Anna

I agree. It is a sin against your body if you fill it with unhealthy food and eat to excess. Why? Because you clog your arteries, get diabetes, ruin your joints and a host of other ailments directly associated with an unhealthy lifestyle, one of which is gluttony. I would say it's tantamount to smoking, unfortunately it's hard to define. How fat is too fat? How much food is too much food? Where would one draw the line? What would be the criterion for counseling someone and for forming a judicial committee? So unfortunately, it is impossible and will never happen. Unfortunately too though, these obese brothers and sisters are giving a bad witness. Perhaps if they realized this, they would try and live healthy for Jehovah, if not for themselves. Also of course, some really cannot help it because of certain medical condition or medication. This is only a small percentage though. But you will not know everyone's circumstance, and if the elders were to pry into reasons why someone is fat, then that would border on harassment. So I don't think anyone will be disfellowshipped for being fat anytime soon, if that were the case, then congregations in America would go down by half 😂

Perfect! 👍👏

Yes, this clarification is important. Unfortunately, those who are taking the lead, and believe they are in charge of producing food at the proper time, feel, and have felt, the need to put their hope into a definite prediction of sorts, rather than just talking about a hope.....that is sometime in the future. Hence we have a reworking of the 'Generation' although as far as I am aware no one requested "new light" on this.

Yes, it seems like it. Not sure what your point is though 😀

I have noticed that the desire to see God's promises fulfilled (nothing wrong with that of course), drives the human spirit to "predict" or "hope for" the end always in their life time. The pattern is clear: Russell hoped for the end in 1874 then 1914, Rutherford 1925, Franz 1975, the 80's GB by the end of the 20th century, today's GB between now and aprox. 2035. Each generation would say their children aren't going to make it to school....now those children have children of their own...and grandchildren There are recent discussions on JW talk with brothers and sisters giving this old world no more than 5 years, and there are a few optimistic ones who say within a year. If you were to ask members of your congregation when do they think the end will come, you will hear similar sentiments. Many believe the pandemic will lead straight into the GT. Of course logically, the end will come in someone's life time, and one day we will be right. I admire Isaac Newton because his "prediction" defied the rules of wishing for it in one's lifetime. For that reason he seems more believable. But of course I hope he is wrong...because of course I would like it to happen in our lifetime! Oh, the irony of it! 😂 It is not wrong to hope for good things to come, what is wrong is our serving God only for that reason, and building our hope up to the point of expectation delayed making us sick. You have probably heard this sentiment before, it's great, and I like to remind myself of it periodically: "Plan ahead as if Armageddon won't come in your lifetime, but live your life as if it will come tomorrow"

The untruth doesn't but understanding does. And then the untruth is corrected and becomes truth. It happens all the time. As understanding progresses so does knowledge. It happens in science, technology medicine, relationships etc. People are imperfect, they make mistakes. At the beginning of the pandemic we were told that wearing masks is not necessary because it does not really offer any protection. Now we are all told to wear masks because it was found that they do indeed offer protection. Was saying that masks were not necessary, a lie? Essentially it was, but it was said in good faith. Now, as knowledge has progressed, we know better. You do not allow anyone to make mistakes. Thankfully, Jehovah does as is shown in countless Bible accounts, and that is what matters. I am sorry that you were ever subservient to men first, and God and Christ second.

Anything is possible!

This is true. I remember in the movie Die Hard, the baddies appear to have a noble cause; to exchange hostages in order to free.....can't remember who exactly, lol. Then the moment when it dawns on Bruce Willis's wife that this is not their intent at all because in reality they are nothing but "common thieves" and this hostage situation was just a cover up and to buy themselves time. Their true intent was stealing billions.

Yes, of course.

Nice dissertation xero 🙂. I suppose what you are saying is that those who teach the Trinity, (I am talking about spiritual leaders, not laity) do so not because they can "prove" it is true, but because it is "tradition", because that is what the church was founded on and decided upon in the 4th century. It is true, if you've read any of the secular books on the inception of the trinity doctrine you realize what a political scam it was. Of course, most of these books are written by authors who are against the doctrine. There are many books though written by those who defend the trinity and present arguments for it. These theologians surely must believe with all their heart that the trinity is true. After all, they present "proof”. What then? I think the criterion for ascertaining the genuineness of such a person is; how would they react when presented with simple Biblical proof against the Trinity doctrine? Just for the sake of example, if the Pope was presented with simple, and logical Biblical proof, would he still hold on to his belief tooth and nail? That perhaps would be the deciding factor whether I should join his religion, whether this religion was the right one. That is what I meant when I said that the true religion should be able to change their erroneous teachings when finding out that they were indeed in error. So in this case, the Pope would go ahead and declare the some 1600 year held doctrine null and void and introduce Biblical truth. Obviously, for something like this to happen is unrealistic, that is why it is a strictly hypothetical example just to illustrate a point.. (what is possible of course is for the Pope to resign, but this would not change Catholicism). So I still think that the measuring stick to finding the true religion is its willingness to change its teachings, and not whether it is teaching the truth per se. As Witness* brought out, we have not always taught the truth. Not only that, but we are still learning. The Bible itself says the light will keep getting brighter, until full daylight. Perhaps full daylight will not be achieved till the new system? You may have noticed on this forum discussions regarding 1914. There are many discrepancies regarding this “doctrine” if one cares to look. Your average brother or sister will be teaching this from how it is presented by the GB, without questioning it, or without looking at evidence against it. (*Witness is no longer a JW herself, so naturally most of what she says is in direct and bitter opposition to what she used to believe to be the Truth).

Why not? Because Brahma was born from a golden egg...... Later to come forth from a lotus that issued from Vishnu’s navel. Because Zeus was a child born of a couple of Titans, whose father ate five of his other siblings. Because the flying Spaghetti Monster is the stuff of imagination just like the two previous mythological creatures. You and I can both come up with our own imaginative being and call him god. You obviously believe that the Bible God, as you call him, is also the stuff of imagination. Considering how imaginative people can be, then the origin of God as presented in the Bible is positively boring. The description of creation is also boring. The only time the narrative gets a little adventurous is when God and the heavens are described in books such as Ezekiel and Revelation. But then we are told that these are merely visions and symbolic depictions, not that angels really have wings and God rides in a chariot with wheels that have eyes. The Bible presents the creator in a completely unique way, compared with the description of all other "gods" in mythological writings. The Bible is also completely unique compared with the gobbledygook of other so called spiritual texts.

I agree with everything you say...but could this not be said of most religions? What they teach, do they not believe it is true? For example the trinity doctrine, do those who teach it not believe that it is true? (Now of course it would be a different matter if they believed it was false, but taught it as truth). So really, it seems that the WT is slightly erroneous in stating that "the truth" is what makes a religion right, and you have already highlighted the reason why this is erroneous. What I see as more important is the second part, where Jesus says that those who are like greedy wolves are false teachers. So it is the behavior, and consequently the fruits of a religion, that identify it as true or false. Also, I would say that being eager to correct previously held wrong beliefs identifies the true religion as well.

Did you mean to say rogue?

Hey @xero would you also like to join the JW Only club?

Did you mean to say higher education?

Hmmm ....If I was married to someone like her husband I think I may have wanted someone to hurt me.... Not just brothers

Sorry, I missed that...

The only way anything to do with the flood and the aftermath is possible, is that supernatural powers had to be involved. When all those animals came out of the ark I doubt there was any food for them after the earth had been under water for nearly a year. I don't think this reasoning (supernatural power) is far fetched if you believe that supernatural powers were used to gather all the animals into the ark, and preserve them and the people in the ark for nearly a year in the first place....without all dying of malnutrition and suffocation. If we believe God created everything, how hard could it be for him to shuffle all those creatures around the globe and keep those cute koalas fed on eucalyptus at the same time? As for the polar bear, what does evolution say about how it got its white coat? The gene was there somewhere in the post flood brown bear couple. Just miraculously speed up "evolution", and logistics, and voila, you've got a white bear family living in the north pole 😁

Yes, and can we know for sure? Of course -- but the time of servitude ended in 539 BCE when there was no longer a Babylonian Empire to be in servitude to. Right, but as you said it's all up to the definition, and it depends whether you are going to use servitude or desolation as your decisive circumstance. If you are going to use desolation, as Daniel did, then it could be said that Jerusalem was desolate until the Jews returned and started building. It seems there is quite a bit of ambiguity and leeway in the interpretation of the beginning and even the end, and even the number of years. (Although the number of years in my opinion seem to be quite definite and I don't see a reason why they should not be literal). I do not see it a big problem with just a couple of years plus or minus on the beginning or end of the exile/servitude I think its difficult to completely rely on something that was recorded over 2500 years ago (I am talking mainly about secular archeological finds, not the Bible) to be accurate to the year or month. Yes, definite months might be mentioned and are, but it's difficult to discern what really happened on a particular date. I was trying to think of some kind of a modern comparison: thinking of the pandemic we are experiencing right now, generally, it is recognized that the coronavirus infection was first reported to the WHO organization on Dec. 31 and on Jan 30 WHO declared the virus a global health emergency. So, hypothetically, someone 2500 years into the future would read this information from various preserved sources and would be able to come to the same conclusion. So we would be ok with that. However, if someone wanted to know 'when' the virus actually started, not when it was reported, we might run into various opinions. Also, we might need to be specific with the definitions, do we mean when the virus started, or do we mean when the pandemic started? We might also want to know where it started and what caused it. We might find various information on that, and not one definite answer. Also we will want to know when it ended, and what classified it as being "ended" was it when less than 1% of the population were reportedly infected in one given month for a specified amount of time or something else? There are so many variables.....and what will end up being written in the annals of history in the end? I am comparing a time period of superior technological and scientific knowledge with a time period of comparative primitiveness. And still there can be varying opinions drawn. How much more so with something that happened over 2500 years ago? So when WT prefers to view the 70 years as literal, and start them in 607, and wants to call them desolation, would that not be acceptable? However, a 20 year difference in WT neo Banylonian chronology is too much. I will have to look at that next...

In one of the links you say: "Because Jews were taken into exile in 605/4, 597, 587 and 582 BCE, and released in 538, there was not a single period of exile or captivity. Therefore it is wrong to speak of a 70-year exile or captivity. Similarly it is wrong to speak of a 70-year desolation of Judah......" Although there was not a single deportation, and the desolation of Jerusalem and Judah occurred in stages, doesn't mean that we should disregard Jeremiah's 70 years as one continuous block of time, I don't think. That was the time set for a specific period, with a beginning and an end, regardless whether it meant captivity, desolation or servitude (since surely these terms would all apply to a people who had been invaded by a foreign army). It might be difficult to pinpoint the start of the 70 year period (because of the said various deportations) so for that reason I still do not see a problem with counting from the end of the 70 years, since the end of that period is easier to identify. The return, and/or the rebuilding of Jerusalem (which according to your table was 538/7) seems indicative that the 70 year period of desolation/captivity/servitude was definitely ended.

I was hoping I could get an answer in a few short paragraphs 😄 P.s. I will take a look.

While I have been formulating a reply to Ann’s last post on here, (which I hadn’t posted yet and probably won’t bother in view of your comments here). I had been noticing blanket statements in some of the WT publications regarding some dates. I suppose this is what you mean when you and others refer to intellectual dishonesty. In my reply to Ann I was trying to reconcile two points of view for the same event, one of servitude and the other of desolation. She says that it is “this (mis)understanding (desolation) that locks Watchtower into its chronological scheme." In my reply I wanted to say that Jeremiah does say that the land will be ruined, and it goes without saying that it’s obvious the impact an invading army would have on a sovereign state, especially if that army took victory. Although Jeremiah does not specifically use the word desolation, Daniel does: Daniel 9:2 In the first year of his reign I, Daniel, discerned by the books the number of years mentioned in the word of Jehovah to Jeremiah the prophet to fulfill the desolation of Jerusalem, namely, 70 years. So in view of that, I don’t think it’s wrong to use desolation and servitude interchangeably. Both situations arise from the same thing; the conquest of a people. But it seems to me, from what you say, that the understanding of what the 70 years refer to exactly is of secondary importance, and that the key to it all is not the 70 years, but Nebuchadnezzar’s reign as king. I would tend to agree with that. Insight says: Second ruler of the Neo-Babylonian Empire; son of Nabopolassar and father of Awil-Marduk (Evil-merodach), who succeeded him to the throne. Nebuchadnezzar ruled as king for 43 years (624-582 B.C.E.) Secular scholars say he ruled as king 605 BC – c. 562 BC So where does WT get those dates for Nebuchadnezzar’s rule? Why is WT chronology regarding the Neo Babylonian period 20 years earlier than secular chronology? (and I am not looking for an answer that says in order for it to fit 1914 😄) Why doesn't it do that?

You think a guided tour is a form of worship? How so?

True, but I think WT is looking at this from the point of view of how it affected the Israelites, since the scriptures are concerned with God's people and how surrounding political and world situations impacted them, not everyone else. In this case I think WT is correct to think that way. Yes, that's what I wondered, and this is where I found myself favoring Ezra over Jeremiah in order to make 607 fit 🤪. (I am not familiar with how WT solved that problem. I will have to take a look....) Yes. Thanks.

Thanks for admitting that. Right. Which means to be on the safe side,, it would be better to start at the end of the 70 years, which the Bible is more specific about. according to..2 Chronicles and Ezra .. this happened in the first year of Cyrus. (But then the question is should we count as the return the decree to rebuild, or should we count Cyrus' conquest of Babylon). Well yes, I will not deny that. Honestly, for a lay person like me, a few years plus minus do not present a big problem. I am just chuffed that something written thousands of years ago, whether it be Babylonian chronicles or the Bible, can be brought into harmony and fall within a few years of each other. If I was to take your information regarding commentators viewing 609 as the start of the 70 years, and use Ann's 539 as the end of servitude to Babylon then there we have the 70 years. We can take those 70 years and slide them to the left by 2 years to get to 537 and I think it would still be fair to say that this could count as the end of servitude to Babylon. (Beginning with the decree to rebuild the temple) and so 607 could be the start of the 70 years, since as you say the Bible is silent about the exact start anyway. I know you will probably hate my apparent disregard for precision, but 2 years wiggle room is good enough for me. But seriously now, it seems that one cannot dogmatically claim 609 nor 607, and 539 or 537, because these dates are dependent on the interpretation of the pertinent scriptures. I do admit though, that this wiggle room automatically biases me to try to make 1914 fit, rather than actually work from available secular evidence for certain dates. I can see WT trying to do that too. I am still learning, as I'm sure you have guessed, so I apologize. Some of the things I say might sound ridiculous to you and Ann.