Posts by Disillusioned JW

75

Is the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses REALLY the "faithful and discreet slave" of Matt. 24:45-47?

by Roger Kirkpatrick in

thesis: when someone who is given a responsibility mistakes that responsibility for authority, bullying is very likely to occur.. jesus spoke an illustration recorded at matthew 24: 45-51 which well illustrates this thesis.. jesus asked, “who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over all his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time?

happy is that slave if his master on arriving finds him doing so.

truly i say to you, he will appoint him over all his belongings.

Disillusioned JW

Did Paul falsely claim to be an apostle of Jesus Christ?

75

Is the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses REALLY the "faithful and discreet slave" of Matt. 24:45-47?

by Roger Kirkpatrick in

thesis: when someone who is given a responsibility mistakes that responsibility for authority, bullying is very likely to occur.. jesus spoke an illustration recorded at matthew 24: 45-51 which well illustrates this thesis.. jesus asked, “who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over all his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time?

happy is that slave if his master on arriving finds him doing so.

truly i say to you, he will appoint him over all his belongings.

Disillusioned JW

Om page 3 of this topic thread Vanderhoven7 listed examples which he says draw a contrast between Jesus and the JW governing body, but a number of those same examples can be shown to indicate that Paul disagreed with Jesus (at least with Jesus as described in the Bible). See 1 Corinthians 5:9-11. Therefore the following questions are very relevant to his post. Does the NT contradicts itself? Was Paul a false apostle of Christ? Were some of the narratives about Christ false and/or was Christ wrong in some of his actions and/or teachings?

Notice that in 1 Corinthians 5:9-11 (ASV) Paul tells Christians to "have no company with fornicators" in regards to any man who is "named a brother", likewise in regards to those named a brother who is "an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner". Regarding all of them Paul (at verse 11 [ASV]) says "I write unto you not to keep company ... with such a one no, not to eat."

In 2 Corinthians chapter 11 Paul warns against listening to those Christians who preach a different gospel than his. Likewise the JW/WT's governing body warns JWs against listening to those who preach a different gospel than that of the WT. In verses 13-15 Paul warns against listening to men whom Paul says "are false apostles, deceitful workers". In that category Paul is including those whom Paul says are ministers of Satan who "fashion themselves as ministers of righteousness"; and Paul says "even Satan fashioneth himself into an angel of light". The JW/WT governing body warns JWs from listening to those whom the governing body calls apostates, even saying that such ones are deceptive liars. The JW governing body is thus acting like Paul, when the governing body says not to listen those Christians who contradict what the the governing body claims is doctrinal truth.

What about Charles Russell and the WT's governing body? Russell publicly debated some of those that were "claiming to be Jehovah’s representatives" and Russell "criticized their interpretation of scripture". The WT/JW and its governing body in there literature (and in their video broadcasts) criticizes many interpretations of scripture held held by numerous theologians (and other teachers) of Christianity. If the WT/JW and its governing body are wrong in those teachings and actions, then what about Paul? Was he also wrong in some of his teachings and actions?

78

Do you believe in ghosts?

by Country Girl in

jw
friends

i am posting this because i know there are many people that have had experiences that cannot be explained by natural means.

i am a ghost hunter, as a hobby.

my hobby is to disprove ghosts.

Disillusioned JW

enoughisenough, while you were sleepy you probably experienced a type of dream (or hallucination) - even if it was tactile only. Though you thought you were not quite asleep, you might have been asleep, or perhaps part of your mind was awake and part your mind was asleep.

I never had the sensation of any spirit being cozying up to me.

78

Do you believe in ghosts?

by Country Girl in

jw
friends

i am posting this because i know there are many people that have had experiences that cannot be explained by natural means.

i am a ghost hunter, as a hobby.

my hobby is to disprove ghosts.

Disillusioned JW

I did a search on this site to see what people think about whether ghosts exist or not and as a result I found this old topic thread. I never ever experienced anything supernatural - nothing which I ever concluded was supernatural, yet I know people who claim to have had experiences which are hard to explain by naturalistic reasons. I've seen TV episodes in which people make extraordinary claims, but I don't believe that anything supernatural happened. Something else must have happened instead. I think that in many cases people's minds played tricks on them. I other cases I think people have faulty memories of what happened. In other cases I think people outright lied about what happened, or that someone played a hoax on them.

I think a high percentage of people in the world are delusional, in regards to them having hallucinated (or dreaming) and being convinced that they experienced something supernatural instead, such as their thinking they experienced spirit being activity.

I don't believe in ghosts or spirits and I don't believe in an afterlife.

The first post at https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/15056/no-such-thing-ghosts might explain a lot of peoples' experiences.

20

Is the WT right that the Lamb's marriage is after Armageddon?

by Kosonen in

the wt org claims that the lamb's marriage will happen after armageddon, despite the fact that revelation 19 very clearly says that the lamb's marriage happens after the destruction of babylon the great.

and that after the lamb's marriage he with heavenly armies will go to destroy the wicked.. the wt claims that the order of events in revelation 19 is not really in that order referring to psalm 45. but i can't find in psalm 45 any explicit contradiction to revelation 19. .

paragraph 10 in the following article shows the wt org's view point:.

Disillusioned JW

ThomasMore, huh? When I wrote of possible past life on Mars I meant that Mars in the distant past (when there was ample liquid water on Mars) might have had microbial life.

20

Is the WT right that the Lamb's marriage is after Armageddon?

by Kosonen in

the wt org claims that the lamb's marriage will happen after armageddon, despite the fact that revelation 19 very clearly says that the lamb's marriage happens after the destruction of babylon the great.

and that after the lamb's marriage he with heavenly armies will go to destroy the wicked.. the wt claims that the order of events in revelation 19 is not really in that order referring to psalm 45. but i can't find in psalm 45 any explicit contradiction to revelation 19. .

paragraph 10 in the following article shows the wt org's view point:.

Disillusioned JW

If the book of Revelation is inspired by YHWH God (hypothetically speaking) does it even matter if people know in advance the timing of the Lamb's marriage? In other words, is there is any benefit for any humans to know such a detail, other than satisfying some curiosity?

People are welcome to contemplate it and to debate it, but lately I have lost much interest in trying to figure out fine (that is, precise) details of Bible and the Apocrypha. Lately I have also lost a lot of interest in even learning particulars of the messages of the Bible and the Apocrypha. I have even lost much interest in a general study of the Bible and the Apocrypha - and in debating various interpretations (or understandings) of the Bible and the Apocrypha. Regarding study of the Bible and of theology, I have returned to my degree of interest of studying them to that which I had when I was 10 or 8 years old. Or, maybe right now it is even less than when I was those ages, since when I was 8 to 10 years old I at least believed in the Bible and in the biblical God (and I became enrolled in the theocratic ministry school at age 8), whereas now I am an atheist and a naturalist.

For me, a large part of that is because I am a scientific naturalist and I thus have a much greater interest in matters which are testable and/or readily observable (such as efforts by NASA to send people to the moon and to Mars, and efforts to discover evidence of possible past life and possible present life on Mars and elsewhere beyond Earth). I am also more interested in learning knowledge which has the potential to benefit me in definite practical ways, such as financially and in regards to health. I now have very meager interest in debating, or discussing, theology with people. But I wish you folks well.

Revelation is a very hard book to accurately and fully understand, even if hypothetically speaking it is true. Those of you who wish to study it, may you enjoy doing so. But, I no longer take the book of Revelation seriously.

38

Replacing God?

by punkofnice in

we seem to be if a more secular society here in the west, these days.

i'm speaking from the uk.. with the lack of belief in god/s, i'm wondering if all the seeming (note: i said seeming!

), deification of people like greta thunberg, george floyd and celebs amongst others, if people who have no real belief system, are filling the gap left by god with people?.

Disillusioned JW

Hello punkofnice. In an earlier post when I asked if you disbelieve what you were taught in our school courses (especially science courses) it was for multiple reasons. The following are the reasons.

(1) I was wondering if like me you accepted as true everything (or virtually everything) you were taught in those courses.

(2) When I took the courses I saw no reason to doubt or disbelieve anything which was taught in them, with one exception. The one exception is that sadly because of the WT's influence I had high uncertainty about whether the high school biology textbook was correct in saying that biological evolution is true. (I wish that exception had not existed in my mind.) I believed everything the physics books, the chemistry books, the history books, the electronics books, the health and physical fitness books, the personal finance (or economics) book, the world history book [except about human evolution in prehistory, due to the WT's influence], the USA history books, and the other textbooks said. I did not know of any information which contradicted what they said (other than regarding evolution).

(3) What I was taught in the various textbooks was what was considered established facts and I was in school to learn facts and well supported theories and to become educated. I wanted to grow in knowledge and learn truths and I thought a great way to do such was by studying books, including textbooks. I also wanted to get very good grades in school.

(4) Today the widespread consensus (that is agreement) of climate scientists that human caused climate change is now taking place is now scientifically an established fact. That established fact is now taught in physical geology textbooks. For example see https://opentextbc.ca/geology/part/chapter-19-climate-change/ which part of chapter in a college geology textbook. It says the following.

"A significant part of this chapter is about the natural processes of climate change and how they work. It’s critically important to be aware of those natural climate change processes if we want to understand anthropogenic climate change. First, this awareness helps us to understand why our activities are causing the present-day climate to change, and second, it allows us to distinguish between natural and anthropogenic processes in the climate record of the past 250 years." [The boldface in that quote is mine.]

See also https://opentextbc.ca/geology/chapter/19-1-what-makes-the-climate-change/ which says the following.

"There are two parts to climate change, the first one is known as climate forcing, which is when conditions change to give the climate a little nudge in one direction or the other. The second part of climate change, and the one that typically does most of the work, is what we call a feedback. When a climate forcing changes the climate a little, a whole series of environmental changes take place, many of which either exaggerate the initial change (positive feedbacks), or suppress the change (negative feedbacks).

An example of a climate-forcing mechanism is the increase in the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere that results from our use of fossil fuels. CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere and leads to climate warming. Warming changes vegetation patterns; contributes to the melting of snow, ice, and permafrost; causes sea level to rise; reduces the solubility of CO2 in sea water; and has a number of other minor effects. Most of these changes contribute to more warming. Melting of permafrost, for example, is a strong positive feedback because frozen soil contains trapped organic matter that is converted to CO2 and methane (CH4) when the soil thaws. Both these gases accumulate in the atmosphere and add to the warming effect. On the other hand, if warming causes more vegetation growth, that vegetation should absorb CO2, thus reducing the warming effect, which would be a negative feedback. Under our current conditions — a planet that still has lots of glacial ice and permafrost — most of the feedbacks that result from a warming climate are positive feedbacks and so the climate changes that we cause get naturally amplified by natural processes." [The boldface in the last sentence of the quote is mine.]

For another college geology textbook source see https://opengeology.org/textbook/15-global-climate-change/ and note what it says in chapter 15 under the section called "15.4 Anthropogenic Causes of Climate Change". It says in part the following.

"As shown in the previous section, prehistoric climate changes occur slowly over many millions of years. The climate changes observed today are rapid and largely human caused. ...

By the end of the 1900s and into the early 2000s, scientists solidified the Theory of Anthropogenic Climate Change when evidence from thousands of ground-based studies and continuous land and ocean satellite measurements mounted, revealing the expected temperature increase. The Theory of Anthropogenic Climate Change is that humans are causing most of the current climate changes by burning fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas. ...

The overwhelming majority of climate studies indicate that human activity is causing rapid changes to the climate, which will cause severe environmental damage. There is strong scientific consensus on the issue. Studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that climate warming is caused from human activities. There is no alternative explanation for the observed link between human-produced greenhouse gas emissions and changing modern climate. Most leading scientific organizations endorse this position, including the U.S. National Academy of Science, which was established in 1863 by an act of Congress under President Lincoln. Congress charged the National Academy of Science “with providing independent, objective advice to the nation on matters related to science and technology.” Therefore, the National Academy of Science is the leading authority when it comes to policy advice related to scientific issues.

One way we know that the increased greenhouse gas emissions are from human activities is with isotopic fingerprints. For example, fossil fuels, representing plants that lived millions of years ago, have a stable carbon-13 to carbon-12 (13C/12C) ratio that is different from today’s atmospheric stable-carbon ratio (radioactive 14C is unstable). Isotopic carbon signatures have been used to identify anthropogenic carbon in the atmosphere since the 1980s. Isotopic records from the Antarctic Ice Sheet show stable isotopic signatures from ~1000 AD to ~1800 AD and a steady isotopic signature gradually changing since 1800, followed by a more rapid change after 1950 as burning of fossil fuels dilutes the CO2 in the atmosphere. These changes show the atmosphere as having a carbon isotopic signature increasingly more similar to that of fossil fuels.

... Unfortunately, despite scientific consensus, efforts to mitigate climate change require political action. Despite growing climate change concern, mitigation efforts, legislation, and international agreements have reduced emissions in some places, yet the less developed world’s continual economic growth has increased global greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, the years 2000 to 2010 saw the largest increases since 1970."

34

Our J.W friends still have issues with beards 2022??Why?

by Witness 007 in

our witness friend who during covid grew his beard has been hassled by elders who asked him "why" he chose to have facial growth.

he for real, had to give an answer why.

this is pharasees total rubbish.

Disillusioned JW

The WT's September 2022 study article (as shown in the JW website) called ' “Bringing the Many to Righteousness” ' shows the biblical Daniel wearing a beard in the New World paradise Earth and the caption to the illustration says the following. "How thrilling it will be to see Daniel, our loved ones, and many more “stand up” for their lot in the new world! (See paragraph 20)"

38

Replacing God?

by punkofnice in

we seem to be if a more secular society here in the west, these days.

i'm speaking from the uk.. with the lack of belief in god/s, i'm wondering if all the seeming (note: i said seeming!

), deification of people like greta thunberg, george floyd and celebs amongst others, if people who have no real belief system, are filling the gap left by god with people?.

Disillusioned JW

Correction: Where I said "... my physics teacher and my chemistry made..." I meant to say "... my physics teacher and my chemistry teacher made ...".

38

Replacing God?

by punkofnice in

we seem to be if a more secular society here in the west, these days.

i'm speaking from the uk.. with the lack of belief in god/s, i'm wondering if all the seeming (note: i said seeming!

), deification of people like greta thunberg, george floyd and celebs amongst others, if people who have no real belief system, are filling the gap left by god with people?.

Disillusioned JW

Hello punkofnice, I noticed you said "10 renowned scientists say a thing is 'so'. Another 10 renowned scientists say it 'isn't so'. Who do you believe?" I believe that the climate scientists who say human caused climate change is real are correct in saying such. I believe that because of the following.

The information I read regarding the percentage of climate scientists who are convinced that human caused climate change is real is not anything like 50% pro and 50% con. It is 97% (or more) of them being convinced it is real. It is thus not at all a hard decision for me to make as to whether I should believe the view of the nay saying climate scientists instead of the scientists who say it is real. Furthermore, I am persuaded by the evidence and reasoning which I have read and listened to by scientists who are convinced that climate change is real and that is being caused by human activity.

For evidence of the very high percentage of climate scientists who are convinced that human caused climate is for real consider the following at https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/ .

"Do scientists agree on climate change?

Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world."

Consider also that https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-agree-humans-caused-climate-change says the following regarding those who are experts about climate change.

"More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.

The research updates a similar 2013 paper revealing that 97% of studies published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that human activities are altering Earth’s climate."

Why should either of us disbelieve that the virtually unanimous view of climate scientists, ones who published peer-reviewed scientific papers on climate change? It is not anything like deciding between 10 renowned scientists on side of the issue versus 10 renowned scientists on the opposite of the issue. Yet sadly (from my point of view) the article says the following is the case among the general public, despite the now virtually unanimous view of climate scientists.

"In spite of such results, public opinion polls as well as opinions of politicians and public representatives point to false beliefs and claims that a significant debate still exists among scientists over the true cause of climate change. In 2016, the Pew Research Center found that only 27% of U.S. adults believe that “almost all” scientists agreed that climate change is due to human activity, according to the paper."

Perhaps since NASA and Cornell University are located in the USA, and since you are in the UK, you don't trust what they said in the words I quoted above. Very well, consider what ESA (European Space Agency) says at https://climate.esa.int/en/ . There it says "Scientific evidence for warming of the climate is unequivocal (IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, 2013)". Furthermore, at https://climate.esa.int/en/evidence/what-is-climate-and-climate-change/ it says the following.

'Over the last 800,000 years, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have fluctuated in response to glacial and interglacial periods, but have not exceeded 300 ppm. In the last century, however, due to industrialisation and fossil fuel combustion, carbon dioxide concentrations have increased at an unprecedented rate, and now exceed 400 ppm.

The Earth's climate is warming due to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concludes in its Special Report: Global Warming of 1.5°C, that “Human-induced warming reached approximately 1°C (above pre-industrial levels) in 2017, increasing at around 0.2°C per decade”. The amounts of snow and ice on the planet have diminished, and sea level rise is accelerating (WMO Statement on the State of the Global Climate, 2019).'

See also the chart at the chart (at https://climate.esa.int/en/evidence/what-is-climate-and-climate-change/ ) which pertains to the above quoted two paragraphs.

Furthermore,it is not just NASA and ESA which are convinced that climate change is a problem. Numerous member nations of the United Nations also recognize it. Notice that the above article of ESA also says the following. "To tackle climate change, countries have agreed under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that prevents dangerous interference with the climate system."

I notice you also said the following. "I was taught Evolution. Is that true? Should they have taught Creation? Islam?" My answer is that Evolution is true. I thought you also believe in evolution since I thought you are now an atheist (or agnostic), but perhaps I was mistaken by having that idea about you.

Both cosmological evolution and biological evolution (including human evolution) happened. Creation (in the since of Creationism) should not be taught in a science class in a secular school, except that it is appropriate that make a brief description of it in a science textbook so that the evolution can be compared to it. I have some secular science textbooks on biology and historical geology which do such. Islam, or any other religion, should not be taught in a science class in a secular school except as part of course in sociology (in which various religions are compared) and as part of a course of social anthropology (in a segment about comparative religion). I have secular college textbooks which do so. Religion can also be taught in passing in history courses as it relates the historical events.

I notice you said the following. "Now. what are your thoughts on Evolution being taught at my school back in the 1970's?" I believe that was a good thing. Evolution was taught in the textbook of a required 1 quarter (one fourth of one school year) biology course in my high school in the US when I took the course in the early 1980s (but at the end of the course I got the impression that by biology teacher believed in creationism). I wish I had been permitted to take that textbook home to study it at home, because if I had I might would believed in evolution back then and thus might not would have got baptized. [I got baptized about 1 year after I took the course - my physics teacher and my chemistry made a joint statement to a science class of mine saying that they determined that evolution is false.]

I plan to discuss some of your other comments after Thursday, since I will have much more free time from Friday through Sunday (since I don't work on those days). Right now it is well past my bed time and I need to get some sleep before i go to work tomorrow.