Maybe it was the way the Gesmi1 worded his/her post, but I do think it was unfair to stop such an interesting topic. (If JW's are so true, why were they so wrong about the year 1914?)
This is such a major part of the Jehovahs witness doctrine, that to undermine it, undermines the core of their beliefs. The fact that they reach this date by massaging historical dates (607BCE), adding a few unrelated dates and events then mutiplying these with figures derived from their own interpretation of certain biblical passages, it is very difficult for the average witness to defend.
There are many good books on the fall of Jerusalem, and none of them point to 607, yet the watchtower society refuses to acknowledge this historical "fact".

I'd like this thread to be an open discussion on why current JW's believe 1914
to be the date when Jesus came to earth (invisibly) and appointed the watchtower society as gods chosen ones. Why they keep reporting that things have been getting worse since 1914, when in fact they havent. Why the meaning of the word "generation" has been changed to fit with their "new light" or new version of their doctrine.

This is not a JW bashing exercise. Since Prince became a JW, the interest in this religous group has increased (especially on sites like this). Therefore to openly discuss their core doctrines can only be seen as a healthy thing.

i agree

hmm, i have interesting thoughts about all that, myself.

i think it was the condemnatory tone of the opening remarks that got it banned - not the idea of the topic itself...

Agreed. But I'm sure you'll agree that some of my topics/posts have been of a more "condemnatory" tone and yet none of these posts have been banned.
But enough of that. Lets discuss the 1914 topic, as its far more interesting than slamming individuals.

GeSmi said:



i guess i don't see this as 'condemnatory'. he raises a valid point, don't you think? it's a question that is not unreasonable, in fact, what could be more important than asking questions like this when our souls are at stake? wouldn't it be more wrong to ignore an inconsistency like this in any religious doctrine?

GeSmi1 sounds worried about what seems to be a fundamental contradiction between truth and doctrine.

the part in bold is the only part of his topic that i can see as maybe being offensive, but even that is not an attack. he merely airs his opinion strongly.

couldnt agree more.



Good point. I think herein lies the reason as to why there are so many ex-witnesses who appear to attack JW's. Many have only learn't the truth once they have left the organization that pushes doctrine over truth.
How does the watchtower society get around this small but annoying problem? Label anyone who disagrees with them as "apostates" and then FORBID any member to make any contact with them. Easy.

Mmm. I think I've gone a little off topic

yxl1 said:

first the bit about things not being "worse" since 1914... you do not believe that WWI was a sort of turning point in world history?

yxl1 said:

You funny!



So why didn't he just research the topic him/herself? The obvious answer that leaps out at me, not knowing diddly squat about the JWs, is that maybe they are not literalists like gesmi1 seems to want them to be. Wasn't Christ supposed to come back in the year 2000 in the Catholic Church? (I'm asking...I don't know...I slept through Sunday school.)

MightBQueen said:

From the start Awake! contain this mission statement:

"AWAKE! Is Published Awake! is published for the enlightenment of the entire family. It shows how to cope with today's problems. It reports the news, tells about people in many lands, examines religion and science. But it does more. It probes beneath the surface and points to the real meaning behind current events, yet it always stays politically neutral and does not exalt one race above another. Most important, this magazine builds confidence in the Creator's promise of a peaceful and secure world before the generation that saw the events of 1914 passes away. "

Then in November 8th 1995 it was changed to read:

" AWAKE! Is Published Awake! is published for the enlightenment of the entire family. It shows how to cope with today's problems. It reports the news, tells about people in many lands, examines religion and science. But it does more. It probes beneath the surface and points to the real meaning behind current events, yet it always stays politically neutral and does not exalt one race above another. Most important, this magazine builds confidence in the Creator's promise of a peaceful and secure world that is about to replace the present wicked, lawless system of things."

As best as I can tell there can only be one reason for the change. It became clear to the Watchtower that its prophecy concerning the generation of 1914 was wrong. That it was never going to happen. However this is not the first time it has changed its mind concerning the year 1914. Before the year 1914 the Watchtower claimed that 1914 would be the year that it would all end.

"In view of this strong Bible evidence concerning the Times of the Gentiles, we consider it 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." (The Time Is At Hand 1908 ed., p. 99)
[Edited 2/9/06 6:54am]

2the9s said:

might be an emotional reaction...

sometimes people tend to look up to organizations or famous individuals as "big daddy" figures, in quest of some sort of security or simple black & white answers. so if later on this designated big daddy figure changes, messes up or makes a 180 degree turn, the security-seeker feels uprooted and insecure and lashes out in response, out of fear.

just an idea. but i got it from hanging around here.

first:

1) WRONG FORUM!!!

2) There was another post from that user that was completely deleted out of respect for the visitors of this site....

If you look at the post i actually contributed to the thread.....At that point there was no inclination on my part to lock up the thread...however, after a couple other people has posted comments the author of the thread had made a post that was so extremely against the rules i deleted the whole thing...there are extensive notes archived for the other moderators to see and it took me a couple minutes to finish up writing those notes so a couple other people had contributed to the thread.....but the thread deserved to be locked...

thanks for asking what happened..

-sos

okay...one more statement....when you look at the thread thats locked you need to consider the context that it occured..


1) this user had been warned about his/her posts and was instructed to follow the site policies..

2) the deleted comments were posted *after* the user had been warned.....I am not going to sit here on my own free time and follow a user around who is hell bent on breaking the rules...thats why i felt locking the thread was warranted...for the most part i try to edit out the offending posts..i dont have to but i do because i want to encourage discussion....but like ive said in previous posts i am really busy in my personal life and i dont have the time to do that....but understand that when i do edit versus deleting or locking, im doing that as a favor....most other mods would just lock up the thread....and im really starting to realize the benefit of doing just that....editing out hate is an extrememly long process..you all dont know...

If your so concerned about my bias look at the posts from that same user from that same time period...the posts that were respectful and followed the rules were not deleted.....

i dare people...look at the posts from two nights ago.....draw your own conclussion and share them in this thread..



[This message was edited Fri May 21 6:32:48 2004 by sosgemini]

sosgemini said:

Only if you double-dog dare me.

2the9s said:

do it!!! double-doggie style

sosgemini- i understand why you moved this topic to the site discussion forum, but i think that they brought it up to begin to reconsider the topic of JWs beliefs and importance of the year 1914. so, do they need to start another thread again in the Politics & Religion forum, or can this one be moved back, as long as they play nice???

fantasyislander said:

oopsies...i didnt see that....

why dont u restart a new thread over there for me? please please plase..heheheheh ....i just saw the intro which was site related....

id much prefer keeping this thread here because it gives the other moderators an oppurtunity to see whats going on..

thanks..

(ps, people dont mix site criticism with an on topic discussion..its gonna always get your thread moved )

sosgemini said:

np! i can understand, i thought that was what it was about when i first saw it too, and i clicked on it thinking "oh great, here we go complaining about something again."

and don't worry, i'll never criticize you!

fantasyislander said:

oh no...i love constructive criticism..anything that increases the enjoyement of this website is much appreciated....

sosgemini said:

don't worry I'll criticize you.... how much can U take?

CokeJohnson said:

CokeJohnson said:

i protest! this thread is wildly off topic!




oh my my. i have NO idea what i'd do as a moderator on here. wait! yes i do. i'd. .. .
.
.
.
i'd
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. run like he11 ~!~!

CokeJohnson said:

10 inches..maybe more..

yxl1 said:

Thanks "YXL1", next time I'll be as polite and not voice my personal opinion and just ask the darn question.

Although, I think it was unfair also.

GeSmi1

2the9s said:

You see, that's what gets to met, but I won't be so sensitive...I do know something about the witnesses, because it was the religion of my family since age 1 and I was actually one for about a year, after studying with them on and off for 5 - 7 years, so I do know something.

Now let me ask you, have you ever read any of their books, like "Babylon the Great Has Fallen" or "Then Is Finished The Mystery of God", 'The paradise book', or any other publication. I have read them and I was baptized a JW in 1987, so if you don't have credentials like that then how can you say I don't know diddly squat?

1914 has been a marked year for the witnesses and it does evolve around the year 607BC, but no one ever asked is this year valid, but I think it's some 2521 or so years that's added to that year to come up with 1914. (I'm sure my math is wrong, but you get the idea.) It's very hard to defend, because I've tried to defend it myself and there have been wars since day one. However, not on a world-wide scale.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Jesus first prophecy of the end of this system of things, apply to Jewish life at that time? When the disciples asked about the signs, they were asking about what occurred in 70 CE, the fall of the Jewish system of that time as they were conquered by the Roman Empire, right? So, how does what he said back then apply to what's going on in the 20th century?

It's weird, yet compelling to find this information out.

Can someone expound upon this?

GeSmi1

XxAxX said:

Thanks XxaxX

I was merely pointing out that it was a self-righteous act for them to state that they are right, but when round wrong, it's the "light getting brighter", now let the Baptist, Catholics or any other organized religion state something new or if they were wrong and the witnesses would state that they've always been wrong and will continue to be wrong, because we're right. Of course, I'm not stating that they'll actually say that, but honestly witnesses, do you feel that? Don't you all believe you're right and that other religions base their beliefs on pagan doctrines?

The trinity for instance, was said to be taken from Egyptian and Babylonian teachings of their triune gods and imposed into the Christian society after the true first century christians passed on. Yet, some feel that they can prove this by what's in the bible. Someone on the org just stated some information regarding the trinity and I must say, it doesn't seem to far fetched, because the Son and Holy Spirit all came from God and they all work on one accord, so why can't it be God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit, if they all come from God? I just thought that was interesting, but I still have questions regarding the trinity.

But witnesses are taught that most of 'christendom's' teachings are based on theories from worships and teachings of false deities.

GeSmi1

sosgemini said:

SOSGEMINI:


Why are you still attacking me? I know what I wrote, so since you want to state things about that "user" to everyone, I'm sure they know who it is, then where in the world is your professionalism as a moderator?

I could counterattack, which would get me banned, because you're the moderator and I'm not, but you know what!?...you're just not worth it SOSGEMINI.

Actually, more power to you. I wish you well in your days of moderating and you shouldn't hear anymore from me, unless you just want to find something, then "hey".

I just think it's very unfair for you to bash me without me even knowing about it; yes, I call that bashing.

If you think that's being oversensitive, well, that's the same way I feel about the reaction received when I stated what I did about the witnesses, overly sensitive indeed.

Peace and I'll keep my comments to a non-judgmental mode.

GeSmi1
[This message was edited Sat May 22 10:58:59 2004 by GeSmi1]
[This message was edited Sat May 22 11:27:45 2004 by GeSmi1]

sosgemini said:

I bet you could take much more...no maybe's about it.

(just joining in on the fun. )

GeSmi1 said:[quote]

sosgemini said:

not attacking...just clarifying why the thread was locked...

sosgemini said:[quote]

GeSmi1 said:

Well, if it floats your boat....Float.

GeSmi1
[This message was edited Mon May 24 18:31:00 2004 by GeSmi1]