Posts by Disillusioned JW

142

Panpsychism - a philosophy with a future

by slimboyfat in

at one time scientists believed that living things and non-living things were made of different material, accounting for the unique properties of living things.

this idea is called vitalism and is no longer popular.

what does remain popular (in fact is still the dominant view) is a similar idea that things that experience the world (humans, frogs, mice) are different from things that don't experience the world (potatoes, rocks, snowflakes).

Disillusioned JW

I think panpsychism (in some sense) is an intriguing and plausible concept.

1

Examples of the WT Mishandling/Misrepresenting Quotes of Jewish Publications

by Disillusioned JW in

page 257 of the wt's 1965 book called "things in which it is impossible for god to lie" quotes from the jewish encyclopedia (edition of 1909) regarding the trinity doctrine.

the first edition of 1901-1906 likely has the same text as the 1909 edition and the text of the 1901-1906 edition (in the article about the trinity) can be read online at https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/14519-trinity.

the wt begins its quote with the phrase "the concept" but the words replaced with "..." say "the fundamental dogma of christianity;".

Disillusioned JW

Page 257 of the WT's 1965 book called "Things In Which It Is Impossible For God To Lie" quotes from the Jewish Encyclopedia (edition of 1909) regarding the Trinity doctrine. The first edition of 1901-1906 likely has the same text as the 1909 edition and the text of the 1901-1906 edition (in the article about the Trinity) can be read online at https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/14519-trinity. The WT begins its quote with the phrase "the concept" but the words replaced with "..." say "The fundamental dogma of Christianity;". The WT thus disguised the idea that according to the Jewish source the Trinity doctrine is the fundamental dogma of Christianity - not just of what the WT calls Christendom. The WT quotes the section that cites 2 Corinthians 13:14 but doesn't mention the following sentence from the Jewish source. The following sentence in the Jewish Encyclopedia is "Although the Judæo-Christian sect of the Ebionites protested against this apotheosis of Jesus ("Clementine Homilies," xvi. 15), the great mass of Gentile Christians accepted it." Granted the WT might have left out that sentence due to the WT possibly disagreeing with that sentence, but by leaving out that sentence the WT gave a very different impression to the WT's readers than what the Jewish Encyclopedia taught about early Christian belief.

Towards the bottom of page 207 of the WT's book the WT makes it sound like the Jewish Encyclopedia wrote specifically about 'the controversies between the Trinitarians of Christendom and the Jews concerning the "Trinity" ' (instead of about all Christians concerning the Trinity) and the WT begins a quote in mid sentence in that regard. But notice that the Jewish source begins the sentence with the phrase of "The controversies between the Christians and the Jews concerning the Trinity" just before saying the word "centered". That also disguises what the Jewish source said about the extent of Christian belief in the Trinity.

Before readers of WT literature accept a quote by the WT of a non-WT source as being authoritative and proving the WT's point, they should first read the context of the quote of the non-WT source.

44

Poll: Atheists overwhelmingly oppose the death penalty, but most Christians favor it

by Disillusioned JW in

see https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2021/06/16/poll-atheists-overwhelmingly-oppose-the-death-penalty-most-christians-favor-it/ .

i am an atheist and i disapprove of the death penalty.

i remember michael dukakis, when he was a usa presidential candidate, saying i he was opposed to the death penalty - even for rapists and murderers.

Disillusioned JW

When slavery was in existence there wasn't enough atheists in any slave holding country for the atheists by themselves to bring about an end to slavery. However in the USA there were freethinkers (including atheists) who were very outspoken against slavery. Virtually all of the slaveholders in the southern USA were Christians. The Baptist church (and others, such the Presbyterians) split over the issue of slavery of blacks. The southern congregations (at least a high percentage of them) of the Baptist church sided for the right to own black slaves and such is part of the history of the Southern Baptist Convention (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Baptist_Convention ) - the largest Protestant denomination in the USA (see https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/22538281/southern-baptist-convention-ed-litton-sex-abuse-critical-race-theory ).

In one of the Apostle Paul's letters (or at least one written in his name) which is in the Bible, Paul wrote that he sent an escaped slave (who converted to Christianity after his escape) back to his Christian master (see Philemon 1:10-20). In another letter Paul wrote that slaves must be obedient to their masters.

Those Christians who ended slavery in the USA were mostly the ones who were more theologically liberal and progressive (such as the Quakers and Abraham Lincoln, except I'm not sure if Lincoln was really a Christian) than the pro-slavery Christians.

Frederick Douglass (an escaped slave who obtained his freedom and was later appointed to federal government office) in his autobiography said the church going Christian slaveholders were more brutal towards their slaves than the ones not claiming to be Christians (or maybe than the ones who were less devout as Christians). Along these lines, see https://www.pbs.org/thisfarbyfaith/people/frederick_douglass.html which says the following. 'In an appendix to his autobiography, Narrative of the Life of an American Slave, published in 1845, Douglass clarified that he was not opposed to all religion, but only the Christianity of a slaveholding America: "I love the pure, peaceable, and impartial Christianity of Christ: I therefore hate the corrupt, slaveholding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial and hypocritical Christianity of this land. Indeed, I can see no reason, but the most deceitful one, for calling the religion of this land Christianity. I look upon it as the climax of all misnomers, the boldest of all frauds, and the grossest of all libels…" '

For more information about Douglass see https://www.nps.gov/museum/exhibits/douglass/visionary.html and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Douglass . The latter source says: "Without his permission, Douglass became the first African-American nominated for Vice President of the United States as the running mate and Vice Presidential nominee of Victoria Woodhull, on the Equal Rights Party ticket."

156

Remembering Rutherford

by Sea Breeze in

he seems to me to be the angriest and most ill-tempered of all the wt presidents, especially after his stint in prison and failed prophecies.. “regarding his misguided statements as to what we could expect in 1925, he [rutherford] once confessed to us at bethel, “i made an ass of myself.”” watchtower 1984 oct 1 p.24.

rutherford died at beth sarim on january 8, 1942, at the age of 72.

[220] cause of death was...carcinoma of the rectum..."[21] .

Disillusioned JW

Wow TD, that is an excellent point you made about the power of illustrations. It reminds me of something I saw yesterday which I planned to post about. See http://www.strictlygenteel.co.uk/preparation/preparation6.html which has an illustration on page 138 of Rutherford's book called Preparation. A direct link to the illustration is at http://www.strictlygenteel.co.uk/preparation/prepimages/p137.gif . It shows JWs (specifically of the anointed class?) inside of Christ's robe (I think) and appearing to be walking out of it (I think), with some standing outside of it. They are carrying books, probably WT books written by Rutherford. In at least one full color illustration in one of Rutherford's books the JWs (with the backing of Christ the king and of Jehovah) are holding up what are clearly books by Rutherford (of the so-called "rainbow" series due to the colors of the hardcovers). See http://www.strictlygenteel.co.uk/enemies/enemiesimages/p192b.jpg . That illustration also depicts a portable phonograph player with a record on the player, presumably one of Rutherford's records. The pope depicted in the illustration has the tongue of a serpent (or other reptile) and as having his head sticking out of the mouth of a reptile (probably a serpent).

Thanks for telling me about Jan Haugland.

Rockeman123, I was not "... saying that people who were baptized and fully active as a JWS cant awake to new found information that slowly changes their thinking about what they have been taught or persuaded to preach door to door." I also was not trying to convey such. I just thought it would have been obvious to anyone who was raised from infancy as a JW starting from the late 1950s and continuing for about 20 years, that the WT had made numerous failed predictions and numerous doctrinal changes. I thought that if someone saw that and was also the type person to consider such as being evidence of being a false prophet, then they/he/she would have left the religion before the mid 1980s. But I now realize I was wrong about that, especially since the mid 1980s wasn't long after the year 1975.

My perspective was different from yours. I was born after you, but even while a child in 1975 I knew of the WT's prediction about 1975 (including in regards to October) and when I got baptized years later (in the early 1980s) I also knew of some doctrinal changes. I knew of the latter because when the WT introduced a new doctrinal change they mentioned what the old doctrine was (at least partially). But I never thought of them as claiming to literally be a prophet (at least in anything they wrote from the 1950s onward), for the reasons I stated in other posts - though I thought about that idea carefully. However they did come as close as possible to claiming to literally be a prophet without going all the way of literally claiming to be a prophet, and perhaps that should be enough to condemn them (especially considering their policy regarding those whom they label as apostates for disagreeing with them). But I have a strong tendency to interpret statements literally and thus I didn't interpret them as claiming to be a prophet.

The WT gave reasons for the month of October in regards to their 1914 and 1975 dates and for the month that the creative days were thought to begin in. I think one of the reasons had to do with calendars of a number ancient cultures (including that of the Hebrews?) starting in the fall (I think). It should be noted that long before Russell was born James Ussher said that the first day of creation was Sunday 23 October 4004 BC. See https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/ussher.htm . He was wrong but his idea was very influential among fundamentalist-like creationist Christians.

156

Remembering Rutherford

by Sea Breeze in

he seems to me to be the angriest and most ill-tempered of all the wt presidents, especially after his stint in prison and failed prophecies.. “regarding his misguided statements as to what we could expect in 1925, he [rutherford] once confessed to us at bethel, “i made an ass of myself.”” watchtower 1984 oct 1 p.24.

rutherford died at beth sarim on january 8, 1942, at the age of 72.

[220] cause of death was...carcinoma of the rectum..."[21] .

Disillusioned JW

minimus, I might continue to defend the WT organization on certain matters (even after doing extensive research on those matters, for my commitment is to that which I consider to be truthful, whether the information is pro-WT or anti-WT), but I also criticize them on certain other matters. For examples of the latter consider the following.

I say they are wrong for believing that the Bible is the word of Jehovah God (or of any god), for I am convinced that no personal god exists (at least in relation to humans on Earth and even in regards to our universe). I disagree that blood transfusions (in which the donors of the blood are giving their consent to save human lives) are in conflict with the Bible's teaching. I disagree that Christ began ruling in 1914 (C.E./A.D.). I even disagree that Jesus Christ, or any supernatural Christ exists (however there have been those, and there might be those, who have received an anointing in a nonsupernatural sense). I believe it is wrong for the WT to have handled numerous quotes the way they did, even if I think I they believed they were justified to do so in that way. I intensely disapprove of their requiring JWs to believe everything the WT teaches on religious matters, knowing that the WT is a largely unreliable source for correct interpretations of the Bible (especially in regards to theology). I am appalled by their former use of Greber's NT 'translation' in support of the wordings of some of the verses in the NWT, especially considering that earlier they sharply condemned Greber's NT 'translation' as being as being inspired by the demons. [By the way, note my use of quote marks around the word "translation", thereby suggesting that I think Greber's book might not have been truly a translation of the NT.] I am appalled by their former status as an NGO of the UN, considering what they have said about the need to be no part of glorifying the UN and to be no part of the UN.

I intend to soon post negative comments about some recent discoveries I made in Rutherford's books called Preparation, Enemies, Religion, and Children, and what they reveal (to me at least) about the WT organization, not just about what they reveal about Rutherford. During the past few days the more I study the WT's old books the more negative I am becoming about the character of the WT organization, at least in regards to it's governing body and its writing department. But even now I still find it hard to believe that those currently taking the lead (and those who have done so in the past) of the JW religion and those on its team of writers don't believe in most of the teachings of the religion (though I think they might disbelieve some of the teachings, otherwise it would be hard to explain why teachings and policies often change considerably when a new person joins the governing body).

There is a difference in meaning for the phrase "false statement" and the word "lie". Some may make a false statement while believing it is a true statement. Someone doing so is being sincere and is thus not not lying, even if they are repeating the lie of someone else. But if one believes those people are lying then all people (other than those who don't speak and also don't write) are liars since we all have incorrect ideas and thus say incorrect things. A lie is false statement of specific type, namely one in which the person who told the false statement knew and/or believed/thought he/she was making a false statement and that it was done with the intention of deceiving (but not as a joke). [In a sense someone could even be lying while telling the truth if the person telling the truth thought he/she was telling a falsehood.] At least such has been my view since early childhood. From this view of mine it is very hard (at least for me) to know if someone is lying since it would require knowing if the person uttering the false statement knew he/she was uttering a false statement. Since I don't know the governing body members personally (nor the anonymous writers of the writing team) it is very hard for me to know if they are lying, instead of merely telling false statements which they sincerely consider to be true. However sometimes a person's (or an organization's) own literature will show he/she knew certain things to be true of which he/she later proclaimed the opposite to be true. It is granted though that people sometimes change their minds.

I found online a history of the WT at https://medium.com/@janhaugland/the-successor-problem-ed79df215f80 . I have only read a small percentage of its content but what I have read of it seems to be very well researched and very accurate. It appears to have useful information about the WT's history (and Rutherford's history). I wonder what caused Jan Haugland to have enough interest in Rutherford and the WT to motivate him to write the article.

156

Remembering Rutherford

by Sea Breeze in

he seems to me to be the angriest and most ill-tempered of all the wt presidents, especially after his stint in prison and failed prophecies.. “regarding his misguided statements as to what we could expect in 1925, he [rutherford] once confessed to us at bethel, “i made an ass of myself.”” watchtower 1984 oct 1 p.24.

rutherford died at beth sarim on january 8, 1942, at the age of 72.

[220] cause of death was...carcinoma of the rectum..."[21] .

Disillusioned JW

The WT didn't literally disregard Jesus' teaching of not knowing the "day and hour", since the WT craftily made predictions only of the year instead (though regarding the 1914 date it might have predicted the month also and maybe even the date of the month that the Gentile Times would end, but up to decades after the year 1914 the WT had been saying that Jesus had already returned in the 1870s and had already began ruling as king since the 1870s). But yes admittedly the words attributed to Jesus about the "day and hour" probably also apply to the year, especially if the words attributed to him are meant to apply to a time more than 1000 years after those words were first written.

Thanks though for informing me that you were raised a JW, however I am puzzled. If you believed from before the 1980s that the WT claimed to be a prophet and since you knew they got so many things wrong, why did you stay with them for so long? But, maybe you never became baptized as one and if so, then you were never fully/technically a JW. To me you write like you are someone who was never baptized as a JW, even if you were raised by JW parents. That is why I wondered if you were ever a JW. Even your recent post containing the claim of being a JW "from birth" sounds like the way people in many churches speak about themselves (other than claiming to be a JW). Unlike many churches JWs (and baptists) never baptize infants and thus people are never JWs from birth, though many people have been raised in the JW religion since birth. Admittedly though many unbaptized young people think of themselves as JWs and admittedly I had thought of myself as already a JW even before I was baptized as one. I guess I will cut you some slack on that point.

I had not read or heard that the WT now has buildings with swimming pools and tennis courts until reading your post (or if I did read such I hadn't given it much thought). In the mid or late 1990's an elder from my congregation told me that the governing body, even the President of the WT, take a vow of poverty and that their rooms at headquarters (Bethel) are only modest instead of lavish/expensive. I took his word to be true, especially since I hadn't found any proof to the opposite and since other JWs said that what I heard about the rooms of the governing body is true.

DNCall, thanks for the link but in my prior post of this topic thread I addressed that WT issue's use of the word "prophet", drawing attention to it very carefully (perhaps even craftily) having the word "prophet" in quote marks and the significance of having it in quote marks. If the word hadn't been in quote marks, then definitely the WT would have been saying all Christian JWs (not just the GB and not just the so-called anointed ones) are prophets, or one collective prophet as a group/class.

44

Poll: Atheists overwhelmingly oppose the death penalty, but most Christians favor it

by Disillusioned JW in

see https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2021/06/16/poll-atheists-overwhelmingly-oppose-the-death-penalty-most-christians-favor-it/ .

i am an atheist and i disapprove of the death penalty.

i remember michael dukakis, when he was a usa presidential candidate, saying i he was opposed to the death penalty - even for rapists and murderers.

Disillusioned JW

waton, I don't see a high tolerance for crime among atheists, anymore than among theists. Just because one is against police brutality (that is, brutality done by the police) and manslaughter and murder done by the police, and against the death penalty, that doesn't mean one is against arrests and prison sentences for criminals. Atheists are more likely to be humanists than theists (and many humanists during the past 100 years tend to define humanism in such a way as to exclude belief in theism) and humanism tends to be against killing humans who are outside the womb (namely of ones who have been born). But paradoxically (to me at least) humanism tends to be in favor of people having the right to kill humans that are still in the womb (human embryos and even human fetuses that are not yet born).

14

JW Science Quote Of The Day 8-27

by TD in

jw
friends

in the 1979 movie, "the china syndrome" there is a scene right after swat team members have retaken the control room from jack godell.

(jack lemon) kimberly wells (jane fonda) nervously whispers to richard adams, (michael douglas) "the reactor is the biggest bomb in there!

this reflected a belief, common in the 1970's that commercial nuclear reactors were capable of going up in a mushroom cloud like an atomic bomb.. although no one can deny that accidents and malfunctions at nuclear power plants can potentially be catastrophic, these reactors are not capable of a bomb-like reaction.

Disillusioned JW

Though you are correct in saying that thermonuclear is not the proper word to use for fission nuclear reactors, nonetheless fission nuclear reactors do generate enormous amounts of thermal energy (heat). That heat is then used to turn liquid water into steam to operate turbine electric generators which in turn generate electricity.

44

Poll: Atheists overwhelmingly oppose the death penalty, but most Christians favor it

by Disillusioned JW in

see https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2021/06/16/poll-atheists-overwhelmingly-oppose-the-death-penalty-most-christians-favor-it/ .

i am an atheist and i disapprove of the death penalty.

i remember michael dukakis, when he was a usa presidential candidate, saying i he was opposed to the death penalty - even for rapists and murderers.

Disillusioned JW

Rocketman123, the poll doesn't say that all atheists are against the death penalty but rather that an overwhelming majority of them are. Likewise it doesn't say that all Christians are for the death penalty but rather that most of them are. I probably should have made that more clear in the wording of my title for this topic thread, but instead I used nearly verbatim the wording of the atheist's article which I posted a link to.

44

Poll: Atheists overwhelmingly oppose the death penalty, but most Christians favor it

by Disillusioned JW in

see https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2021/06/16/poll-atheists-overwhelmingly-oppose-the-death-penalty-most-christians-favor-it/ .

i am an atheist and i disapprove of the death penalty.

i remember michael dukakis, when he was a usa presidential candidate, saying i he was opposed to the death penalty - even for rapists and murderers.

Disillusioned JW

Though generations become more conservative as they get older (except perhaps in the recent several years), the old people today are more liberal than old people of the same age group decades ago. Likewise people in their 20s and 30s today are more liberal than those in the same age groups decades ago. At least that is what polls of adult population of the USA say. Some of that change is attributed to access to information and ideas on the internet.

In my case while I was a teenager I was liberal regarding political views and human rights (despite being an active JW/[unbaptized JW]) and I have remained such, and in some aspects I have become even more liberal in those areas as I learned more. I also eventually became less "fundamentalist" and more theologically liberal in my interpretation of the Bible as a result of later reading what theologically liberal scholars of the Bible have written. After I learned more of the scientific evidence for biological evolution and the geological evidence that there was never a worldwide flood on Earth (at least not during the past 100 million years) I became an atheist and a philosophical naturalist.

I think the societal benefits that come from religious communities come from the promotion of standards of morality and ethics and the teaching of the benefits of such, as well as the promotion of some form of meditative and/or contemplative practice. I believe those characteristics can also be instilled in secular community organizations and in so-called nontheistic humanistic 'religions'. Two such 'religions' started by Jews (who were former rabbis, or who remained rabbis) are "Ethical Culture" and "Humanistic Judaism". Some people have called for "Humanistic Christianity" and even a nonsupernaturalistic "Secular Humanistic 'Christianity' ".

In my locality there is an ultra-liberal Presbyterian congregation in which one of the pastors is an atheist and he has announced to the congregation that he is an atheist. That congregation has allowed him to keep his position in the church. I visited the congregation one night when an atheist friend of mine (who is a medical doctor and a former Christian) gave a lecture there proving that science shows that biological evolution is true. The majority of the members of that congregation are elderly (including nearly all of those in attendance for the lecture about evolution). The focus of that congregation is not on theology but instead on other matters (I think it is on social justice matters). One pastor, minister, or elder of that congregation is a woman who said that Jesus was a man and never more than a man (never God or a god) and she referred to the findings of the Jesus Seminar. I think she is at least 50 years old.