracy of their current teachings and of the degree of integrity of the organization. A number of books alleged to have been written by Franz quote from Rutherford's literature and invite JW's to read the literature. Thus reading the literature helps me to see the degree of influence Rutherford's literature has on the current JW religion (and also the way the religion was while I was an active member of it). But it is also because I have invested much time into the religion and I want to get something good out of it (rather than discarding every part of it 'along with the bath water' - to use a metaphor), and thus I want see if they have some truths and good ideas I had not already learned about. I haven't just been reading Rutherford's books, I have also been reading Russell's and the books produced by the WT after Rutherford died. I have about all of the WT books (except I sold nearly all of the WT bound volumes I had, but the text of those are on CD-ROM) that have copyrights ranging from the year I was born through about the year I became an atheist.
As far as Satan goes, I have browsed some literature by the Church of Satan (see https://www.churchofsatan.com/nine-satanic-sins/ ) and The Satanic Temple (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Temple ) to see if they were as people say, or if they might have some good teachings. To my surprise I noticed that most of their teachings are not bad and that many of their teachings sound humanistic instead. The latter group is actually a secular group in disguise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Temple says "The group uses Satanic imagery to promote egalitarianism, social justice, and the separation of church and state, supporting their mission "to encourage benevolence and empathy among all people". ... The organization's participation in public affairs includes political actions as well as lobbying efforts,[11][12] with a focus on exposing Christian privilege when it interferes with personal religious freedom."
Regarding Satan himself, if you read the Bible carefully in regards to its alleged quotes of Satan, you will notice that nothing the Bible quotes Satan as saying is said to false according to the Bible. For example Genesis 3:22 has Jehovah God say that Satan was technically correct in what he told Eve (about the effect of eating the forbidden fruit), though it wasn't what Eve expected. Also according to the account Adam and Even would have obtained eternal life, had not God blocked their access to the tree life. The account even makes God the liar because God said Adam and Eve would die in the very day of their eating the forbidden fruit (if they eat it), but instead God let them live for hundreds of years before dying.
In the Gospel accounts of Satan tempting Jesus Satan accurately quoted scripture to Jesus (no false quotes at all, though Jesus said Satan was not applying the scriptures properly). Furthermore in an account Satan offered Jesus all of the kingdoms of the world if Jesus would perform and act of worship to him, and WT literature says that Satan could legitimately make that offer since according to the Bible all the kingdoms of the world do belong to Satan. In the accounts of demon possessed men everything the demons said out loud was truthful (according to the Bible), including one proclaiming that Jesus is the Son of God (see Luke 4:41). There was also the example of a woman having the power of prediction by means of a demon (or of an unclean spirit) and according to the account the predictions were accurate. The spirit of divination even said (according to the Bible) "These men are servants of the Most High God, who proclaim unto you the way of salvation." (ASV) According to the Bible what the spirit said was true. See Acts 16:16-18.
minimus, regarding what I said in my prior post, perhaps you didn't vote for Trump. But even if so, I hope you can see my point about some people having voted for Trump because of what they considered to be good about him, while they also acknowledge things about him that they consider to be bad.
Regarding Satan, I notice that you acknowledge that ".. in scripture, Satan can be an angel of light. Even when trying to tempt Jesus he used scripture to make his point." Further, in the book of Job, what Satan did to Job and others (as horrible as it was) was done with God's permission. I've noticed that according to Judaism Satan is not viewed in the Hebrew Scriptures exactly the same way that Christians view Satan. The religious Jews believe that in the Hebrew Scriptures (including in the book of Job) Satan is viewed as a prosecuting attorney in God's court (or in God's presence).
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/satan-the-adversary/ says "In Hebrew, the term Satan is usually translated as “opponent” or “adversary,” and he is often understood to represent the sinful impulse (in Hebrew, yetzer hara) or, more generally, the forces that prevents human beings from submitting to divine will. He is also sometimes regarded as a heavenly prosecutor or accuser, a view given expression in the Book of Job, where Satan encourages God to test his servant." Regarding some Christian ideas the Jewish source says "Some of these Christian ideas are echoed in Jewish tradition, but some also point to fundamental differences — most notably perhaps the idea that, in the Hebrew Bible at least, Satan is ultimately subordinate to God, carrying out his purpose on earth. Or that he isn’t real at all, but is merely a metaphor for sinful impulses."
The religious Jews also believe that what Christians call "the fall" of Adam and Eve (including inherited sin from Adam and Eve) was not a fall. Regarding what Christians call the fall (and inherited sin), https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/5999-fall-of-man says "The story of the fall of man is never appealed to in the Old Testament either as a historical event or as supporting a theological construction of the nature and origin of sin. ... The Garden of Eden is not even alluded to in any writings before the post-exilic prophets (Ezek. xxviii. 13, xxxi. 9; Isa. li. 3; but comp. Gen. xiii. 10 [sic], and even in these no reference is found to [sic] the Fall. The contention that, notwithstanding this surprising absence of reference to the story and the theme, the Hebrews of Biblical times nevertheless entertained the notion that through the fall of the first man their own nature was corrupted, is untenable."
See also https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/.premium.MAGAZINE-do-jews-believe-in-the-devil-1.6588731 . There it says:
'Yet the Book of Job does not refer to just any adversary but to "the adversary.”
"Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and the satan came also among them" (Job 1:6).
"The adversary" is a member of God’s heavenly council, who says he had just returned "from going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it." God asks him what he thinks of Job, but being a kind of prosecutor, the satan says that Job is only being good because he is being rewarded for it. He convinces God to test Job's piety with a deluge of disasters.
A similar image of ha-satan, the satan as heavenly prosecutor, can be found in the Book of Zechariah (3:1-10), which is also believed to date from the early Second Temple period. In it, where Joshua the high priest is put on trial and accused by "the adversary." The Lord acting as judge rebukes him and sides with the "Angel of the Lord" who acts as the priest’s defense attorney.'
After mentioning later Jewish views about Satan, the article says: "The view of Satan and his demons as actual beings was criticized by more rationalist streams of Judaism and most prominently by Maimonides, the sage who lived in the 12th century. Over time, as Judaism advanced to the modern period, this rationalist view prevailed and Satan and his minions were interpreted, at least in mainstream Judaism, in more metaphoric ways: they emblemize the evil inclinations which man carries within him, and cause him to stray from the path set for him by God."
I think we are pretty much in agreement. When you were expressing yourself regarding Rutherford, it seemed to suggest that since you didn’t see many of the negatives that were expressed about him by posters that you weren’t of the mind to believe these allegations were true. Certainly your prerogative but that’s why I questioned whether you were an apologist of some sort but it seems you need to thoroughly research everything about the man and his writings to make a judgment. lol I’m glad you are not on a jury.
