(June 11, 2015 at 7:59 pm)nicanica123 Wrote: Tonus, this is not something that has ever bothered me personally. The way I see it, the human thing is to figure out when the end will come. I am sure that when you went to meetings you knew about 10 different theories of when the end will come. But it was Jesus that said, after asked repeatedly, that no man knows. So I think it was wrong and inappropriate for CTR to even have that conjecture. I care more about the fact that he sat down with the bible and started reading it from an unbiased view. Like where the dead really are. The truth about hellfire. Or even the trinity. I still don't know where I'll come down on all of this in the end but the dates are definitely a mental fart that you could even argue were inappropriate. I will never serve a god because I know the date when judgment day will come. I'll only serve a god that I love and is worthy of worship

I agree with this.  I think that it is in our nature to fear/despise uncertainty-- we want to KNOW.  So it's not really surprising that people have been trying to set a date for the world's end for centuries, in spite of the very clear admonition in the Bible itself that it wasn't for us to know and that therefore we needn't worry about it.  Russell was really just carrying on a time-worn Christian tradition of trying to pinpoint the date of Christ's second coming.

And it's difficult to say the extent to which it was a con or how much they believed it.  Setting a specific date has an upside (people will flock to your side, offering support and money) and a potentially ruinous downside (when the date passes and nothing happens, you are discredited).  I think that Russell (and many other such men, including some in the present day like Harold Camping) was convinced he had it right, and was disappointed when his numbers fell short, again and again.  I think that Rutherford was a more practical individual who understood that what he was doing amounted to marketing.  His claims that scripture positively identified 1925 as the year when biblical men of fame would be resurrected and become leaders to humankind led to the building of a palatial estate in San Diego, ostensibly to house these worthy men but which became Rutherford's vacation home (which he continued to enjoy the use of during the Great Depression).  This backfired when the year came and went, and instead of just moderate losses in membership as in years before, the movement almost disintegrated, losing around 75-80% of the membership over the next year or two.  Rutherford would rebuild the organization and he would continue to point to certain dates, but never with the certainty and boldness that he used when promoting 1925.

Later leadership seems to have learned to keep things more circumspect, though they almost blew it with the 1975 predictions.  They promoted the year as the end without ever explicitly stating it (though a number of statements were pretty unambiguous, such as referring to "the few months remaining before Armageddon" in a 1974 Kingdom Ministry) but they came close enough that the membership was taking drastic steps, such as taking their kids out of school and running up debt that they assumed would not have to be repaid.  This "unwise" action was joined by those who sold their worldly possessions to dedicate themselves to preaching full-time.  The organization lauded those who did so, but offered nothing when the end failed to materialize.  They didn't even address the issue until declining membership numbers forced them to do so in 1980, at which point they blamed the members for 'reading more into it' than had been said, which was not true.

Sorry if I'm wordy, but I lived through some of this and can clearly remember some of the later stuff (from the 80s and 90s).  I didn't look into the JW history until years after I'd made my break from the organization, so I read it with great interest.  I still find it fascinating.

(June 12, 2015 at 12:16 am)Stimbo Wrote: So to the next part of my questions: bearing in mind your earlier statement that you wouldn't want to be a part of the religion if it had a requirement of celibacy from you, how do you feel about two people in a same-sex relationship being subject to such a requirement to the extent that they either "give up homosexuality" or give up their relationship? Would that be tolerated for a 'traditional' relationship? Basically what I'm asking is why a same-sex couple, in these enlightened times, should have to undergo a layer of restriction that opposite-sex couples do not. "It displeases God" isn't a justification.

Its quite a burden to convince someone that doesn't believe in god to understand the reasoning. So, if a gay person did believe in god and did feel that their nature towards the same sex was unnatural and willingly became one of JW's, that would be their prerogative, wouldn't you agree?

No, that's a deflection. All I want to know is how you feel about one particular demographic being subject to an added layer of the same restrictions that you said you wouldn't tolerate if they were applied to you. I'm not the least bit interested in your religion's opinion of what its god allegedly thinks.

However, in order for the (rather nonsensical) statement that a person's "nature towards the same sex [is] unnatural" to be true, there would have to be no examples of same-sex interaction elsewhere in nature. Thus even a single such example would falsify the proposition. Guess what..?

The appeal to nature seems very weak to me, because (as you say) it doesn't even work; but even if it did, if we're assuming there's a magical being fucking around with everything all the time, then surely nothing is natural anymore.

(June 13, 2015 at 3:30 am)robvalue Wrote: The appeal to nature seems very weak to me, because (as you say) it doesn't even work; but even if it did, if we're assuming there's a magical being fucking around with everything all the time, then surely nothing is natural anymore.

I have never purported to claim that. What I was say is that God created everything a certain way that was good in his eyes and after Adams sin, everything went haywire. Like a virus in a computer. An analogy that is more and more realistic the more we learn about how our bodies work.

(June 13, 2015 at 3:26 am)Stimbo Wrote: No, that's a deflection. All I want to know is how you feel about one particular demographic being subject to an added layer of the same restrictions that you said you wouldn't tolerate if they were applied to you. I'm not the least bit interested in your religion's opinion of what its god allegedly thinks.

However, in order for the (rather nonsensical) statement that a person's "nature towards the same sex [is] unnatural" to be true, there would have to be no examples of same-sex interaction elsewhere in nature. Thus even a single such example would falsify the proposition. Guess what..?

A homosexual would be asked of the same as a smoker, or someone who drinks a lot, or someone that is prone to violence. Or even if it were a heterosexual couple that lived together but weren't married. They would be required to be married before getting baptized. Of course it makes sense from your point of view that you don't care what "my god" says is right and wrong, but if someone did believe in that god and believed in the bible they would have the same requirements that anyone would have. And if they refused, they just couldn't get baptized. They would have to accept that despite their inclinations, there must be something wrong with them from gods perspective so they would have to shun them. Or they could figure, why would god deny me something that is natural to me and other nature? Maybe god is full of it and so is this religion? Again, that would be their prerogative. I personally can't speak for someone in that situation because I have never had to deal with that, so I just don't know how they feel.

(June 9, 2015 at 9:41 am)nicanica123 Wrote:

(June 9, 2015 at 1:19 am)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: My few questions here. First off jw's believe in gods predetermination right? If so let me ask you this. Why would a all knowing god create a gay man then sentence gay men to suffer via stoning? If it is a choice for people to be gay then why have the rather extensive psychological tests and experiments shown otherwise?
No follow along here, lets presuppose for a minute that the god of the bible might not be real. Who would be more apt to write rules regarding human homosexuality? A ignorant bronze age man that feels a innate sense of disgust at homosexual act or a omnipotent god with an entire universe to tend to?

No we don't believe in predetermination. The JW's have commented for many years that homosexuals could have been born they way they are. But that it isn't a proper rationalization to ok it. Its compared to someone having a propensity to alcoholism. Or really even a guy or girl lusting after someone of the opposite sex that isn't theirs. JW's don't believe that the world condition is the way god purposed

So non celibate homosexuals are comparable to alcoholics in your organization? Here is a few differences. For homosexual practicing responsibly is healthy just as a active sex life is good for us all. Where as alcoholism is inherently destructive.

On topic: aren't you all a bunch of blasphemers?

(June 13, 2015 at 5:09 pm)pocaracas Wrote: On topic: aren't you all a bunch of blasphemers?

Haha, that based off of an old Jewish superstition. I love that part of the movie though

(June 13, 2015 at 12:28 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote:

(June 9, 2015 at 9:41 am)nicanica123 Wrote: No we don't believe in predetermination. The JW's have commented for many years that homosexuals could have been born they way they are. But that it isn't a proper rationalization to ok it. Its compared to someone having a propensity to alcoholism. Or really even a guy or girl lusting after someone of the opposite sex that isn't theirs. JW's don't believe that the world condition is the way god purposed

So non celibate homosexuals are comparable to alcoholics in your organization? Here is a few differences. For  homosexual practicing responsibly is healthy just as a active sex life is good for us all. Where as alcoholism is inherently destructive.

Sure and if someone wanted to be an alcoholic that is their decision right? And they have to suffer the consequences of their actions? I probably shouldn't have compared it to alcoholism in the first place but rather just simply a heterosexual desiring to commit fornication. Like I have been saying to stimbo, it doesn't make sense from an atheist point of view but if you believed in god and believed that there were positive benefits to living by its standards then it would be that individuals prerogative to decide whether or not they viewed their feelings as natural or not. If they felt they were then being a JW wouldn't be a good fit for them. They wouldn't be allowed to get baptized and I don't know why they would anyway