i was having a casual conversation with a jw family member yesterday and he mentioned some documentary he had recently watched about the catholic church and its cover up of the child sexual abuse scandal in ireland.
he commented that the church is losing the political influence and control it once had in ireland and that the bible (revelation) prophesised that before the end, people would turn away from babylon the great (false religion).. .
i disagreed and said that i saw no evidence that people are turning away from religion on a global level.
Although looking at those figures, they does not seem to differentiate between fundamentalist and evangelical Christians and more moderate cultural Chrisitans. It is possible that fundamentalist/evangelicals are increasing in numbers but this is offset by the greater reductions in more moderate Christians.
I am just speculating though.
Reminds me of a conversatin I had once with some friends. They all identified themselves as Christian apart from one insisted he was not Christian but Catholic.
i was having a casual conversation with a jw family member yesterday and he mentioned some documentary he had recently watched about the catholic church and its cover up of the child sexual abuse scandal in ireland.
he commented that the church is losing the political influence and control it once had in ireland and that the bible (revelation) prophesised that before the end, people would turn away from babylon the great (false religion).. .
i disagreed and said that i saw no evidence that people are turning away from religion on a global level.
Well, I'm actually glad to be wrong on this one.
Still sucks a bit tha I'll have to email my family member correcting my previous email.
Funnily enough, I never receive any retractions or corrections from him which makes me all the more determined to be as intellectually honest as I can be in our discussions.
Perhaps fundamentalists are a shrinking but increasingly vocal group in the USA and hence my perception that religiosty was on the rise in America.
Interesting that religious fundamentalists are actually declining as a group (if not in political influence) over there.
i was having a casual conversation with a jw family member yesterday and he mentioned some documentary he had recently watched about the catholic church and its cover up of the child sexual abuse scandal in ireland.
he commented that the church is losing the political influence and control it once had in ireland and that the bible (revelation) prophesised that before the end, people would turn away from babylon the great (false religion).. .
i disagreed and said that i saw no evidence that people are turning away from religion on a global level.
sorry, my typos are terrible. I really should take the time to read what I'm about to post before hitting the 'submit' button
i was having a casual conversation with a jw family member yesterday and he mentioned some documentary he had recently watched about the catholic church and its cover up of the child sexual abuse scandal in ireland.
he commented that the church is losing the political influence and control it once had in ireland and that the bible (revelation) prophesised that before the end, people would turn away from babylon the great (false religion).. .
i disagreed and said that i saw no evidence that people are turning away from religion on a global level.
Exactly, you can't use anecdotal evidence and extrapolate it across the global to support the (preconceived) conclusion the people are turning away from religion.
Yes, religion is on the decline in some areas.
I don't have any figures, but I suspect religiousity is a increasing on a global level because developing countries account for the majority of the world's population growth and developing countries tend to have more religious/superstitious populations.
Either way, the burden of proof lies with the Watchtower becase it is the Watcthower that is making the positive assertion that people are turning away from religion around the globe. I don't see any strong evidence to support that.
I am open minded though and always open to being wrong.
i was having a casual conversation with a jw family member yesterday and he mentioned some documentary he had recently watched about the catholic church and its cover up of the child sexual abuse scandal in ireland.
he commented that the church is losing the political influence and control it once had in ireland and that the bible (revelation) prophesised that before the end, people would turn away from babylon the great (false religion).. .
i disagreed and said that i saw no evidence that people are turning away from religion on a global level.
I have also wrote a short critique of the Watchtower’s article on ‘Babylon the Great’ found on its website: http://www.watchtower.org/e/bh/appendix_12.htm
I opted not to send because I am not not really biblically literate so any mistakes would just undermine my argument. But I thought I'd post it here any way.
Watchtower article words are in italics:
The book of Revelation contains expressions that are not to be understood literally. (Revelation 1:1) For example, it mentions a woman with the name “Babylon the Great” written on her forehead. This woman is said to be sitting on “crowds and nations.” (Revelation 17:1, 5, 15) Since no literal woman could do this, Babylon the Great must be symbolic. So, what does this symbolic harlot represent?
It is possible that woman referred to is a literal person but that ‘sitting on ‘the crowds and nations’ is symbolic or metaphorical. Why is this possibility not discussed even if just to dismis the idea.
At Revelation 17:18, the same figurative woman is described as “the great city that has a kingdom over the kings of the earth.” The term “city” indicates an organized group of people. Since this “great city” has control over “the kings of the earth,” the woman named Babylon the Great must be an influential organization that is international in scope. It can rightly be called a world empire. What kind of empire? A religious one. Notice how some related passages in the book of Revelation lead us to this conclusion.
I agree that it could refer to a 'world empire' but I don’t agree it must necessarily be religious in nature.
An empire can be political, commercial, or religious. The woman named Babylon the Great is not a political empire because God’s Word states that “the kings of the earth,” or the political elements of this world, “committed fornication” with her. Her fornication refers to the alliances she has made with the rulers of this earth and explains why she is called “the great harlot.”—Revelation 17:1, 2; James 4:4.
Why do political alliances preclude an empire from being political in nature? – The British Empire had many political alliances and was political in nature.
Babylon the Great cannot be a commercial empire because the “merchants of the earth,” representing the commercial elements, will be mourning her at the time of her destruction.
Why does the fact that ‘merchants of the earth’ will mourn the fall of an empire mean that the empire is not a commercial empire? This is a non sequitur which means the conclusion does not follow from the evidence.
In fact, merchants would be more likely to mourn the loss of ‘commercial empire’ because it would have a greater financial impact on them rather than the fall of a religious empire.
In fact, both kings and merchants are described as looking at Babylon the Great from “a distance.” (Revelation 18:3, 9, 10, 15-17) Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that Babylon the Great is, not a political or a commercial empire, but a religious one.
The Watchtower assumes that ‘distance’ is used metaphorically. Perhaps ‘distance’ is meant more literally and refers to geographical distance from the location of the author. Again, this possibility is not discussed even if only to explain why it is not valid.
This all just demonstrates that the Book of Revelation is so vague that it can be interpreted (some parts literally, some parts metaphorically, other parts symbolically) to fitalmost any preconceived belief one prefers.
I could just as easily interpret Revelation so that ‘Babylon the Great’ represents the USA:
True, the USA does not violently persecute and murder ‘Witnesses of Jesus’ but then, neither does the Catholic Church – evidently this part of the prophecy is yet to be fulfilled.
Of course, you will say – you just arbitrarily interpreted Revelation post hoc to fit a preconceived idea. And, indeed that is exactly what I have done. But, what makes the Watchtower’s interpretation any more legitimate than mine since they both fit the biblical text equally well?
The article then finishes off by saying that
‘Babylon the Great clearly represents the world empire of false religion, which includes all religions that stand in opposition to Jehovah God’.
But not all religions that oppose Jehovah are world wide empires with political alliances, that merchants would mourne the loss off and which actively persecutes Jehovah's Witnesses. The Watchtower’s conclusion does not even fit the argument it has constructed.
When you see how easily I can deconstruct an article like this, do you still dismiss my criticisms because I don’t have the right ‘heart condition’?
i was having a casual conversation with a jw family member yesterday and he mentioned some documentary he had recently watched about the catholic church and its cover up of the child sexual abuse scandal in ireland.
he commented that the church is losing the political influence and control it once had in ireland and that the bible (revelation) prophesised that before the end, people would turn away from babylon the great (false religion).. .
i disagreed and said that i saw no evidence that people are turning away from religion on a global level.
Hello all,
I was having a casual conversation with a JW family member yesterday and he mentioned some documentary he had recently watched about the Catholic Church and its cover up of the child sexual abuse scandal in Ireland.
He commented that the Church is losing the political influence and control it once had in Ireland and that the Bible (Revelation) prophesised that before the end, people would turn away from Babylon the Great (false religion).
I disagreed and said that I saw no evidence that people are turning away from religion on a global level. I pointed out the increasing religiosity in North America, the Catholic Church’s influence in South America and parts of Africa, the 1.5 billion Muslims (who show no signs of tending towards irreligiousness) and the resurgence of religion in former soviet bloc countries since the collapse of Communism. He did not attempt to refute this so we changed the topic.
This morning I was having another casual conversation with him and he mentioned that when he was talking about ‘Babylon the Great’ yesterday he was referring only to pagan religions such as Catholicism. He asked if I knew what he meant by Pagan religions. I don’t agree with his definition of pagan but I couldn’t be bothered to discuss it.
Any way, afterwards I thought about it and have sent this email to him:
Just a little observation from our conversation yesterday. You mentioned that the book of Revelation prophesises that people will turn away from false religion / which it refers to as ‘Babylon the Great’. You seemed to think fulfilment of this prophecy is evidenced by the waning political influence of the Catholic Church in Ireland.
I agree that the Catholic Church has lost a lot of the political power it once enjoyed in Europe and that it is also true that church attendance in Western Europe has fallen in recent years. However, I do not see any evidence that people are turning away from religion on a global level. If anything it is increasing since developing countries account for the majority of global population growth and developing countries are (because of the strong correlation between poverty, low education and religiosity) overwhelmingly religious.
I said to you yesterday in our conversation that I did not believe the catholic church’s political influence is declining in places like South America and parts of Africa. I also said religiosity in North America seems to be increasing and also that religion has grown in parts of the world since the fall of Communism. I could have also mentioned that the Middle East is dominated by theocracies and that India, one of the most populous countries in the world, is still a highly religious nation. Religious fundamentalism also seems to be on the increase in Pakistan and other parts of the world.
In our second conversation you said that Babylon the Great refers only to Pagan based religions - which I take to mean, the Catholic Church. I was curious about this so looked it up on Watchtower’s website:
‘Babylon the Great clearly represents the world empire of false religion, which includes all religions that stand in opposition to Jehovah God’.
http://www.watchtower.org/e/bh/appendix_12.htm
From a Jehovah’s Witnesses’ perspective, aren’t all religions, other than the Watchtower, in opposition to Jehovah God? Could you name any religion that does not stand in opposition to Jehovah God, other than the Watchtower?
If Babylon the Great represents all false religion then what evidence is there that people are turning away from ‘Babylon the Great’ en masse?
i'm not sure if any of you will remember but i posted on here six months ago about a correspondence i was having with my dad, an elder, about who would die in armageddon.
i was asking some tough questions about children being killed in armageddon and i could tell he uncomfortable with the answers he was giving.. i drafted an email in resposne to his email but in the end i decided not to send it in the interest of maintaining friendly relations.. .
last week, out of the blue, my dad sent an email link to the february 2012 watchtower article about armageddon and said it would answer some of my questions.. here is my response which is a critique of the feb 2012 wt article and some of the broader ethics concerning 'armageddon'.
I never sent my previous resposne after my phone conversation with my Dad. I have written this response instead:
I read through your comments and considered them carefully.
I want to focus on one issue – who will die at Armageddon.
Last year when I said that the Watchtower teaches only Jehovah’s Witnesses will survive Armageddon, you said that your understanding was different to mine. When I spoke to you on the phone on Monday and I asked if the Watchtower teaches that only Jehovah’ witnesses will survive Armageddon you replied ‘No’.
I believe you are wrong - the Watchtower does teach that only Jehovah’s Witnesses will survive Armageddon and it can proved with its publications.
In 1989 the Watchtower states in clear language that only Jehovah’s Witnesses have any hope surviving Armageddon:
"Only Jehovah's Witnesses, those of the anointed remnant and the "great crowd," as a united organization under the protection of the Supreme Organizer, have any Scriptural hope of surviving the impending end of this doomed system dominated by Satan the Devil." Watchtower 1989 Sep. 1 p.19
In 1983 the Watchtower stated that to receive everlasting life a person must identify Jehovah’s organisation and serve as part of it.
"Similarly, Jehovah is using only one organization today to accomplish his will. To receive everlasting life in the earthly Paradise we must identify that organization and serve God as part of it." Watchtower 1983 Feb. 15 p.12
The Watchtower clearly identifies itself as Jehovah’s organisation and to state otherwise would be disingenuous.
The above quotes quite clearly show that the Watchtower teaches only Jehovah’s Witnesses will survive Armageddon. You have told me that you do not have to be a Jehovah’s Witness to survive Armageddon.
Is you understanding of the Bible different to the Watchtower’s understanding?
If this is no longer the Watchtower’s understanding and teaching then you have to be able to demonstrate this to me with references to more recent Watchtower publications.
This quote from 2006 suggest that it is still a current teaching:
"During the final period of the ancient world that perished in the Flood, Noah was a faithful preacher of righteousness. (2 Peter 2:5) In these last days of the present system of things, Jehovah’s people are making known God’s righteous standards and are declaring good news about the possibility of surviving into the new world. (2 Peter 3:9-13) Just as Noah and his God-fearing family were preserved in the ark, survival of individuals today depends on their faith and their loyal association with the earthly part of Jehovah’s universal organization." (Watchtower 2006 May 15 p.22 "Are You Prepared for Survival?)
In fact, I included this 2006 Watchtower quote in my previous email and in your response, directly beneath it, you wrote ’correct’ indicating that you agree ‘survival depends on loyal association with Jehovah’s earthly organisation’.
This contradicts what you told me on the phone and in your previous email. If you do not have to be a Jehovah’s witness to survive Armageddon then how does survival depend on associating with the earthly part of Jehovah’s organisation?
These statements are contradictory
A) You do not have to be a Jehovah’s witness to survive Armageddon (your words)
B) Surviving Armageddon depends on loyal association with Jehovah’s earthly organisation
Please explain to me how you can hold two mutually exclusive beliefs?
I tried to keep it focused on one issue - like some of you have suggested. I have tried not to leave any wiggle room and used Watchtower quotes that talk in more certain terms.
The only thing I think he might say is try and side step the question by saying that generally the Watchtower's teaching often changes..
Any suggestions to tighten up the above?
i'm not sure if any of you will remember but i posted on here six months ago about a correspondence i was having with my dad, an elder, about who would die in armageddon.
i was asking some tough questions about children being killed in armageddon and i could tell he uncomfortable with the answers he was giving.. i drafted an email in resposne to his email but in the end i decided not to send it in the interest of maintaining friendly relations.. .
last week, out of the blue, my dad sent an email link to the february 2012 watchtower article about armageddon and said it would answer some of my questions.. here is my response which is a critique of the feb 2012 wt article and some of the broader ethics concerning 'armageddon'.
Hey Blondie,
do you know of any more recent statements made by the Watchtower that only JWs or will survive or explanation of who is the great crowd?
Thanks
i'm not sure if any of you will remember but i posted on here six months ago about a correspondence i was having with my dad, an elder, about who would die in armageddon.
i was asking some tough questions about children being killed in armageddon and i could tell he uncomfortable with the answers he was giving.. i drafted an email in resposne to his email but in the end i decided not to send it in the interest of maintaining friendly relations.. .
last week, out of the blue, my dad sent an email link to the february 2012 watchtower article about armageddon and said it would answer some of my questions.. here is my response which is a critique of the feb 2012 wt article and some of the broader ethics concerning 'armageddon'.
00DAD,
yeah, I agree. havnt had time to craft a response yet but I'll really focus on his understanding being different from the watcthower's on this point and ask him to explain why this is:
Either his understanding is different from the Watchtower's (which is a big no no) or he has to show that the Watchtower teaches non JWs will survive Armageddon
i'm not sure if any of you will remember but i posted on here six months ago about a correspondence i was having with my dad, an elder, about who would die in armageddon.
i was asking some tough questions about children being killed in armageddon and i could tell he uncomfortable with the answers he was giving.. i drafted an email in resposne to his email but in the end i decided not to send it in the interest of maintaining friendly relations.. .
last week, out of the blue, my dad sent an email link to the february 2012 watchtower article about armageddon and said it would answer some of my questions.. here is my response which is a critique of the feb 2012 wt article and some of the broader ethics concerning 'armageddon'.
@DesirousofChange,
Yeah, he has come with some funny ones over the years – here are my favourites: The FBI investigated the Watchtower because it couldn’t believe such a large organisation has no leadership - No one knows how the sun works because scientists cannot get close enough to test it It is not wise to believe in theories (despite me explaining to him multiple times what a scientific theory is) Pilots have to constantly adjust the plane’s direction or else eventually the plane would fly into space The world rotates on three axis (while alluding to the ‘fine tuning’ argument he had half remembered from a Watchtower). I don’t believe humans evolved from monkeys There’s more historical evidence that Jesus existed than there is that Napoleon existed. There was this recent exchange last year: Him ‘I don’t know why you believe in evolution, what about the missing links? A recent Watchtower article still said there are no fossils linking humans to monkeys [primates]’ Me ‘what about Homo Africanus, Homo Erectus, Australopithicus, homo habilis’ Him – blank stare Me ‘how can you say there are no transitional fossils without even a basic knowledge of the fossil record’ He quickly changed the subject. And to think he delivers public talks on science
