: As usual, some people will ask why I posted this.
Right. But we know that the reason is: you're an asshole. Not to mention a half-Swede. :-)
AlanF
Posts by AlanF
-
2Texas jail's 'God Pod' ruled unconstitutional
by Kent inaustin, texas (ap) a christian-studies jail unit dubbed the "god pod" violates the constitutional separation of church and state, the texas supreme court has ruled.
"the county cannot .
convey a message that endorses the personal religious beliefs of county officials in attempting to rehabilitate criminal offenders," justice deborah hankinson wrote in the unanimous ruling june 28.. .
-
-
-
5
Canadian Anglican Church Bankrupt Due to Lawsuits
by Defender inhttp://www.nationalpost.com/home/story.html?f=/stories/20010706/611059.html
-
-
AlanF
I've been waiting for the other shoe to drop on this. Thanks for posting!
Watchtower Society moles take note! Your Society will be similarly dissolved due to massive fuck-ups in handling child molestation issues. Your God will not save you. Your leaders have betrayed whatever God you think you worship. You're toast. You who have supported these criminals over the years, actively or passively -- you deserve what you get.
AlanF
-
28
Atheist debate techniques
by Rex B13 in1. intentionally twist any scripture to have less or more than it's intended meaning.. 2) ignore dispensational exgesis and time tested methods of interpretation in favor of jw style single scripture exgesis.. 3) pretend that you are above everyone else in intelligence and knowledge.. 4) pretend that your every statement is factual and there is no room for disagreement.. 5) intimidate your opponent by slander and insult.. 6) use various 'logical' terms to make yourself sound well...logical!.
7) use 'straw man' arguments and generalization to gain an edge from the beginning of the debate.. 8) pretend that science is clearly on your side and that no 'reputable scientist' would disagree with your claims.. 9) have your various allies and followers 'chime in' by attacking your opponent while you work on your response.. 10) above all, pretend that god doesn't exist and that there is no evidence beyond the physical.
make it sound reasonable to believe that all life came from nothing and totally by accident.. rex
-
-
AlanF
Hi Pat,
: Is it where Joshua prayed for the sun to stand still?
Sure, but that's just one thing. I did a little bit of research and found the following scriptures:
Job 38:6
Into what have its socket pedestals been sunk down, Or who laid its cornerstone.Psalm 102:25
Long ago you laid the foundations of the earth itself, And the heavens are the work of your hands.Proverbs 8:27-30
27 When he prepared the heavens I was there; when he decreed a circle upon the face of the watery deep, 28 when he made firm the cloud masses above, when he caused the fountains of the watery deep to be strong, 29 when he set for the sea his decree that the waters themselves should not pass beyond his order, when he decreed the foundations of the earth , 30 then I came to be beside him as a master worker,Obviously things like socket pedestals, cornerstones and foundations are things of stability, i.e., are things that do not move. If the earth is founded upon things that do not move, then it does not move. Thus, the sun and stars must move around the fixed earth.
Of course, these scriptures are only a smattering of what Christians have traditionally used to support the notions of geocentrism and flat-earthism. For a much more complete look at the scriptural basis for geocentrism, look here: http://www.hypertextbook.com/eworld/geocentric.shtml . I think you'll find the material enlightening.
The interesting thing about the above notions is that while biblical apologists claim that the Bible is only being poetic when it talks about the earth's foundations and such, at other convenient times they claim that the Bible is being literal, even though the context strongly indicates a poetic nature of the passage.
For example, Isaiah 40:22 speaks of "the circle of the earth". Doesn't that indicate a round earth? Well, sort of. The problem is the nature of the English word "round". It can describe a circle or a sphere. Clearly the earth is not a circle -- it is a sphere. But the Hebrew word translated "circle" is used in the Bible only in contexts that show that a literal circle -- like a pizza pie -- is what is being talked about. Thus, apologists like the Watchtower Society and certain young-earth creationist types claim that Isaiah 40:22 describes a spherical earth, whereas the actual Hebrew describes a circular earth -- perfectly in accord with geocentrism. In other words, these people are so dishonest that they will claim one thing when it's convenient, and precisely the opposite when it's convenient for their argument of the moment.
Some words from the above-mentioned website are worth posting here, and they mirror my own views:
o "Was the fourth day of creation twenty-four hours long?"
"Yes, I believe that the days of creation were literal twenty-four-hour time periods." (37, 38)o "Did Bible writers believe the earth was flat?"
"No -- this false idea is not taught in Scripture!" [emphasis original] "Bible writers used the 'language of appearance,' just as people always have. Without it, the intended message would be awkward at best and probably not understood clearly. When the Bible touches on scientific subjects, it is entirely accurate." (16, 17)The message here is, I think, obvious. The Bible is the literal truth only when it's convenient and doesn't conflict with overwhelming evidence. In my view, this invalidates the core of the anti-evolutionary movement in its entirety. If the Bible is open to interpretation from time to time, then it is open to interpretation at any time. If the Bible is occasionally poetic, then it is possibly poetic at any time -- even on the first page, even on the last page, even on every page.
This simple fact -- that the Bible is poetic in various places -- entirely escapes the purview of JWs and YECs in that they pick and choose what they want to view as poetic without giving real thought to reality. Such fluidity renders the Bible valueless as a source of information about the physical world. Just as Catholic and Protestant theologians were forced by reality to give up on geocentrism after Galileo, so are modern Christians forced to give up on many traditional views -- if they're honest.
Write me if you want some private views that I'm reserving for future discussions.
AlanF
-
7
What's the big deal?
by MuzicmanCa ini am just going to play devil's advocate here for a second since i need help reasoning something out again.
i think i have the answer, but i just need to do this outloud and hear some responses to make sure i am clear on this particular issue.. i remember once, when i first came across a lengthy write-up on the faulty reasoning the wts used to come up with the whole 1914 thing, i was having dinner with an older bro who, at the time, was a very close friend of mine.
i asked him directly just how valid the date was and if what i was reading on the internet had any credibility.
-
-
AlanF
Hi MuzicmanCa:
: ... His answer in short was basically that what all these "apostates" are trying to do is prove that the kingdom of God is not here; that if they can disprove the date then they can prove that Jesus presence is not really here on earth, that Jehovah's work is not really being done; basically that all efforts of the JW's are futile...
Your friend was right, but his comments didn't go nearly far enough. Remember that the Fundamental Doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses is that JW leaders speak for God, and are to be obeyed and respected the same as God. That doctrine rests squarely on 1914 and the sequence of events that they claim followed, which resulted in their ultimate claim that these leaders were appointed in 1919 to a position of full spiritual authority over all mankind. Thus, without 1914, the whole house of cards falls down.
Of course, a corollary is that JWs have been preaching about an imaginary kingdom that was not established in 1914. That certainly makes all their preaching as futile as telling people about invisible pink unicorns flying over everyone's head.
: Here is where I think I am stuck. What's the big deal in that? Isn't it the point that if the WTS is holding on for some silly reason such as pride, control, or whatever, to some broken thought, it goes to reason that there must be something else that is being hidden, other doctrine that is being purposefully contaminated or distorted for some unknown purpose(s); that this is an organization, not by the people itself, but by it's very system and structure that cannot be trusted?
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I don't think that the motives of JW leaders are obscure. They're very clear: These men want to rule over others as King-Priests. They want to get a reward. They want adulation now and in the future. That theme is extremely clear in Watchtower literature. Thus, they certainly refuse to correct matters like blood, disfellowshipping, child molestation policy, 1914 and other policies because of the extreme pride they take in having been appointed "over all Christ's belongings." Also, the JW organization has never been "by the people". It has always been ruled from the top. Rutherford reinforced that practice and turned it into doctrine. Finally, you're right that the JW organization can't be trusted. Because the main goal of the leaders is to create a group of people that they think is approved by God so as to gain a reward of life in heaven as King-Priests, and they are willing to sacrifice anything and anyone to get that reward, they will lie and cheat and steal to get where they want to go.
: But here's what I don't get. Why DOESN'T the WTS just come out and use the very information that has been presented to disprove 1914, say to the JWs "Hey look guys....FORGET 1914...forget dates all together from now on...that was wrong of us...from now on let's focus on the point of the matter (from their veiwpoint anyway) and just be doing the door to door work..." and so on and so forth. They would still have the donations...the service....all their petty little rules... They can still have their kingdom and make lots of dry magazines to talk about it as they think it is. It just seems to me, that something to that effect would be the smart thing to do...if nothing else, just for the sake of politics...I just don't see what the whole big fight is about. If it's obvious it's wrong, just change it. People are pretty reasonable, I think most of us could understand an honest mistake. But to be a blowhard and hold on to this false premise for this long...I just don't get it. What could possibly motivate someone to be that STUPID!??! It just doesn't make sense to me....
The opportunity for such change is long past. Now, if such a change were to be made, a large fraction of JWs would realize that they've been lied to and they'd leave. Since top WTS leaders really do believe that "the end" is right around the corner, it wouldn't do to have a massive loss of membership right on the brink of the time when they would like to hear from their claimed Master, "well done, good and faithful slave." So they hang on and hang on, hoping for Armageddon to come and save them from their folly.
It's like with the blood policy. In the past several years there has been a great deal of pressure brought on the Society through articles in medical journals, adverse publicity on the Internet, and through governments, to change the blood policy to something reasonable. The events of the last year indicate to many observers the Society is not willing to change. Apparently what they're doing is waiting for blood substitutes to become common, things like Hemopure which is essentially concentrated red blood cells from cow blood. They seem to be hoping that within a few years, such blood substitutes will make the Society's prohibition on blood moot. That would mean that outside criticism would stop, needless deaths from the insane policy would stop, and JW leaders would be off the hook. They would no longer be accused of holding a death-dealing policy and they would not have to own up to the mistakes of the past. The policy would simply cease to be mentioned, and in perhaps 20 years would barely be remembered. And of course, there is the strong expectation that Armageddon will come along and render all the controversy moot anyway. Either way, they figure, by hanging on, they win.
The other part of why they don't change the 1914 doctrine amounts to pure pride. They and their predecessors have been promoting this doctrine, or a similar one, for 120 years. It has served their interests well. Why take a chance on making asses of themselves, like Rutherford admitted to having done after the 1925 debacle, and lose face before the entire JW community? They had the opportunity years ago to gradually make some changes, but again pride got in the way. Today the most respected JWs outside Bethel are those older folks now in their 60s through 80s, people who sacrificed a lot and worked like hell for Watchtower interests. Today these people are wondering what the hell went wrong. Why didn't Armageddon come as planned and prevent them from growing old in "this old system"? Why have JW leaders given them false hopes? This is a powder keg. Given that a large fraction of these older folks are hanging on more because of inertia than anything else, an admission that the fundamental underpinning of the "faithful and discreet slave" doctrine is wrong would be devastating. There'd be massive hemorrhaging of membership. The Master could say, "What did you do with my valuable coins, you stupid and unfaithful slave?" So fear plays a big role, I think, in the decisions of JW leaders. Fear of punishment, fear of losing a reward, fear of losing face.
I hope this has given you some food for thought.
AlanF
-
82
JW Organization On Autopilot
by AlanF inthese days it's pretty clear that the jw organization is running on autopilot.
charles taze.
russell, joe booze rutherford, nathan knorr and freddie franz all had a certain amount of vision.
-
-
AlanF
Hi Copernicus:
I think that whether Rutherford was a drunk and adulterer or not is very relevant to the issue of whether the JW organization is what Rutherford claimed -- God's unique, visible, earthly organization. The Society itself agrees in principle, because they've written plenty of words condemning every other religion for the sins of the leaders, including drunkenness and adultery. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, no? On a more objective note, I think we would all agree that religions like the Mormons are screwy because of their history, and in particular the history of their screwy leaders like the Mormons' Joseph Smith. Similarly, the screwy and immoral Rutherford put his stamp solidly on the organization that he created from the Bible Students -- Jehovah's witnesses.
I'm glad you noticed my connecting the Judge's mentality with present WTS mentality. There is a direct link via the men who served Rutherford and who became JW leaders, leaders who are now dying out. A willingness to accept gross wrongdoing by a man merely because he claims to be God's exclusive "channel", yet unwillingness to accept the slightest deviation from the party line by the rank and file, bespeaks gross hypocrisy and a showing of double standards, both of which are condemned by everyone who has moral character and by the Bible itself. So any way you look at it, Rutherford's conduct -- and more importantly, the way his underlings reacted to it -- speaks volumes about the moral character of the men who have led the Society for more than 80 years. One must wonder how self-proclaimed Christians can so easily accept this lunacy.
As for Rutherford's books, it has been suggested with good reason that Fred Franz actually was a or the ghostwriter for Rutherford from roughly 1925 onward. Rutherford would have suggested themes and perhaps written a lot of the basics, but Franz put it into final form. Think about how that would have affected Franz, who later became the de facto "head theologian" of the Society for more than 40 years.
AlanF
-
-
-
AlanF
I don't remember, Dave.
Yoo kick mah ass? Ah kick yo ass, yoo white-ass MoFo!
AlanF
-
11
what if???
by jolly_green_giant inwhat if the witnesses do have all the answers?
what if the big a does come and we all have to answer the 'the man upstairs'?
what will your arguement be???
-
-
AlanF
I think I'd ask 'the man' why he picked such a bunch of dunces to speak for him. And how he expected intelligent people to make a rational decision that a bunch of idiots who clearly told a lot of lies represented him, supposedly the God of Truth. I'd ask him why he gave people minds if he expected them to avoid using them.
AlanF
-
-
-
AlanF
Fort Collins, Colorado.
AlanF
-
82
JW Organization On Autopilot
by AlanF inthese days it's pretty clear that the jw organization is running on autopilot.
charles taze.
russell, joe booze rutherford, nathan knorr and freddie franz all had a certain amount of vision.
-
-
AlanF
You're pretty funny there, Fridolin. I already mentioned that Moyle couldn't prove that Rutherford was a drunk because Rutherford got his cronies to lie for him. But eventually some of these people admitted that they had lied. Obviously you're ignoring the fact that if Rutherford got hold of a lot of booze for his buddies in Bethel, he must have been drinking plenty of it. You're also ignoring the fact that Rutherford broke American Prohibition laws by importing and serving liquor. According to those laws, he was a criminal. He certainly wasn't forced by any religious principles to not comply with them. He didn't because he enjoyed his liquor too much -- he was a drunk.
Now, Fridolin, why would an old man like Worsley, not far from the grave, lie to someone in a private conversation about things that had happened 50 years earlier? And how do you explain the fact that so many others have said, in private conversation, that Rutherford was a drunk? These facts are well known among Bethelites. All you have to do to confirm them is call Watchtower yourself and ask.
As for Rutherford's owning houses, he didn't have to own them in his own name. His having exclusive use of various houses, such as Beth Sarim and one on Staten Island, is just as good as owning them.
Rutherford was an abuser of his followers, and ruled them with an iron fist. I know this from a variety of sources, including my father, who worked on the Writing Desk (closely related to the Service Department) from 1938 to 1946. He knew Rutherford well and told me that the smarter Bethel Boys knew to give the old Boozer a wide berth. Rutherford was quite far from the Christian example he liked to portray. Several long-time JWs, some of whom went to prison in the 1940s because of the draft, told me they don't consider Rutherford to have been a Christian at all. And that was true. Rutherford was a Pharisaic hypocrite, a fine example of "do as I say and not as I do".
AlanF
-
82
JW Organization On Autopilot
by AlanF inthese days it's pretty clear that the jw organization is running on autopilot.
charles taze.
russell, joe booze rutherford, nathan knorr and freddie franz all had a certain amount of vision.
-
-
AlanF
What on earth are you talking about, Fridolin? It has been public information since the Olin Moyle trial that Rutherford was a drunk. Moyle accused him of that, among other things, and Rutherford never denied it. He simply tried to shut Moyle up and made a number of false accusations against Moyle. Moyle brought a lawsuit against Rutherford and the Society around 1940 for slander, and he won a $15,000 judgment against the Society, but a year after Rutherford died. Moyle's accusations therefore stood the test of a court case. And of course, the former Canadian branch manager Walter Salter wrote a letter complaining that Rutherford had him ship many cases of Canadian whiskey to Brooklyn for Rutherford's use. This was during the time of American Prohibition, and so Rutherford was guilty of breaking Caesar's laws with regard to something that had nothing to do with religious principle.
Finally there is the testimony of various people who have largely remained quiet until now. People who were in Bethel when Rutherford was alive, and people who discussed Rutherford's drunkenness with Bethelites who are now dead. For example, there was one Arthur Worsley, who died in the early 1990s. Worsley was interviewed by a friend of mine shortly before his death concerning his recollection of the Rutherford years. Worsley had been called as a witness for Rutherford at the Moyle trial, and he testified that Rutherford was not a drunk and did not do any of the things that Moyle accused him of. The interviewer asked Worsley if his testimony had been true, and he admitted that it wasn't, and that all of Moyle's accusations were true. Why then, did he lie? He said that he had no place to go outside of Bethel, and so he lied in order to keep his position. Same goes for the other liars who testified for Rutherford.
Much material like the above will be published in due time.
As for your comments, Bobby, there are still Bethelites alive who knew Rutherford personally and could comment about his drunkenness. For example, GB member Albert Schroeder entered Bethel around 1933 and certainly knew him well. He's about 90 today, but his mind is still pretty good. Why don't you call him up and ask him about Rutherford?
Rutherford certainly started a tradition of drinking in Bethel. The legacy is well known to all who lived there since Rutherford's time. Bethelites tend not to talk about the fact that a lot of Bethelites today are heavy drinkers, but the reason for that is obvious. Anyone who claims this isn't a big, big problem there simply doesn't know what he's talking about.
As for exposing Rutherford long ago, see above. The fact that you don't read about it in WTS publications is obviously irrelevant.
As for the rest of your comments, they're dealt with very simply: The only evidence that the JW organization has anything to do with God is its own claim. That's all. Thus, all of your scenarios are as imaginary as were Rutherford's claims that the ancient worthies would return in 1925, and as have been your claims that "the end" would be upon us in 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001 -- claims you'll no doubt continue to make unless your mind gets healed.
AlanF