Posts by Disillusioned JW

37

What are your personal reasons for hating the Jehovah's Witnesses religion ?

by Rocketman123 in

first thing comes to mind is that this organization through its leaders are not witnessing the true and honest version of the gospel teachings of jesus christ .. they are subjectively teaching/preaching a tainted version made up by the top controlling men of the organization, which i'm sure is connected to the proliferation and distribution of literature which these men publish themselves.

.

when jesus said that no one knows of the time not even he, he didn't say a select few will know .. the other thing that bothers me is this organization promotes human ignorance on many levels, admonishing education or knowledge that mankind needs for its very survival... there are many other religious organizations that do this as well but the jws is just one of these organizations.

Disillusioned JW

JESUSnameALONE, since you say that Jehovah is not the name of the father, who do you say YHWH/Yahweh/Jehovah Elohim/God is?

Folks, regarding the claim that the JW religion does not allow JWs to go to college is it really true? I know that the religion highly discourages JWs to attend college but I don't recall their literature forbidding attending college. My mom has been a baptized JW ever since a number of years prior to her marriage to my father (who was a JW when he got married and he was still one when he died). My mother attended college (but as far as I know my JW father never attended college) and didn't stop attending college until my sister was born. My sister and I became baptized while we were in high school and we both went to college upon graduating from high school (I even took two college courses before graduating from high school and one of those two courses was at my high school). We both got a full 4-year college/university degree (though neither or us managed to obtain much financial benefit from our degree). At age 19 and while in college full-time I was appointed a ministerial servant and I served as one for several years. If the WT now actually forbids JWs to get a college degree or to even attend college then I am shocked. If the WT actually now forbids it that is very bad and very sad.

My mom and others in the congregation we attended even used me as an example to other JWs in our congregation to show that going to college won't necessarily cause a JW to loose his faith and/or go bad. My mom highly values college education. She even sent college enrollment applications in my name (and for some time without my knowledge) to big name colleges across the nation, because she wanted me to go to the best college possible. Many years later I did loose my belief in the religion and later even in the god and the supernatural (but I didn't go bad morally or ethically, though JWs might think I went bad in regards to ceasing to be a JW), but it was not due to anything I learned or experienced as a college student (except maybe a tiny bit of what was taught to me in college). While in college I lived my in mom's home, rather than in a college dorm and I still participated in the congregation which I attended since around age 2 or so. While in college I avoided taking classes of the type which I thought would likely challenge my confidence in the Bible, but I now regret not taking those classes (physical anthropology, physical geology [since it would present evidence in favor of radiometric dating], historical geology [since it would present evidence for radiometric dating, including carbon dating, and fossil evidence for evolution], introduction to philosophy [where arguments against the existence of a god would likely be discussed], philosophy of religion, introductory biology [since it would present evidence and arguments for evolution], and an English course in the Bible as literature [since it might suggest that much of what is in the Bible never actually happened]).

28

Which English Translations of the Bible are you Favorites, and Why?

by Disillusioned JW in

which english translations of the bible are you favorites, and why?

my favorites include the (english) revised version bible (of 1881-1885) and its apocrypha (of 1898), the american revised version bible (of 1898, it close to the american standard version), the american standard version bible (of 1901), the new american standard bible - updated edition, the new revised standard version bible with the apocrypha, the complete bible: an american translation (it includes the apocrypha), and the twentieth century new testament.

i also use others beside those.. they are my favorites because i consider them to be highly accurate, and also they are either very literal (but not so literal as to be hard to understand) or they use functional equivalence.

Disillusioned JW

Correction: The Apocrypha of the Revised Version first came out in 1895 (or maybe in 1894) instead of in 1898.

28

Which English Translations of the Bible are you Favorites, and Why?

by Disillusioned JW in

which english translations of the bible are you favorites, and why?

my favorites include the (english) revised version bible (of 1881-1885) and its apocrypha (of 1898), the american revised version bible (of 1898, it close to the american standard version), the american standard version bible (of 1901), the new american standard bible - updated edition, the new revised standard version bible with the apocrypha, the complete bible: an american translation (it includes the apocrypha), and the twentieth century new testament.

i also use others beside those.. they are my favorites because i consider them to be highly accurate, and also they are either very literal (but not so literal as to be hard to understand) or they use functional equivalence.

Disillusioned JW

Which English Translations of the Bible are you Favorites, and Why? My favorites include the (English) Revised Version Bible (of 1881-1885) and its Apocrypha (of 1898), the American Revised Version Bible (of 1898, it close to the American Standard Version), the American Standard Version Bible (of 1901), the New American Standard Bible - Updated Edition, the New Revised Standard Version Bible with the Apocrypha, The Complete Bible: An American Translation (it includes the Apocrypha), and The Twentieth Century New Testament. I also use others beside those.

They are my favorites because I consider them to be highly accurate, and also they are either very literal (but not so literal as to be hard to understand) or they use functional equivalence. In the case of the latter four their language is much more modern than that used in the KJV and thus easier for me to understand. When I compare the text of the RV, ARV, and ASV with the KJV, to me the RV, ARV, and ASV are an improvement to the KJV. I also see significance to the Apocrypha and consider it scripture, thus I have Bible editions which include the Apocrypha. Another Bible I like is the Holman Christian Standard Bible. That Bible included the name "Yahweh multiple times" (about 70 times or so in later revisions) in the Old Testament, but when that Bible translation became revised and had the new name of Christian Standard Bible, the name "Yahweh" was unfortunately removed from the scripture text (except maybe it is there as a footnote). Naturally I also use the NWT, but during the past 15 years I mostly only use it in combination with the other books of the WT (or to look up a verse whose wording I most familiar with from the NWT since that is the Bible translation I used for most of my life).

47

The Evidence of Human Evolution keeps getting stronger and stronger

by Disillusioned JW in

despite the wt's and young earth creationists' teachings against human evolution (namely macroevolution from non-humans) being a reality, the evidence of human evolution keeps getting stronger and stronger.. consider for example two science news articles and one other science article, each pertaining to the fossil that is nicknamed "little foot".

below are links to three science articles, listed in order of the articles from oldest to newest (except i don't see a date for one of the articles).

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2187639-exclusive-controversial-skeleton-may-be-a-new-species-of-early-human/.

Disillusioned JW

While abiogenesis is not the same as biological evolution it is what scientists (especially ones which have a big history picture of the universe) call chemical evolution (or which is considered a part of what is called chemical evolution). Likewise there is what is called cosmological evolution. One astrophysicist, Eric Chaisson, has a book from 1981 called Cosmic Dawn: The Origins of Matter and Life and his revision (and enlargement) of it is called the Epic of Evolution: Seven Ages of the Cosmos. I wish I had read the first book before making the decision to get baptized since it probably would have made a difference in my life. I am very impressed by the latter book. The books are about the evolution (in the the broad sense of gradual change and even transmutation, such as transmutation of one atomic element into a another by nuclear fusion) of the universe. It includes cosmological evolution, chemical evolution, and biological evolution. His book also talks about cultural evolution.

Eric Chaisson also has a book, from 2001, called Cosmic Evolution: The Rise of Complexity in Nature. A brief description of the book from Wikipedia is the following. "It examines cosmic evolution which includes the history of natural evolution from the Big Bang to the present from the perspective of the emerging multi-scientific discipline of Big History.[2] It offers an explanation of why simple structures billions of years ago gave way to more complex structures, such as stars, planets, life, and human beings in complex civilizations.[2] It is written for a general audience interested in science." [See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_Evolution_(book) .]

17

"My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"

by Diogenesister in

can anyone remember the reasoning the watchtower gave for jesus speaking these words?

if you have a reference that would be even better!.

Disillusioned JW

Why do many evangelical apologists care about whether the physical body of Jesus was resurrected anyway, since they and other Christians believe they have an immortal soul which will go to heaven upon the death of their physical body and that it could be hundreds of years (or even countless thousands of years) before their physical body gets reunited with their spirit being?

The vast majority of Christians seem to give no thought to the idea of a future resurrection of their human body, since they imagine themselves as going to heaven as a spirit (without a fleshy body, though somehow looking like such a body in some way) and being in bliss in that state. It seems to me that Christians (and their denominations/sects) who believe/teach they will ascend to heaven as a spirit (and be in bliss as a spirit being in the company of the Lord Christ and the Lord God the Father [who is thought of as a spirit being without any fleshly or physical body]) should ditch the doctrine of a bodily resurrection (including of Jesus), as being a superfluous doctrine. They might as well embrace the Gnostic doctrine of the escape of the immortal spirit from the fleshly body (and without any resurrection of their fleshly body). [Or they might as well embrace the WT/JW doctrine pertaining to the 144,000 which says that such ones enter heaven as spirit beings and will never obtain a fleshy body (an idea which might explain why the Bible says Christ says that in the resurrection their is no marriage/marrying).] If they believe they will be extremely happy in heaven prior to their fleshy body becoming resurrected, then what benefit would they have in their fleshly body eventually becoming resurrected? According to virtually all of the churches (those which don't believe in 'soul sleep', the first Christians to enter heaven did so nearly 2,000 years ago and haven't yet had a bodily resurrection, so my question is: If that idea is true, hypothetically speaking, what benefit would such Christians get by later having their physical body resurrected? I see none.

47

The Evidence of Human Evolution keeps getting stronger and stronger

by Disillusioned JW in

despite the wt's and young earth creationists' teachings against human evolution (namely macroevolution from non-humans) being a reality, the evidence of human evolution keeps getting stronger and stronger.. consider for example two science news articles and one other science article, each pertaining to the fossil that is nicknamed "little foot".

below are links to three science articles, listed in order of the articles from oldest to newest (except i don't see a date for one of the articles).

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2187639-exclusive-controversial-skeleton-may-be-a-new-species-of-early-human/.

Disillusioned JW

For me, the evidence is strong for the punctuated equilibrium theory of how macroevolution usually takes place, at least in regards to the idea that speciation events tend to take place in an isolated very small subset of the population.That is why those fossils are especially hard to find. But the genetic code in every living species contains a 'fossilized' genetic record of its evolutionary ancestry.

47

The Evidence of Human Evolution keeps getting stronger and stronger

by Disillusioned JW in

despite the wt's and young earth creationists' teachings against human evolution (namely macroevolution from non-humans) being a reality, the evidence of human evolution keeps getting stronger and stronger.. consider for example two science news articles and one other science article, each pertaining to the fossil that is nicknamed "little foot".

below are links to three science articles, listed in order of the articles from oldest to newest (except i don't see a date for one of the articles).

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2187639-exclusive-controversial-skeleton-may-be-a-new-species-of-early-human/.

Disillusioned JW

See also http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/anthropology/science-little-foot-australopithecus-prometheus-sterkfontein-cave-south-africa-02656.html . To me the fossil remains of the Little Foot fossil have relative limb proportions and skull proportions more similar to our species than does the Lucy fossil in comparison to our species. However the somewhat divergent aspect of Little Foot's big toe is less like our species than is the big toe of Lucy's species in comparison to our species. To me the facial reconstruction shown at the above article looks more like own species than do the ones of Lucy's species.

The above article mentions the dating method which was used and the significance of that dating method. I found that very interesting.

27

What aspects do you view most favorably about the WT and/or its religion?

by Disillusioned JW in

even if you disapprove of much about the wt and/or its religion, what aspects do you view most favorably about the wt and/or its religion?

for me one of the things i view most favorably about the wt and its religion is its extremely strong insistence that jws never intentionally kill another human being.

i especially appreciate that regarding those who have been born, but i think some abortions of human embryos might be justifiable.

Disillusioned JW

Sea Breeze my views about the subject of whether the Bible teaches that Christians must not kill humans (including in wars between nations), as stated in my previous posts, were greatly the result of the WT's teachings on the topic. Furthermore the primary scriptural verse which I based my view upon was Matthew 26:52. But a post of yours in this topic thread did get me thinking about whether there are any biblical verses which indicate that Christians should never take up the sword (or use deadly force) against another human. As a result I researched the matter in other commentaries (and in annotations of other study Bibles) than the ones I quoted from in this topic thread. As result of such research I now think that Matthew 26:52 does not indicate that Christians should refrain from being in a police force or even in a military. Also a number of verses referred to by you and others in this topic thread are ones which I am aware of as being problematic for the idea that Christians must not be in a military. Furthermore, some other verses were mentioned in this topic thread which I likely had not thought of before in regards to whether Christians, according to words attributed to Jesus Christ, can be in a military.

It now seems to me that Matthew 26:52 is speaking of those who use deadly force against humans in unlawful ways (ways which violate the laws of human governments), including (but not likely exclusively) against police officers and established governmental military personnel of one's own community (or nation).

However, there are statements in the Bible attributed to Jesus Christ which strongly encourage the followers of Jesus Christ to be nonviolent in regards to fellow humans. These statements include ones about the meek and peacemakers being happy/blessed and becoming called sons/children of God as result and inheriting the the Earth and the kingdom of/from heaven (and of God) (see Matthew 5:5-12), loving one's enemies (and even praying for them) and about turning the other cheek (see Matthew 5:43-48 and Luke 6:27-36), and about loving one's brother.

47

The Evidence of Human Evolution keeps getting stronger and stronger

by Disillusioned JW in

despite the wt's and young earth creationists' teachings against human evolution (namely macroevolution from non-humans) being a reality, the evidence of human evolution keeps getting stronger and stronger.. consider for example two science news articles and one other science article, each pertaining to the fossil that is nicknamed "little foot".

below are links to three science articles, listed in order of the articles from oldest to newest (except i don't see a date for one of the articles).

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2187639-exclusive-controversial-skeleton-may-be-a-new-species-of-early-human/.

Disillusioned JW

mickbobcat which questions do you have mind that are not answered by evolution?

47

The Evidence of Human Evolution keeps getting stronger and stronger

by Disillusioned JW in

despite the wt's and young earth creationists' teachings against human evolution (namely macroevolution from non-humans) being a reality, the evidence of human evolution keeps getting stronger and stronger.. consider for example two science news articles and one other science article, each pertaining to the fossil that is nicknamed "little foot".

below are links to three science articles, listed in order of the articles from oldest to newest (except i don't see a date for one of the articles).

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2187639-exclusive-controversial-skeleton-may-be-a-new-species-of-early-human/.

Disillusioned JW

Despite the WT's and young Earth creationists' teachings against human evolution (namely macroevolution from non-humans) being a reality, the evidence of human evolution keeps getting stronger and stronger.

Consider for example two science news articles and one other science article, each pertaining to the fossil that is nicknamed "Little Foot". Below are links to three science articles, listed in order of the articles from oldest to newest (except I don't see a date for one of the articles).

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2187639-exclusive-controversial-skeleton-may-be-a-new-species-of-early-human/

https://www.maropeng.co.za/content/page/little-foot

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/painstaking-study-little-foot-fossil-sheds-light-human-origins-rcna325

The fossil is now dated to being 3.67 million years old - "more than a million years older than previously thought" - and it is more complete than the famous fossil which has been named "Lucy". "Little Foot" is a very impressive fossil of the genus Australopithecus!