Reply With Quote
I do my own research.
Now he will begin flooding with different subjects and links to move away from the original topic.
Lol "i think for myself"
Now he will begin flooding with different subjects and links to move away from the original topic.Now your fears become a lot more understandable.1: The Light Gets Brighter As The End Draws Near
In theory, Jehovah’s Witnesses are led by Jesus Christ, who has been delegated authority to lead them by Jehovah God. In practice, they’re really led by a bunch of old guys from a place called Bethel, which is currently in New York. These old guys are called the governing body, and their authority was delegated to them by Jesus. Well, allegedly delegated. Your mileage may vary.
Jesus, it is believed, is guiding the leaders toward the absolute truth in a very subtle, vague sort of way. So subtle that the leaders make mistakes just like everybody else, including people who are not divinely inspired by Jesus. This might lead you to assume that it’s hard to tell someone who’s divinely inspired from someone who merely claims to be. But that you would be a very wrong and obvious thing to say.
The point is that “the truth,” as they understand it, is ever-changing, even though Jehovah and Jesus are not forever changing their minds. These changes are often described as “new light” by the Society’s leaders and are not to be taken as a sign that their leaders are misguided. Instead, it just means they get stuff wrong and Jehovah’s Witnesses shouldn’t let it bug them. The light (or the truth) gets brighter as Armageddon draws near, my friends. So stop relying on your own understanding and trust Jehovah to make it clear in his own good time. (These are things that real Jehovah’s Witnesses say, by the way. No, I’m not kidding.)
Openly flaunting any difference of opinion with the Society’s governing body can get you disfellowshipped for apostasy, especially if you try to convince others that your opinions are right and the leader’s teachings are not. That’s a major no-no in the world of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It’ll get your bus pass into paradise revoked in a heartbeat, buddy. So don’t even go there.
Pitiable even.
It must suck to live in such fear. I can only imagine.
So now that he has covered multiple topics he will say that I can't reply yet all his material is copy and pasted from website, yawn. Use the Bible to defend your stance and we can keep debating. Otherwise keep making a fool of yourself.
Is what most atheist claim yet RG is getting his beliefs from evilbible.com and miskeptics.orgLol "i think for myself"
Keep it going, bud. We all saw you get your ass handed to you using only scripture.
He doesn't actually. A bunch of old guys in upstate New York does that for him. I you not.Lol "i think for myself"
JW's are some of the weirder of the Christian cults, it seems.
All of my beliefs come from the Bible. Not websites like evilbible.org.
If you prefer, I could make fun of you using wikipedia...
Watch Tower Society unfulfilled predictions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watch_T...ed_predictions
1878: End of the harvest[edit]
In 1876 Russell adopted the belief promulgated by some Adventist preachers that Jesus' parousia, or presence, had begun in 1874 and that the gathering of the little flock preliminary to the grand climax was already in progress. Using a form of parallel dispensations that incorporated "types" and "an ypes"—historical situations that prefigured corresponding situations later in time[8]—he calculated the harvest would extend only to 1878, at which time the gathered saints would be translated into spirit form.[9][10] The year would also bring the beginning of the "exercise of power" of God's kingdom, with evidence that God's favor was returning to the Jews.[11]
The failure of Russell's prediction did not significantly alter the movement's short-term, date-focused orientation. In early 1881 Russell asserted that 1878 had, indeed, been a milestone year, marking the point at which "the nominal Christian churches were cast off from God's favor".[12]
But but, I was just a little wrong.. Jesus is juuuuust around the corner.1881: A revised end of the harvest[edit]
By 1881 Russell had found a biblical basis for extending the harvest to a new date, later that year.[4] He explained:
Coming to the spring of 1878 ... we naturally and not unreasonably expected some change of our condition, and all were more or less disappointed when nothing supernatural occurred. But our disappointment was brief, for we noticed that the Jewish church (and not the Gospel church) was the pattern of ours, and therefore we should not expect parallels to Pentecost or to anything which happened in the beginning of this church.[12]
Russell wrote that "the light upon our pathway still shines and is more and more glorious" and that since 1878 the light had glowed stronger. The timing of their translation to heaven seemed nearer, he wrote: "We know not the day or hour, but expect it during 1881, possibly near the autumn where the parallels show the favor to Zion complete and due to end, the door to the marriage to shut, and the high calling to be the bride of Christ, to cease."[12]
The second failure in 1881 precipitated a more serious crisis in the Bible Student ranks and for several years Russell's followers waited for the belated translation to occur.[4] Russell's chronological timetable had already identified 1914 as the ultimate end of the "time of trouble", and this preserved the commitment of followers who might have been discouraged by their failed expectations for 1881.[13] Yet many members found it inconceivable that their earthly departure might be delayed that long. Russell consoled members with the news that 1881 had still marked the time when "death became a blessing" in the sense that any saint who died would henceforth be instantaneously changed into a spirit being.[14] The revised view provided comfort for early believers who had held the view that the living faithful would never experience a physical death, and yet had seen other members in fact dying while they awaited their upward call. After 1881 physical death was defined as one of the ways in which some of the saints might undergo their translation.[4]
No really, this time I mean it... ROFL....1914: The end of human rulership[edit]
Russell's Studies in the Scriptures series had explicitly identified October 1914 as the "full end of the times of the Gentiles" and consequently the "farthest limit" of human rulership.[15] It would bring the beginning of Christ's millennial reign[1] and all his followers expected the immediate "translation of the saints" to rule with the revealed Christ that year. Following the earth's tribulation and unrest, the Jews would return to God's favor, the "nominal Church" would have fallen, the final battle between Christ and Satan would have ended, the kingdoms of the world would be overthrown, and Christ would have gathered his saints into heaven, where they would reign with him, and when the millennium would begin.[1] The belief was unequivocal, based on his study of the Bible and the Great Pyramid, and satisfied only upon the establishment of an earthly paradise; Russell remarked that by altering the prophecy even one year would destroy the perfect symmetry of its biblical chronology.[16] In the second book of his Studies in the Scriptures series he described it as "an established truth that the final end of the kingdoms of this world, and the full establishment of the Kingdom of God, will be accomplished at the end of A.D. 1914".[17] The result, he wrote, was that "all present governments will be overthrown and dissolved",[17] along with the destruction of "what God calls Babylon, and what men call Christendom".[18] In an 1894 Watch Tower, responding to readers who questioned whether—because of recent political upheavals—the world could last until 1914, he wrote:
We see no reason for changing the figures—nor could we change them if we would, They are, we believe, God's dates, not ours. But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of the trouble.[19]
As 1914 approached, excitement mounted over the expected "change" of anointed Christians.[4] Early that year some Bible Students, convinced the end of the world had arrived, began distributing their material belongings, abandoning their jobs and eagerly anticipating the future.[20] In May 1914—five months from the expected end—Russell warned followers against suc bing to doubt:
There is absolutely no ground for Bible students to question that the consummation of this Gospel age is now even at the door, and that it will end as the Scriptures foretell in a great time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation. We see the participants in this great crisis banding themselves together ... The great crisis, the great clash ... that will consume the ecclestiastical heavens and the social earth, is very near.[21]
But by September, Russell was preparing Watch Tower readers for the possibility that "Armageddon may begin next spring, yet it is purely speculation to attempt to say just when." Yet the evidence, he wrote, still pointed "to the year just before us—particularly the early months".[22]
A I said, my beliefs come from the Bible and my stance has been defended only using the Bible. I am not using any other books. Nice strawman by the way.
Shocker.When again nothing took place, predictions regressed to their earlier short-term orientation. The Watch Tower wrote: "It may be that many of the Lord's people were expecting more than they should have looked for to occur with the opening of the Jewish year 1915, which began with September 21. The human mind seems to have a natural tendency, and one with which we should have sympathy, to expect matters to culminate more rapidly, fulfillments to come more suddenly, than they ever do come ... Studying God's Word, we have measured the 2520 years, the Seven symbolic Times, from that year 606 B.C. and have found that it reached down to October, 1914, as nearly as we were able to reckon. We did not say positively that this would be the year. We merely left every one to look at the facts of history and reckon for himself."
That has been covered at JW meetings, nothing of importance.
Scripture says God murdered everyone but Noah's family.
It kicks it's own ass.
I take it nobody has proven evolution, right?
50 pages....hmmmm?
Your stance has to be defended using only the bible and the interpretations of it.
Does your interpretation of the bible differ from the Governing Body, Mr. Free Thinker?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governi...%27s_Witnesses
Do tell.
Yes, actually, I did.
Which you probably didn't bother reading.
One of the best aspects of science has always been its readiness to admit when it got something wrong. Theories are constantly being refigured, and new research frequently renders old ideas outdated or incomplete. But this hasn’t stopped some discoveries from being hailed as important, game-changing accomplishments a bit prematurely. Even in a field as rigorous and detail-oriented as science, theories get busted, mistakes are made, and hoaxes are perpetrated. The following are ten of the most groundbreaking of these scientific discoveries that turned out to be resting on some questionable data. It is worth noting that most of these concepts are not necessarily “wrong” in the traditional sense; rather, they have been replaced by other theories that are more complete and reliable.
10. The Discovery of Vulcan
Vulcan was a planet that nineteenth century scientists believed to exist somewhere between Mercury and the Sun. The mathematician Urbain Jean Joseph Le Verrier first proposed its existence after he and many other scientists were unable to explain certain peculiarities about Mercury’s orbit. Scientists like Le Verrier argued that this had to be caused by some object, like a small planet or moon, acting as a gravitational force. La Verrier called his hypothetical planet Vulcan, after the Roman god of fire. Soon, amateur astronomers around Europe, eager to be a part of a scientific discovery, contacted Le Verrier and claimed to have witnessed the mysterious planet making its transit around the Sun. For years afterward, Vulcan sightings continued to pour in from around the globe, and when La Verrier died in 1877, he was still regarded as having discovered a new planet in the solar system.
How it was Proven Wrong:
Without La Verrier acting as a cheerleader for Vulcan’s existence, it suddenly began to be doubted by many notable astronomers. The search was effectively abandoned in 1915, after Einstein’s theory of general relativity helped to explain once and for all why Mercury orbited the Sun in such a strange fashion. But amateur stargazers continued the search, and as recently as 1970 there have been people who have claimed to see a strange object orbiting the sun beyond Mercury. Amusingly, the entire would-be discovery’s greatest legacy today is that it inspired the name of the home planet of the character Spock from Star Trek.
9. Spontaneous Generation
Although it might seem a bit ludicrous today, for thousands of years it was believed that life regularly arose from the elements without first being formed through a seed, egg, or other traditional means of reproduction. The main purveyor of the theory was Aristotle, who based his studies on the ideas of thinkers like Anaximander, Hippolytus, and Anaxagoras, all of whom stressed the ways in which life could spontaneously come into being from inanimate matter like slime, mud, and earth when exposed to sunlight. Aristotle based his own ideas on the observation of the ways maggots would seemingly generate out of dead animal carcass, or barnacles would form on the hull of a boat. This theory that life could literally spring from nothing managed to persist for hundreds of years after Aristotle, and was even being proposed by some scientists as recently as the 1700s.
How it was Proven Wrong:
It was only with the adoption of the scientific method that many of the classical theories like spontaneous generation began to be tested. Once they were, they quickly crumbled. For example, famed scientist Louis Pasteur showed that maggots would not appear on meat kept in a sealed container, and the invention of the microscope helped to show that these same insects were formed not by spontaneous generation but by airborne microorganisms.
8. The Expanding Earth
Our modern understanding of the interior and behaviors of the Earth is strongly based around plate tectonics and the concept of subduction. But before this idea was widely accepted in the late 20th century, a good number of scientists subscribed to the much more fantastical theory that the Earth was forever increasing in volume. The expanding Earth hypothesis stated that phenomena like underwater mountain ranges and continental drift could be explained by the fact that the planet was gradually growing larger. As the globe’s size grew, proponents argued, the distances between continents would increase, as would the Earth’s crust, which would have explained the creation of new mountains. The theory has a long and storied past, beginning with Darwin, who briefly tinkered with it before casting it aside, and Nikola Tesla, who compared the process to that of the expansion of a dying star.
How it was Proven Wrong:
The expanding Earth hypothesis has never been proven wrong exactly, but it has been widely replaced with the much more sophisticated theory of plate tectonics. While the expanding Earth theory holds that all land masses were once connected, and that oceans and mountains were only created as a result of the planet’s growing volume, plate tectonics explains the same phenomena by way of plates in the lithosphere that move and converge beneath the Earth’s surface.
7. Phlogiston Theory
First expressed by Johan Joachim Becher in 1667, phlogiston theory is the idea that all combustible objects—that is, anything that can catch fire—contain a special element called phlogiston that is released during burning, and which makes the whole process possible. In its traditional form, phlogiston was said to be without color, taste, or odor, and was only made visible when a flammable object, like a tree or a pile of leaves, caught fire. Once it was burned and all its phlogiston released, the object was said to once again exist in its true form, known as a “calx.” Beyond basic combustion, the theory also sought to explain chemical processes like the rusting of metals, and was even used as a means of understanding breathing, as pure oxygen was described as “dephlogistated air.”
How it was Proven Wrong:
The more experiments that were performed using the phlogiston model, the more dubious it became as a theory. One of the most significant was that when certain metals were burned, they actually gained weight instead of losing it, as they should have if phlogiston were being released. The idea eventually fell out of favor, and has since been replaced by more sophisticated theories, like oxidation.
6. The Martian Canals
The Martian canals were a network of gullies and ravines that 19th century scientist mistakenly believed to exist on the red planet. The canals were first “discovered” in 1877 by Italian astronomer Giovanni Schiaparelli. After other stargazers corroborated his claim, the canals became something of a phenomenon. Scientists drew detailed maps tracing their paths, and soon wild speculation began on their possible origins and use. Perhaps the most absurd theory came from Percival Lowell, a mathematician and astronomer who jumped to the bizarre conclusion that the canals were a sophisticated irrigation system developed by an unknown intelligent species. Lowell’s hypothesis was widely discredited by other scientists, but it was also popularly accepted, and the idea managed to survive in some circles well into the 20th century.
How it was Proven Wrong:
ADVERTISEMENT
Quite unspectacularly, the Martian canals were only proven to be a myth with the advent of greater telescopes and imaging technology. It turned out that what looked like canals was in fact an optical illusion caused by streaks of dust blown across the Martian surface by heavy winds. Several scientists had proposed a similar theory in the early 1900s, but it was only proven correct in the 1960s when the first unmanned spacecraft made flybys over Mars and took pictures of its surface.
5. Luminiferous Aether
The aether, also known as the ether, was a mysterious substance that was long believed to be the means through which light was transmitted through the universe. Philosophers as far back as the Greeks had believed that light required a delivery system, a means through which it became visible, and this idea managed to persist all the way through to the nineteenth century. If correct, the theory would have redefined our entire understanding of physics. Most notably, if the aether were a physical substance that could exist even in a vacuum, then even deep space could be more easily measured and quantified. Experiments often contradicted the theory of the aether, but by the 1700s it had become so widespread that its existence was assumed to be a given. Later, when the idea was abandoned, physicist Albert Michelson referred to luminiferous aether as “one of the grandest generalizations in modern science.”
How it was Proven Wrong:
In traditional scientific fashion, the notion of a luminiferous aether was only gradually phased out as more sophisticated theories came into play. Experiments in the diffraction and refraction of light had long rendered traditional models of the aether outdated, but it was only when Einstein’s special theory of relativity came along and completely reconfigured physics that the idea lost the last of its major adherents. The theory still exists in various forms, though, and many have argued that modern scientists simply use terms like “fields” and “fabric” in place of the more taboo term “aether.”
4. The Blank Slate Theory
One of the oldest and most controversial theories in psychology and philosophy is the theory of the blank slate, or tabula rasa, which argues that people are born with no built-in personality traits or proclivities. Proponents of the theory, which began with the work of Aristotle and was expressed by everyone from St. Thomas Aquinas to the empiricist philosopher John Locke, insisted that all mental content was the result of experience and education. For these thinkers, nothing was instinct or the result of nature. The idea found its most famous expression in psychology in the ideas of Sigmund Freud, whose theories of the unconscious stressed that the elemental aspects of an individual’s personality were constructed by their earliest childhood experiences.
How it was Proven Wrong:
While there’s little doubt that a person’s experiences and learned behaviors have a huge impact on their disposition, it is also now widely accepted that genes and other family traits inherited from birth, along with certain innate instincts, also play a crucial role. This was only proven after years of study that covered the ways in which similar gestures like smiling and certain features of language could be found throughout the world in radically different cultures. Meanwhile, studies of adopted children and twins raised in separate families have come to similar conclusions about the ways certain traits can exist from birth.
3. Phrenology
Although it is now regarded as nothing more than a pseudoscience, in its day phrenology was one of the most popular and well-studied branches of neuroscience. In short, proponents of phrenology believed that individual character traits, whether intelligence, aggression, or an ear for music, could all be localized to very specific parts of the brain. According to phrenologists, the larger each one of these parts of a person’s brain was, the more likely they were to behave in a certain way. With this in mind, prac ioners would often study the size and shape of subjects’ heads in order to determine what kind of personality they might have. Detailed maps of the supposed 27 different areas of the brain were created, and a person who had a particularly large bump on their skull in the area for, say, the sense of colors, would be assumed to have a proclivity for painting.
How it was Proven Wrong:
Even during the heyday of its popularity in the 1800s, phrenology was often derided by mainstream scientists as a form of quackery. But their protests were largely ignored until the 1900s, when modern scientific advances helped to show that personality traits could not be traced to specific portions of the brain, at least in not as precise a way as the proponents of phrenology often claimed. Phrenology still exists today as a fringe science, but its use in the 20th century has become somewhat infamous: it has often been employed as a tool to promote racism, most famously by the Nazis, as well by Belgian colonialists in Rwanda.
2. Einstein’s Static Universe
Prior to scientists embracing the notion that the universe was created as the result of the Big Bang, it was commonly believed that the size of the universe was an unchanging constant—it had always been the size it was, and always would be. The idea stated that that the total volume of the universe was effectively fixed, and that the whole construct operated as a closed system. The theory found its biggest adherent in Albert Einstein—the Static Universe is often known as “Einstein’s Universe”—who argued in favor of it and even calculated it into his theory of general relativity.
How it was Proven Wrong:
The theory of a static universe was problematic from the start. First of all, a finite universe could theoretically become so dense that it would collapse into a giant black hole, a problem Einstein compensated for with his principle of the “cosmological constant.” Still, the final nail in the coffin for the idea was Edwin Hubble’s discovery of the relationship between red shift—the way the color of heavenly bodies change as they move away from us—and distance, which showed that the universe was indeed expanding. Einstein would subsequently abandon his model, and would later refer to it as the “biggest blunder” of his career. Still, like all cosmological ideas, the expanding universe is just a theory, and a small group of scientists today still subscribe to the old static model.
1. Fleischmann and Pons’s Cold Fusion
While the conditions required to create nuclear energy usually require extreme temperatures—think of the processes that power the sun—the theory of cold fusion states that such a reaction is possible at room temperature. It’s a deceivingly simple concept, but the implications are spectacular: if a nuclear reaction could occur at room temperature, then an abundance of energy could be created without the dangerous waste that results from nuclear power plants. This groundbreaking theory briefly seemed to have become a reality in 1989, when the electro-chemists Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons published experimental results suggesting that they had achieved cold fusion—and the precious “excess energy” it was hoped to produce—in an experiment where an electric current was run through seawater and a metal called Palladium. The response to Pons and Fleischmann’s claims by the media and the scientific community was overwhelming. The experiments were hailed as a turning point in science, and it was briefly believed that with cold fusion energy would be cheap, clean, and abundant.
How it was Proven Wrong:
The fervor over cold fusion died down as soon as other scientists tried to replicate the experiment. Most failed to get any kind of similar results, and after their paper was closely studied, Fleischmann and Pons were accused not only of sloppy, unethical science, but were even said to have stretched the truth of their results. For years after, the idea of cold fusion became synonymous with fringe science. Still, despite the stigma attached to it, many have argued that there was never anything necessarily wrong about cold fusion as a theory. In recent years, scientists have once again started to experiment with new ways of achieving a so-called “tabletop nuclear reaction,” with some even claiming to have achieved surprising success.
Science, so stupid. Always getting wrong. See how easy that is?
I predicted it, lie #5. Going for 6? Why stop now? That's all you do.
More failure...1918: The new terminus[edit]
J.F. Rutherford
Russell's final revision of his predictions was to identify 1918 as the new terminus.[4][26] The shift was based on the reasoning that the period of the Jews' favor may have lasted until 73CE (the date of the Zealots' mass suicide at Masada), rather than 70 CE. For the modern-day parallel, the adjustment meant the conclusion of the 40-year "harvest period" was moved from 1914 to the northern spring of 1918.[1][27][28]
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
