Disillusioned JW

Joined

• started 27 topics
• posted 2,027 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Disillusioned JW

• 
  39

  I Will Give President Biden Credit

  by minimus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  he’s really implementing the democrats agenda!

  he’s wasting no time !.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  road to nowhere, thanks for the information about "woke". I notice that https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/woke-what-mean-meaning-origins-term-definition-culture-387962 says woke ".... means to be awake to sensitive social issues, such as racism." Maybe the publishers of "Awake!" should begin publishing a companion magazine called "Woke!" He he, ha ha. Or maybe they should publish one called "Alert!"
  
• 
  39

  I Will Give President Biden Credit

  by minimus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  he’s really implementing the democrats agenda!

  he’s wasting no time !.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  Correction: It was not while I attended college that I purchased a scientific book and science magazines which had articles in support of evolution, but while I was in high school. The book was a Science Year volume by World Book. I purchased the Science Year within one year after my JW mother purchased the then current The World Book Encyclopedia set (primarily intended for use by my sister and I, but also for my mom). [I made some use of the Encyclopedia set for school reports.] When mom bought the set my sister and I were not yet baptized and not even yet 15 years old. When I bought the Science Year and the subscription to a science magazine it was about one year before I became baptized.
  
• 
  39

  I Will Give President Biden Credit

  by minimus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  he’s really implementing the democrats agenda!

  he’s wasting no time !.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  Anony Mous, when I said Jews and Hindus (in terms of the percentage of their members) in the USA are highly educated, I wasn't singling out those who are conservative. However I wouldn't be surprised if conservatives, in addition to liberals, of Jews and Hindus are highly educated.

  That which I read of wokism on this site is puzzling to me because I don't know what it is; it is alien to me. I hadn't come across that concept until about a couple of weeks ago, and I've only encountered it on this site. I am familiar with the concept of people metaphorically "waking up", such as in the sense of realizing that some beliefs they have are false and that it is time for them to abandon them. But it is not clear to me that wokism refers to such. I am familiar with the ancient Gnostic Christian spiritual concept of waking up, namely in their belief that one has an immortal spirit/soul which is trapped in the fleshly body and that there is a way it can escape the body and ascend to the heavenly realm and return to the supreme true God (one who is not Yahweh of the Hebrew Scriptures) and that according to the Gnostics there is a way that people learn such is true. But I doubt that wokism refers to such, but perhaps I am wrong about that. Furthermore, I don't see "waking up" (other than the above mentioned Gnostic concept) or wokism being promoted as a religion. I am thus extremely puzzled that you claim Democrats are trying to make wokism a state religion. I guess I will have to research wokism on the internet with the aid of my favorite internet search engine.
  

  I read news articles saying that local governments in the USA (mostly ones with Republican majorities) are trying to impose some aspect of Christianity (or religion in general) on people on government properties, and in other cases to "...foster discrimination or create special privileges for religious people and organizations". The organization called American Atheists sends me action alert emails in regards to this, saying American Atheists requests my help to stop the politicians from doing such things. [See https://www.atheists.org/activism/ , https://www.atheists.org/activism/state-legislation/ , and https://www.atheists.org/news/ .] American Atheists engages in letter writing campaigns to such politicians and in lawsuits if necessary, and in many cases they have succeeded in getting the politicians to back down from their crossing the line of separation of "church and state". I am thus very puzzled that you say"... at least Republicans know they cannot make a state religion ...".

  I am also very puzzled by you thinking that the Democrats are racists (to me they as a group are not) and that they want to keep black people from making progress and that they want to keep them on what you said is the "Democratic Plantation". I plan to ask you questions about that topic later in order to understand how you came to your views on that matter, since maybe you know something about that matter that I don't and since thus you might be right on that matter. However your use of the expression "Democratic Plantation" seem to be an intention to 'push some people's buttons', but perhaps I am mistaken on this. Personally, I have to excise great restraint from getting very riled up when reading the expression "Democratic Plantation" - an expression which is very inflammatory to me.
  

  There are some liberal/progressive Democratic party policies that I am uncomfortable with, even though I am a liberal/progressive Democrat. I do think that some of former President Trump's policies were good, but I was intensely disturbed by much of his rhetoric. It was much of his rhetoric (including what I considered to be bold faced outright lies, even dangerous lies - even ones which I think incited (or contributed to an outbreak of) an insurrection at the USA Capitol building - which primarily made me intensely angry with him and caused me to want him out of public office forever.

  Much of the rest you said in your post I do agree with. Regarding what you say "... predicts success 95% of the time .." I am fascinated by that idea and would like to know what you consider to be evidence in support of that idea (regarding the number of parents one has and the timing of having a kid). I have long thought that the factors you mention confer economic benefits, but I was not aware that that the first two you mention do so to the extent that you allude to.
  

  Rocketman123, though I am politically liberal I can relate to what you said in your post about what you support in politicians and what you don't support in politicians.
  
• 
  48

  An Expert Explains the Beginning of Christianity with Dr Richard Carrier

  by Rocketman123 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  here is an interesting discussion about how christianity probably began.

  hierarchical political interest may have been involved.

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=civ8gscbo_g.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  slimboyfat, when one considers that the first president (Russell) of the WT corporation was a skeptic for a period of time before founding the WT and when one considers that the the second president (Rutherford) of the WT corporation was an atheist for a period time before becoming affiliated with the WT, it is not very surprising that some liberal scholars, reading the New Testament without a faith commitment to uphold, come to some conclusions that are similar to JWs. Consider the following evidence of the above claims about Russell and Rutherford.
  

  The WT book from 1959 called Jehovah's Witnesses In the Divine Purpose, which is about the WT's/JW's history, on page 14 quotes Charles Taze Russell as having said the following about himself: "Brought up a Presbyterian, indoctrinated from the Catechism, and being naturally of an inquiring mind, I fell a ready prey to the logic of infidelity, as soon as I began to think for myself. But that which at first threatened to be the utter shipwreck of faith in God and the Bible was, under God's providence, overruled for good, and merely wrecked my confidence in human creeds and systems of Bible interpretations." Russell also said that listening to a speaker of the Second Adventists enabled Russell to reestablish his "... wavering faith in the Divine Inspiration of the Bible ...."

  The 1955 edition of the WT book called Qualified To Be Ministers on pages 298-299 say regarding Russell : "... although brought up a Presbyterian he joined the nearby Congregational Church, because it was more liberal. ... The doctrines of predestination and eternal punishment gave him particular difficulty, and by the time he was seventeen he had become an avowed skeptic, discarding the Bible and the creeds of the churches." Page 299 also quotes the same content I quoted above from the Divine Purpose book.

  The 1974 WT book book called 1975 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses on page 35 says the following about Russell when Russell was in between the ages of 12 and 17: '... Russell was spiritually troubled. Especially was he concerned about the doctrines of eternal punishment and predestination. He reasoned: "A God that would use his power to create human beings whom he foreknew and predestinated should be eternally tormented, could be neither wise, just nor loving. His standard would be lower than that of many men." (1 John 4:8) Nonetheless, young Russell continued to believe in God's existence. His mind beleaguered by concern over doctrine, he examined the various creeds of Christendom, studied leading Oriental religions--and experienced grave disappointment. Where was truth to be found?'

  See also pages 42-43, 122, and 126 of the 1993 WT book called Jehovah's Witnesses--Proclaimers of God's Kingdom.
  

  Regarding Joseph F. Rutherford the October 1, 1997 issue of "The Watchtower" on page 6 says the following under the heading of "Atheism No Bar to Jehovah's Personal Interest (note that in the quote below I have added bold face for emphasis)":
  

  'Joseph F. Rutherford was the second president of the Watch Tower Society. He was baptized in 1906 as a Bible Student--the designation Jehovah's Witnesses were then known by--was appointed the Society's legal counsel the following year, and became its president in January 1917. Yet, at one time this young lawyer was an atheist. How did he become such a motivated Christian servant of Jehovah?
  
  In July 1913, Rutherford served as chairman of an International Bible Students Association convention held in Springfield, Massachusetts, U.S.A. A reporter from the local newspaper, The Homestead, interviewed Rutherford, and the account was reprinted in the souvenir report of that convention.
  

  Rutherford explained that at the time he planned to marry, his religious views were those of the Baptist denomination, but those of his wife-to-be were Presbyterian. When Rutherford's pastor said that "she was going to hell fire because she had not been immersed and that he was going straight to heaven because he had been, his logical mind revolted and he became an atheist."
  
  It took Rutherford several years of careful research to rebuild his faith in a personal God. He worked, he said, from the premise that "that which cannot satisfy the mind has no right to satisfy the heart." Christians "must be sure that the Scriptures in which they believe are true," Rutherford explained, adding: "They must know the foundation on which they stand."--See 2 Timothy 3:16, 17.
  
  Yes, it is possible even today for an atheist or an agnostic to search the Scriptures, build up faith, and develop a strong personal relationship with Jehovah God. After a careful study of the Bible with the aid of the Watch Tower publication Knowledge That Leads to Everlasting Life, one young man confessed: "I did not believe in God when I started this study, but now I find that knowledge of the Bible has turned my whole thinking around. I am beginning to know Jehovah and to trust in him." ' [The next section (under the heading of' "The Fool" and God') of that WT article bashes atheists, suggesting that in all cases that their atheism stems from a "moral deficiency" and a "lack of sense".]

  It was by reading that article in 1997 that I learned that Rutherford had been an atheist for a period of time before he became baptized as a Bible Student and before he became the second president of the WT corporation. A few years later I stopped attending JW congregational meetings, except on rare occasions (such as the Memorial for a number of years), largely in order to do an independent minded study of the Bible and of the WT/JW history. That research was so I could find out if the WT/JW religion has a number of false doctrines and so I could discover more doctrines of the Bible than I already knew.

  As a side note, WT literature sometimes depicts nudity (sometimes full nudity and sometimes partial nudity). For example page 7 of the WT article has an illustration which includes a depiction an adult female angel in heaven with bare (and not obscured) firm breasts. Revealing examples (in regards to women) are shown on pages 29, 117, the full color illustration page immediately before page 193, and 324, of Rutherford's 1937 book called Enemies. A another revealing example is on page 316 of Rutherford's 1940 book called Religion, and the illustration of demons on page 72 of the same book.
  
  
• 
  48

  An Expert Explains the Beginning of Christianity with Dr Richard Carrier

  by Rocketman123 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  here is an interesting discussion about how christianity probably began.

  hierarchical political interest may have been involved.

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=civ8gscbo_g.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  pistolpete,by "one more in line with agnosticism and atheism" I didn't mean closer to agnosticism and atheism than theism and the belief that the Bible is a god's word. I meant somewhat closer to agnosticism and atheism than it previously was. By saying some parts of the Bible are no longer considered literally true, but now only considered true in an allegorical sense, the Christian view has moved in a direction towards an atheistic view, since atheists have been saying for centuries that parts of the Bible are not literally true.
  

  By theologically modernist view I am referring to what in the early 1900s became called "Modernism". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Christianity which says "Modernist theologians approved of radical biblical criticism and were willing to question traditional Christian doctrines, especially Christology." In doing so, even while believing the Bible is inspired by God, their ideas are closer to atheism to a greater extent than were those theologians who were not modernist in their theology. That is what I mean.

  Though some sources suggest that Modernism was confined to some Catholic theologian, in actuality Modernism was also embraced by some Protestant theologians. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist%E2%80%93Modernist_controversy which says "By the end of the 1930s proponents of Theological Liberalism had, at the time, effectively won the debate,[2] with the Modernists in control of all Mainline Protestant seminaries, publishing houses and denominational hierarchies in the United States."
• 
  39

  I Will Give President Biden Credit

  by minimus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  he’s really implementing the democrats agenda!

  he’s wasting no time !.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  Vidiot, thanks for your answer to my question. I agree with your statement of '... the WTS is -by and large - an fundamentally conservative organization, and just because some JWs leave the WT, doesn't mean they leave conservatism per se. Not to mention that the conditioning to distrust "The World" can be somewhat difficult for some to grow past.'
  
  I guess because I very rarely ever heard active JW's express their political views (as JWs are told by the WT to be neutral politically), because I live in a politically liberal geographic area, and because of my inclination to be progressive minded on social and environmental issues, and in some other ways, it did not occur to me (till I read your reply to my question) that a very high percentage of JWs are conservative on political matters (of those JWs that allow themselves to have political views). When became a baptized JW I begrudgingly accepted a number of the teachings of the Bible and the WT.
  
  Kramer, you are right regarding the degree of education (if you mean the percentage who have college education) among JWs. After all, the WT has strongly discouraged (on many occasions) JWs from attending college and obtaining 4-year degree, and to read writings (and listen to ideas) that are critical of the WT's teachings and of the Bible. That influence of the WT even caused me to decide to avoid taking any courses (while I was in college) that would teach: evidence and reasoning in support of the theory of evolution and in support of the reliability of radiometric dating (including carbon dating), criticism of the Bible, and argements against the existence of God (any god).

  I wish I hadn't let the WT's influence cause me to avoid courses that provide such information. I wish I had instead taken an introductory course in each of the following (or at least purchased a used college textbook on such while I was in college): physical anthropology, historical geology, biology, problems of philosophy (where arguments against the existence of God are considered), philosophy of religion (where arguments against the existence of God are considered and where teachings of non-WT doctrines of religion would be taught), and the Bible as literature (which might teach the Bible was not inspired by a god and which might say some of the biblical events never happened). However, during the years I attended college I did purchase a scientific book and science magazines which did have articles in support of evolution and I did read those articles and I did wonder, while reading them, if evolution is true.
  
  Polls of religious people report that JWs in the USA have the lowest (or next to the lowest) percentage of members who have completed college and who consider evolution to be true, of all the other religions in the USA. In contrast, Jews and Hindus have the highest. The polls also say that of all the religions in the USA the JWs have the lowest (or next to the lowest) average income, whereas Jews and Hindus have the highest. In each of these categories the two groups ranked at the bottom are JWs and Baptists.
• 
  99

  If not the WT/JW relgion where else are 'we' to go? Why not atheistic/scientific philosophical naturalism?

  by Disillusioned JW in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sometimes jws wonder if the wt/jw is not the truth, 'then where else are we to go?

  ' i say 'why not atheistic/scientific philosophical naturalism and why not a secular philosophy which teaches a way of life?

  ' what do you folks say?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  Sometimes JWs wonder if the WT/JW is not the truth, 'then where else are we to go?' I say 'why not atheistic/scientific philosophical naturalism and why not a secular philosophy which teaches a way of life?' What do you folks say?

  If JWs were to look up the quoted sources of atheists and other nontheists quoted (or at least referred to) in the WT's publications and research the secular philosophies referred to in the WT's publications, they might find that they agree with those nontheists and philosophies. I know that I do in regards to many of them. I wish I had studied them prior to becoming a baptized JW. The following are some examples:

  Volume V of the 1915 edition of Studies in the Scriptures (see http://www.strictlygenteel.co.uk/atonement/atonetitle.html ) says at the beginning of the book the following:

  "Christian people are becoming more and more awake to the fact that a great tidal wave of unbelief is sweeping over Christendom; — not the blasphemous atheism voiced by Thomas Paine and Robert Ingersoll, but the cultured kind represented in the scholarship of our day, which makes the danger all the more insidious.
  Not only are the great Colleges and Seminaries undermining the faith of the better educated, but the Common School books, and especially those used in the High Schools, are similarly inculcating a distrust in the Bible, a contradiction of its teachings. For a college graduate of to-day to declare his faith in the inspiration of the Scriptures would bring upon him the scorn of his companions — a scorn which few would court, or could endure. At very best, a few will be found to claim that they believe that Jesus and his Apostles were sincere, though they blundered in quoting from the Old Testament as inspired.
  Such a belief in Jesus and his Apostles is no belief at all; for if present-day "higher critics" are wise enough to know when and where our Lord and his Apostles! erred in their quotations from the Old Testament, then these wise men of our day are our proper guides, — more inspired than Jesus and his Apostles."

  Prior to getting baptized I knew nothing or virtually nothing about Thomas Paine's deist ideas and his book (in three parts) called The Age of Reason. If I had read it when wondering if there is no god and if Christianity is false, that book would have made a huge difference. If I had read the section quoted above from the Studies in the Scriptures it might would have led to me seeking out the religious writings of Thomas Paine. Likewise back then (and not even for some 20 years later) I knew nothing of Robert Ingersoll. If I had I read the WT's book which mentioned him I might would have sought out a book containing his irreverent teachings about religion, so I could learn if there are good reasons to reject Christianity and the Bible. I might would have found an excellent (in my opinion) book by atheist Joseph Lewis (the leading spokesperson for atheism in his day in the USA) called Ingersoll the Magnificent: To which Has Been Added a Special Arrangement of Some Gems from Ingersoll for Inspiration, Wisdom, and Courage. That book could have a made a huge difference for me back then if I had read it.

  If I had read the beginning to the 1915 edition of Volume V of Studies in the Scriptures and noticed what it said about "higher critics" of the Bible I might would have sought out the writing of those critics. If I had done so it could have made a difference in my life.

  By the way, despite what Russell said about Paine and Ingersoll they were not atheists in the sense of believing there is no god, though they were in the sense of not believing in the existence of a personal god. Paine was a deist and Ingersoll was an agnostic.
  
• 
  11

  Street-Talk with Jehovah's Witnesses

  by Vanderhoven7 in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  street-talk with jehovah's witnesses.

  opening up a street-level dialogue with jehovah's witnesses:.

  since this will probably be a one time occurrence, an important objective of any street encounter is to bless jws with doubt about their beloved organization.. after exchanging niceties, you might say something like:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  Vanderhoven7, you gave great examples of what people can say to JWs on the streets, except for one problem. All of the examples, except for one, you gave of JW teachings and rules are from more than 25 years ago - not what JWs teach today. Except for two of the examples, none of them were current when I became baptized as a JW. Many JWs would thus say the examples (other one) do not pertain to what the religion is today. [They are evidence however of whether or not the JW religion over the years has been chosen and directed by a true god.] Thus they are not direct examples of whether the current JW religion is religion is correctly based upon the Bible, but only of whether the older versions of the JW religion correctly based upon the Bible. It would be like saying the USA today is very bad because of the great injustices it did from 50 to 225 years ago but have later abandoned, such as: slavery, decimation of most of Native Americans [first peoples] living in what is now the USA and the breaking of the vast majority of the treaties the USA made with native tribes, exploding of nuclear bombs during World War II on civilian populations, discrimination based upon gender and race, extremely harsh working conditions in many factories with no rights for the workers regarding working conditions, very limited environmental protections (to insure clean air and water for example), etc.
  
• 
  39

  I Will Give President Biden Credit

  by minimus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  he’s really implementing the democrats agenda!

  he’s wasting no time !.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  I am astonished at the immensely high percentage of posts on this web site's political message boards that are antagonistic of the Democratic party and of politically liberal policies. Are most ex-JWs really antagonistic of progressive/liberal politically?

  Many ex-JWs (including those on this site) are atheists and most atheists in the USA are politically and socially progressive/liberal, so one would think that there would be many more political posts on this site that are favorable of politically progressive/liberal policies, than is currently being posted onto this web site.
  

  Biden's version of the Green New Deal is a very good thing and he is doing what he can to implement it. Biden's handling the Covid-19 vaccine distribution is very good and the results from such actions are very very good (there are now far fewer new cases of Covid-19 infections and far fewer deaths attributed to Covid-19 in the USA than there were 7 months ago). The USA stock market continues to rise under the Biden administration and a great many people are returning to work. Many more women are being allowed to enter the USA military and they are entering the USA military, and they are successfully meeting the same rigorous standards that the men are meeting.
  
• 
  48

  An Expert Explains the Beginning of Christianity with Dr Richard Carrier

  by Rocketman123 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  here is an interesting discussion about how christianity probably began.

  hierarchical political interest may have been involved.

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=civ8gscbo_g.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  If you are saying that Licona has moved towards a theologically modernist view, one more in line with agnosticism and atheism, then I consider that a good thing since I am an atheist. But from what I read, including the christianpost.com article you provided a link to, Licona says he believes the Bible is inerrant but that one passage in the Bible was not written to be interpreted literally, but instead was written to be interpreted as a poetic special effect (like when people sometimes say while they made love 'the ground shook').

  At https://thebestschools.org/special/ehrman-licona-dialogue-reliability-new-testament/michael-licona-interview/ Licona says:

  'As a historian, I realize that a lack of data may prohibit us from affirming the historicity of a report, but does not justify rejecting it. As I read through the Greco-Roman and Jewish literature of that period, I found numerous examples of reports of phenomena similar to those Matthew reports to have occurred at Jesus’s death. These were connected to historical events having a huge amount of significance. In one case, Virgil lists 16 phenomena related to the death of Julius Caesar in what is certainly a poetic genre.

  So, for a number of reasons, I posited that Matthew’s raised saints may have been a poetic element of Matthew’s account of Jesus’s death — the addition of “special effects,” you might say. It’s much like we might say that the events of 9–11 were “earth-shaking” or that “it rained cats and dogs.” When North Korea’s leader Kim Jong-Il (right) died in December, 2011, it was reported that a snowstorm hit as he died. Ice cracked on the volcanic Chon lake near his reported birthplace at Mount Paektu. When the snowstorm ended at dawn, a message carved in rock glowed brightly until sunset saying, “Mount Paektu, holy mountain of revolution. Kim Jong-il.” Finally, on the day after his death, a Manchurian crane also adopted a posture of grief at a statue of the dictator’s father in the city of Hamhung. So, the same sort of rhetoric occurs even today.

  You cannot dehistoricize a story if Matthew did not intend for it to be read as history.

  A few ultraconservatives who have what I regard as an overly wooden view of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy accused me of dehistoricizing the biblical text, asserting that I didn’t believe Matthew’s story because of its supernatural nature. I was shocked! Did it not occur to them that my treatment of Matthew’s raised saints appeared in the context of a large book that contended for the physical resurrection of Jesus? The matter for me was whether Matthew had intended for his readers to think that some saints had actually been raised. My opinion was that he did not. And you cannot dehistoricize a story if Matthew did not intend for it to be read as history.'