A discussion about Jehovah's Witnesses

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Ross
Scholar
Posts: 322
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2023 6:09 am
Has thanked: 53 times
Been thanked: 48 times

A discussion about Jehovah's Witnesses

Post #1

Post by Ross »

I recently explained in a thread, that I once belonged to this movement, and from that point on I was abruptly ignored by the Witness I was debating; so the remainder of the members of their faith may not participate with me personally due to their shunning policy. However I welcome others to talk to me and ask anything at all about the religion, as I can introduce some interesting first hand information. I am now 65 years old, and was there for nine very intensive years through the massive growth period of 1974 and 1975, the later internal power struggles of the leadership, and the awakening and dropping of membership in the early 1980's. I did not leave for any scriptural or doctrinal reasons, nor was I 'booted out'. I simply walked away.

My introductory question is: Why do you think that members of this order are so ultimately convinced of the validity of their beliefs, and will defend to the bitter end the slightest doctrinal adjustment to their conception of the scriptures?

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: A discussion about Jehovah's Witnesses

Post #21

Post by TRANSPONDER »

It's not like enthusiasm about Star Wars or Star trek, as they know it's fiction but get into the Lore as they say. historical re -enactment of what is not actually historical.

"How do you know?" (Cue parallel universes). The discussion is about recorded facts, observable fact and history, sure, but is it right or wrong? The religion arguments we get are more than uncannily similar to alternative science/history arguments like Atlantis/Sea king empires and UFO/Ancient technology arguments. Indeed Genesis - literalists/Creationists use those arguments. On a former board an opponent used "ET technology was used to build the pyramids". Why? What has that to do with the Bible? Because it is the basis of alternative science and history, which is science -denial. The rationale is the same - debunk the database of science and then everything you claim is valid.

That never works for the reasons half the religious apologetics don't work - it doesn't tell you which god or religion. So what it comes down to is the Bible, and the NT as the OT doesn't really count. The only argument is - 'It looks like reliable record; is it?'

That's why the Nativities are basic. They are commonly taken to be true. I have seen the apologetic 'They both agree that Jesus was born in Bethlehem'. Of course as that is why they were written, separately, and they contradict. Just as the genealogies were invented to prove Davidic descent. But they contradict.

Cue excuses. 'One was the line of Mary'. Someone is peddling these excuses (not to say lies') like 'the mobile star was a conjunction of planets'. No it wasn't and both genealogies come down to Joseph. Not 'Mary, wife of Joseph'. They don't just fiddle, like the Mobile star was a supernova, but they lie, like one genealogy is the line of Mary.

cue 'Rewrite the Bible'. e.g 'It is actually the line of Mary but it got altered to refer to Joseph'. So we get 'Interpretation' or as I call it 'excuses'. An obvious one is the two donkeys. Matthew is obviously misreading his OT passage. None of the others make that mistake so it is is one donkey. I don't need to go into the excuses, evasions and fiddling that goes into making Matthew right when he is obviously wrong and thus NOT an eyewitness. And this is where the really good trick comes in :) Instead of explaining this faults, fiddles and fallacies so as to convince the doubter, it somehow becomes any excuse for the believer to deny it. If they refuse to change their mind no matter how solid the evidence, their faith remains intact which, for the Bible apologists is what it is all about.

It isn't, it is about making the better case. And the only thing that matters is that the better case is leaked to the general public rather than the one -sided propaganda, with interpretation, misrepresentations and downright lies (I had "There are no transitional fossils" put to me on my doorstep) that would (hopefully) keep the public from hearing both sides.

The Other side (let the reader Understand) know how vital it is to control media, education and propaganda. The Other side know that if atheism is silenced, they win.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: A discussion about Jehovah's Witnesses

Post #22

Post by Purple Knight »

Ross wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 3:06 amThey certainly study, and it is a requirement that they do so. The aim of the structure of their doctrine is to be able to defend any criticism aimed at their beliefs, and this has been accumulated over a period of time of more than one hundred years. If Biblical defence is not readily available, the leadership over the years looked for other sources and adopted these. In fact any argument will do if it defends their pre-conceived beliefs, often bordering on the ridiculous. This is why they can always look into their literature and find an answer to any suggestion of a theology that is not their own.

Ironically, if the leadership change their views on something, the sheep will then defend to the death that which they once opposed.

The great fault in all of this, is that they do not think things through rationally and reach personal conclusions. The doctrine is read and learned and memorised and accepted. They are adopting someone else's mind and thoughts. The religion is pre-processed. It is like a canned ready made meal.
We all eat these sometimes even if we think we don't. I'm a genuine exception but many other atheists are not. My favourite example is that I don't actually know Abraham Lincoln existed and I don't believe he existed, but to get along in society I have to say I do believe he existed.

I don't eat these canned meals. If someone forces them on me I dump them out. But there are times that just to get along I have to show the empty can, lie, and say, "Mmm. All gone!"

And if later, historians say he was a myth, I'll go along with that just like the sheep you mention. I've tried calling society out when it changes its mind. I've even had examples I've clung to where I've said something generally accepted wasn't tenable and been laughed off, only for the experts to later agree with me, then point that out to the people who laughed, and then be told, "But, you had no way of knowing that; that's what made it a conspiracy theory," or, "No, no, what you said was different," or some other cope.

So now I just go along with the BS and don't try to change anyone's mind because I've realised I can't.

Arguably the only difference is that I don't get anything out of it and the JWs get a functional community with generally honest leadership.

Ross
Scholar
Posts: 322
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2023 6:09 am
Has thanked: 53 times
Been thanked: 48 times

Re: A discussion about Jehovah's Witnesses

Post #23

Post by Ross »

Purple Knight wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 2:03 pm
Ross wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 3:06 amThey certainly study, and it is a requirement that they do so. The aim of the structure of their doctrine is to be able to defend any criticism aimed at their beliefs, and this has been accumulated over a period of time of more than one hundred years. If Biblical defence is not readily available, the leadership over the years looked for other sources and adopted these. In fact any argument will do if it defends their pre-conceived beliefs, often bordering on the ridiculous. This is why they can always look into their literature and find an answer to any suggestion of a theology that is not their own.

Ironically, if the leadership change their views on something, the sheep will then defend to the death that which they once opposed.

The great fault in all of this, is that they do not think things through rationally and reach personal conclusions. The doctrine is read and learned and memorised and accepted. They are adopting someone else's mind and thoughts. The religion is pre-processed. It is like a canned ready made meal.
We all eat these sometimes even if we think we don't. I'm a genuine exception but many other atheists are not. My favourite example is that I don't actually know Abraham Lincoln existed and I don't believe he existed, but to get along in society I have to say I do believe he existed.

I don't eat these canned meals. If someone forces them on me I dump them out. But there are times that just to get along I have to show the empty can, lie, and say, "Mmm. All gone!"

And if later, historians say he was a myth, I'll go along with that just like the sheep you mention. I've tried calling society out when it changes its mind. I've even had examples I've clung to where I've said something generally accepted wasn't tenable and been laughed off, only for the experts to later agree with me, then point that out to the people who laughed, and then be told, "But, you had no way of knowing that; that's what made it a conspiracy theory," or, "No, no, what you said was different," or some other cope.

So now I just go along with the BS and don't try to change anyone's mind because I've realised I can't.

Arguably the only difference is that I don't get anything out of it and the JWs get a functional community with generally honest leadership.
That is interesting. I've never heard of the 'Abraham Lincoln never existed' theory. I will look that up when I get a chance.

I agree with your comments about the Jehovah's Witnesses to an extent, but I don't believe the leadership are as honest as they once were. I'll explain why in my next post as I am about to go to work.

I would be interested to hear why you as an atheist have such an interest in Christianity?

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: A discussion about Jehovah's Witnesses

Post #24

Post by TRANSPONDER »

Ross wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 3:02 am
Purple Knight wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 2:03 pm
Ross wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 3:06 amThey certainly study, and it is a requirement that they do so. The aim of the structure of their doctrine is to be able to defend any criticism aimed at their beliefs, and this has been accumulated over a period of time of more than one hundred years. If Biblical defence is not readily available, the leadership over the years looked for other sources and adopted these. In fact any argument will do if it defends their pre-conceived beliefs, often bordering on the ridiculous. This is why they can always look into their literature and find an answer to any suggestion of a theology that is not their own.

Ironically, if the leadership change their views on something, the sheep will then defend to the death that which they once opposed.

The great fault in all of this, is that they do not think things through rationally and reach personal conclusions. The doctrine is read and learned and memorised and accepted. They are adopting someone else's mind and thoughts. The religion is pre-processed. It is like a canned ready made meal.
We all eat these sometimes even if we think we don't. I'm a genuine exception but many other atheists are not. My favourite example is that I don't actually know Abraham Lincoln existed and I don't believe he existed, but to get along in society I have to say I do believe he existed.

I don't eat these canned meals. If someone forces them on me I dump them out. But there are times that just to get along I have to show the empty can, lie, and say, "Mmm. All gone!"

And if later, historians say he was a myth, I'll go along with that just like the sheep you mention. I've tried calling society out when it changes its mind. I've even had examples I've clung to where I've said something generally accepted wasn't tenable and been laughed off, only for the experts to later agree with me, then point that out to the people who laughed, and then be told, "But, you had no way of knowing that; that's what made it a conspiracy theory," or, "No, no, what you said was different," or some other cope.

So now I just go along with the BS and don't try to change anyone's mind because I've realised I can't.

Arguably the only difference is that I don't get anything out of it and the JWs get a functional community with generally honest leadership.
That is interesting. I've never heard of the 'Abraham Lincoln never existed' theory. I will look that up when I get a chance.

I agree with your comments about the Jehovah's Witnesses to an extent, but I don't believe the leadership are as honest as they once were. I'll explain why in my next post as I am about to go to work.

I would be interested to hear why you as an atheist have such an interest in Christianity?
'
The Abraham Lincoln (or it may be George Washington' or occasionally 'Julius Caesar') never existed apologetic is an epistemological argument, rather like 'If you don't trust the Bible, you can't trust any book'. Essentially they are saying that if you deny the fact, truth or reality of Jesus, you must question, doubt or deny any historical figure.

Of course the records of George Washington, even the portrait busts of Caesar and of course even photographs of Lincoln made a convincing case for these people. We have perhaps a more pertinent example in Alexander. The convincing proof he existed are the images, coins and several cities named after him. But we do question some of the stories. Especially the Gordian Knot. and that frankly does sound like a tall tale. So we get to Jesus and we already have a finger on the scales: 'Miracles Don't happen'. When we get magical claims in histories, we tend to reject them, and the Gospels are full of magic.

My test case is the Jugurthine war by Sallust. I read it as a regular ancient history and, though I wasn't there, there was no practical reason to doubt the story until it got to a Roman army praying for rain and they got it.

Tall story. I find myself believing the histories but rejecting the miracles. We just do, because we know how the world works.

And yet if Jesus was a divine being, he could do miracles even if nobody else does. So we are down to deciding whether the gospels are reliable. I won't get into my reasons here, but it's not just like trying to evaluate the polemical spin like the record of battle of Kadesh or British histories ignoring the vital contribution of the Dutch and Prussians at Waterloo. It is about understanding the construction of the story. If the Experts ever get around to it.

It's what I call the detective novel clue. You can tell it is a made up story when the writer sips - the detective (or a witness) knows something he actually couldn't know - but the writer does. In the Flashman novels a Slip of story construction is made when in book 1. the earl of Cardigan is made a friend to Flashman. The writer gave up on that and later Flashman loathes him. The story had to be changed. Thus the story has to be made up; it cannot be true and so someone with a claim the stories were true though published as a novel could be refuted.

Si I reckon small clues can be telling. Political spin is one thing; nonsense is another.

E.g Luke changing the angelic message. Plot alteration; no doubt. Matthew having Herod rushing to scripture to find out where the messiah was. Herod would have arrested his family and officers to see which had a new son. And of course my small clue about Exodus anachronism, unless someone can make a case for Philistines in Gaza before the 11th c B.C.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: A discussion about Jehovah's Witnesses

Post #25

Post by Purple Knight »

Ross wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 3:02 am
Purple Knight wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 2:03 pm We all eat these sometimes even if we think we don't. I'm a genuine exception but many other atheists are not. My favourite example is that I don't actually know Abraham Lincoln existed and I don't believe he existed, but to get along in society I have to say I do believe he existed.
That is interesting. I've never heard of the 'Abraham Lincoln never existed' theory. I will look that up when I get a chance.
It's not a theory. Nobody believes Abraham Lincoln didn't exist. That's the point.

But do I have personal evidence he did exist? I don't. He probably did exist but my only reason to believe in Abraham Lincoln and not the Jewish God Jehovah is that Abraham Lincoln is not supposed to have magical powers. So I have some extra reason to doubt god. But if, "Because somebody wrote it down as history," is not enough, then I don't get to believe in Abraham Lincoln either. And I don't. If you want to know how this works in practice, and how much I believe or don't believe, give me a TARDIS and $100 to bet that Abraham Lincoln existed, and if I have the option, I'll keep the $100 and not make the bet. I would not risk that free $100 on somebody's word and I don't care that it happens to be written down a long time ago.
Ross wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 3:02 amI agree with your comments about the Jehovah's Witnesses to an extent, but I don't believe the leadership are as honest as they once were. I'll explain why in my next post as I am about to go to work.
I'd like to hear more.
Ross wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 3:02 amI would be interested to hear why you as an atheist have such an interest in Christianity?
It started because my family (who were Unitarians and not Christians by the way) ganged up on me and took my drunk mother's side when she stole my cat and sold it for beer money. They took me to a Christian minister because (I assume) their Unitarian minister would not take their side that I should not expect recompense. So they found the most forgivypants Christian they could who went on and on about the unforgiving slave and told me I was in the wrong for wanting her to make that right. This was a multiple thousand dollar cat btw. I have show cats again and I am still traumatised not just that someone will turn up and steal them, but that I will be in the wrong for even noticing.

So I read the whole Bible very critically because I was looking for some bloody evidence I could use to prove I was right to want my things to, you know, continue to be my things.

I didn't really find any but JW did make a very good case that The Unforgiving Slave does not mean no snitching and never call the police, because when another slave went to the master and told him all, there is snitching in the story. The most a forgivypants Christian could say is that the other slave wasn't invested in it, and because my situation is different and I am specifically calling the police to get someone in trouble, I am still in the wrong. But it does not stop me from calling the police and imo the onus is on them at that point about motives.

I did also read the Narnia books when I was a kid, and loved them, but I didn't know what they were supposed to be Christian. I care about right and wrong and a lot of that is built on Christianity.

I also respect JWs a lot because 1) I can see they study and know their lore and 2) Timothy (A JW who posts here) told me that if my mother had done that within the JW community, she'd have been disfellowshiped. JWs take a lot of flak for the practice, from people who have never been in that situation, let alone had Christianity rammed down their throats to justify it. And it meant a lot to me. I'll never believe that the Jewish God actually exists unless he turns up, but it does make a big difference to me that not all Christians are forgivypants "seven times seven" forgive-your-brother-infinitely. It makes a big difference because I don't want to believe I'm morally wrong for not letting thieves take everything I have, and if some people think I'm not, then maybe I'm not. I also believe that the best way to understand opponent's arguments is to defend them. And when I do that for Christians (especially JWs) as much as I can, especially since I deeply understand about the need for disfellowshipping, I hope I can give some of that understanding back.

Ross
Scholar
Posts: 322
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2023 6:09 am
Has thanked: 53 times
Been thanked: 48 times

Re: A discussion about Jehovah's Witnesses

Post #26

Post by Ross »

Purple Knight wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 2:03 pm
Ross wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 3:02 amI agree with your comments about the Jehovah's Witnesses to an extent, but I don't believe the leadership are as honest as they once were. I'll explain why in my next post as I am about to go to work.
I'd like to hear more.
This cannot be explained quickly, and so for now I will present an introduction, and will follow with more information:

An awakening of free thinking among some senior and very high ranking Jehovah's Witness began in 1966 when a group of five members of Brooklyn Headquarters who possessed a particular ability in research were given an assignment by the President Nathan Knorr to compile a Bible dictionary. This dictionary was initially meant to be a small handbook, but as work commenced, it became obvious that this would be an exhaustive task which in fact took five years to complete with 1,696 pages. It was called the Aid To Bible Understanding and later was renamed Insight On The Scriptures and split into a two volume work.
The consignment group’s leader was an ex missionary having served in Puerto Rico, The Virgin Islands, and then the Dominican Republic for five years where he was in charge of the organization’s work in that country. This man was Raymond Victor Franz, the nephew of the vice president and chief theologian Frederick William Franz.

Fourteen years later on the first Thursday evening of the month of August in 1980, I sat on my seat in the Kingdom Hall waiting for the meeting to begin while reading through a pamphlet known as Our Kingdom Ministry. This was a monthly pamphlet from British headquarters which outlined the schedule of topics for discussion and presentation during Thursday evening meetings for the following weeks. This particular Kingdom Ministry however contained some alarming information, part of which read:

"We are saddened to report at this time that five members of the Bethel family, and a few others in the New York city area have recently been disfellowshiped. There has been some apostasy against the organization and the promoting of sectarian divisions in some of the congregations of God’s people.... "This is a notification that Raymond Victor Franz is no longer a member of the Governing Body and of the Brooklyn Bethel family as of May 22, 1980."

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: A discussion about Jehovah's Witnesses

Post #27

Post by Purple Knight »

Ross wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 4:43 pma group of five members of Brooklyn Headquarters who possessed a particular ability in research were given an assignment by the President Nathan Knorr to compile a Bible dictionary.

...

"We are saddened to report at this time that five members of the Bethel family, and a few others in the New York city area have recently been disfellowshiped. There has been some apostasy against the organization and the promoting of sectarian divisions in some of the congregations of God’s people.... "This is a notification that Raymond Victor Franz is no longer a member of the Governing Body and of the Brooklyn Bethel family as of May 22, 1980."
What did they find?

Ross
Scholar
Posts: 322
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2023 6:09 am
Has thanked: 53 times
Been thanked: 48 times

Re: A discussion about Jehovah's Witnesses

Post #28

Post by Ross »

Purple Knight wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 5:25 pm
Ross wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 4:43 pma group of five members of Brooklyn Headquarters who possessed a particular ability in research were given an assignment by the President Nathan Knorr to compile a Bible dictionary.

...

"We are saddened to report at this time that five members of the Bethel family, and a few others in the New York city area have recently been disfellowshiped. There has been some apostasy against the organization and the promoting of sectarian divisions in some of the congregations of God’s people.... "This is a notification that Raymond Victor Franz is no longer a member of the Governing Body and of the Brooklyn Bethel family as of May 22, 1980."
What did they find?
It took two massive books for Raymond Franz to explain what was found. 'Crisis of Conscience' and 'In search of Christian Freedom.'

I will attempt to narrow it down though.

Ross
Scholar
Posts: 322
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2023 6:09 am
Has thanked: 53 times
Been thanked: 48 times

Re: A discussion about Jehovah's Witnesses

Post #29

Post by Ross »

Purple Knight wrote: Wed Mar 22, 2023 5:26 pm

It started because my family (who were Unitarians and not Christians by the way) ganged up on me and took my drunk mother's side when she stole my cat and sold it for beer money. They took me to a Christian minister because (I assume) their Unitarian minister would not take their side that I should not expect recompense. So they found the most forgivypants Christian they could who went on and on about the unforgiving slave and told me I was in the wrong for wanting her to make that right. This was a multiple thousand dollar cat btw. I have show cats again and I am still traumatised not just that someone will turn up and steal them, but that I will be in the wrong for even noticing.
I am really sorry to hear about this experience Purple Knight.

While I attempt to follow Christian principles, there are lines that I would never cross. For example, if someone attempted to hurt my family or damage my home, I would defend these with my life rather than turning the other cheek or being weak.
Also I share your love of cats. My wife and I love occasionally going to cat shows here in England and Scotland. Our cat is half Norwegian Forest cat, which the Vikings used to carry with them on their boats during their travels and pillages. Did you attempt to find the cat and buy it back? What breed do you show?

I'll have more time to write at the weekend.

Ross
Scholar
Posts: 322
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2023 6:09 am
Has thanked: 53 times
Been thanked: 48 times

Re: A discussion about Jehovah's Witnesses

Post #30

Post by Ross »

Due to the nature of the A to B Bible Dictionary, the study group were encouraged to use external sources of information, and in particular, secular Bible dictionaries, lexicons and commentaries within this research, which were housed in a room at Headquarters and usually only used by Frederic Franz. This unearthed alternative and secondary schools of information to that which had been more or less unchallenged for decades. Eventually they reached the subject of chronology, and this is when all of the problems began.

Much of the interlocking doctrine of this faith hinges upon the year 1914 which has been historically perceived to be the time when Jesus Christ received kingship power in heaven, marking the beginning of a ‘time of the end’ or ‘last days’ before a restoration of earth following the day of the wrath of God Almighty. This date rested upon a previously unchallenged calculation of a prophecy in the Bible book of Daniel.

Raymond Franz himself was heading the chronological section of the dictionary, and he began to embark upon a study of ancient history when it soon became apparent that the foundation for this 1914 date was flawed. All historical evidence available placed the time of the destruction of Jerusalem which was the basis for the beginning of this time prophecy, out by twenty years.

The date of 539 is generally accepted by almost all historians as the correct time when Cyrus the Persian defeated Babylon and soon after released the Jewish people. The data for this comes from a preserved collection of tens of thousands of cuneiform documents, inscriptions, lists of kings and other supporting evidence.

In addition, a two thousand year old work known as Ptolemy’s Cannon by Claudius Ptolemy of Alexandria is a collection of hundreds of years of pre Christian astronomical observations including the Babylonian era, with certain time periods within rules of kings linked to the sightings of astronomical occurrences. Modern astronomers have the means to count back and accurately date these planetary events and positions in the skies, and so date the events in Ptolemy’s Royal Cannon that also mention which kings were ruling and for how long when these observations in the skies were noted. These dates confirm both the antiquarian and the modern sources also.

Franz and an associate even visited and interviewed Professor Abraham Sachs at Brown University, Rhode Island, to see if there was any fault with the history, but it was only reinforced that there was absolutely no known historical support whatsoever, and that there would have had to have been a deliberate conspiracy by the scribes for the wealth of available recorded data to be incorrect.

Remarkably, a decision was made by the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses to retain the doctrine without change; and great lengths were taken to explain away what was considered to be flaws in the secular historical record.

This was the first issue to rock the boat. But there were to be many more.

Post Reply