Is there any benefit to being a higher level? On a different note, what exactly is an elder (requirements, duties, etc)? Are these people paid?

I went on a couple JW forums before asking you about it, and the JWs on the forums were rather forward about cheating on their cards. So you certainly weren't alone in juicing the books.

Would you mind telling Alter2Ego that?

There are no paid positions in the congregation, until you get to the position of circuit overseer, which is still hardly any money. The CO is provided with a car, a place to live, food, etc. All their needs are taken care of, and they are provided with a meager stipend for any other expenses.

The elders are responsible for the administrative and spiritual leadership of the congregation. Certain people have different responsibilities, like the accounting, the direction of the Ministry School, a weekly portion of the meeting where members of the congregation are assigned parts of the weekly Bible reading to present with commentary while working on their presentation skills. Then there is the presiding overseer, the head of the congregation for all intents and purposes. I'm oversimplifying a little, but you get the basic idea.

There's no financial incentive to increasing your share in the ministry, it's a weird combination of pressure on the young people to do what is expected of you, and the other half who really enjoy what they do, just like other people who are devoted to their faith in other religions feel the same way.

I'm going to watch this but before I do can you tell me if it's your position that Ehrman claims that one person (presumably Irenaeus) decided for all the church that there are exactly 4 gospels and that he decided it because there are 4 winds?

I went to the link you provided and when I clicked the play button I got an error message.

I just clicked on it and it worked fine. I don't know what to tell you. You can always go to YouTube and search for 'Bart Ehrman'. He has several interesting lectures, and he deals in logic and reasoning when explaining his arguments as opposed to just assuming the Bible is the inerrant word of God.

Of course, you should always do your own research, and I try to get my information from multiple sources as often as I can, but it is very difficult to live as a full time student, do all the work I do with football (this is a year-round thing for me), work the occasional part time job on the side as well, and stay up to date on all the scholarly opinions on subjects that interest me.

None of the videos on that page work for me.

Anyway, I assume you're not going to answer the question?

Edit: Hmm, can't get any internet videos to work - will have to do some research on that. But I still want you to answer the question - I'm not going to do a lot of research on an assertion by you that I'm sure is totally false - you provide the support first.

Edit edit: OK, it works in IE (rats I hate IE), but for some reason Firefox won't play a utube right now. But I'm not going to listen till you answer the question.

Edit edit edit: Aha, it was Real Player, another program I detest.

I have offered you sources to go look at, whether or not your computer is capable of the Herculean task of streaming a YouTube video is not my problem.

Whether you are "sure" something is totally false is irrelevant to me. You are under the mistaken impression that the books in the Bible are the only ones ever written under the pretense of being inspired by God. It is also very important to realize that Christianity at that time was as splintered as it is now, possibly even more so with the influence of Gnosticism and Marcianism.

There were literally hundreds, possibly even thousands of ancient books written during the first few centuries after the supposed death of Christ, not to mention the different copies that were made of those originals. Unfortunately the clerics at that time did not have access to Xerox machines, so there were usually mistakes made.

It was because of the massive amount of dissent, changing of sacred texts, and writing of books under false names that an ancient Bishop tried to unite the faith under a group of accepted gospels. This man's name was Irenaeus of Lyons, and he wrote his arguments in a book called 'Against Heresies'. Below is the text of what he wrote:

"But it is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the church has been scattered throughout the world, and since the 'pillar and ground' of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life, it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing incorruption on every side, and vivifying human afresh. From this fact, it is evident that the Logos, the fashioner demiourgos of all, he that sits on the cherubim and holds all things together, when he was manifested to humanity, gave us the gospel under four forms but bound together by one spirit." Against Heresies 3.11.8

You can accept or reject this, to be honest I really don't care. This is not what this thread was supposed to be about anyway. However this is a very commonly accepted view among Bible Scholars today, and like it or not, it's not going away.

I don't spend half my life looking at youtube videos. As to Herculean, once I was aware of the problem, the solution took about 5 minutes.


I'm familiar with the Irenaeus quote. That doesn't prove what you asserted.

As to the "errors" in the New Testament the internet is flooded with criticisms of Ehrman. Here's one:

http://www.ccwtoday.org/article_view.asp?article_id=69

I've seen a quote from Ehrman where he admits the original texts of the NT were pretty much what we have today.

As to canonicity, if you want to debate that, let's go.

Edit: I feel I should comment on your statement that this isn't what the thread should be about. Fine. But you're the one making the wild and false allegations. You shouldn't then cry about eliciting a response from someone who recognizes your vacuity on this subject.

Sigh... Good one, the old 'Claim the other guy is a dork/nerd' defense. Guilty as charged.

I really had high hopes for this discussion until you directed me to that link.

Really? A fundamentalist Christian site has an article attacking an author who suggests the Bible is not written by God? I'm shocked.

I never implied that the texts were drastically changed from what they were 2,000 years ago. My whole point is that if God did in fact write the Bible, why would there be ANY mistakes in it?

As far as the canonicity subject, you are aware that the New Testament books were mostly selected by vote aren't you? There was no single book from on high transported down to Earth from the Lord. There were simply the least unbelievable books that were chosen from the large collection of otherwise ridiculous stories, which included things like Jesus fighting dragons, etc.

You have a right to believe what you want, but please stop trying to derail this thread. I created it out of deference to JokerThief so that I could answer questions about JWs without taking over his. If you want to debate this, create a thread or join one of the many others on this forum on the topic.

I provided what he claimed is a quote from Ehrman. Are you saying that quote is inaccurate?

Why did God ...X... ?
Is that supposed to be an argument?


You obviously have never studied how the canon was formed.

I'm not derailing. I'm responding to what I believe are easily disproved errors you made. Withdraw them, ignore them, debate them - but don't claim they're my topic. And no, I don't want to debate it. But if you want to I will engage.

I am moving on. This is not what this thread was supposed to be about. I have presented my arguments and my sources, that is enough for me. I obviously am not changing your mind, so I'm not going to waste valuable keystrokes banging my head against the wall.

JWs actually do have a real 'Do Not Call' list. As far as I know though, it's really more of a 'Only call on this house once every couple of years' list, just to see if the person has changed their mind. Usually these houses are reserved for the elders, who will visit them sparingly, like I said, every couple of years.

There have only been a couple of times when we ever put a house on a true Do Not Call list, and those were the few times the person at the door threatened a JW with violence, pulled a gun or 'released the hounds' on someone.

My mother left the JWs when she was 17 or 18 for a short time, got pregnant with me, then freaked out and wanted to come back to what she still thought was the truth. She wanted to marry my father because she thought it was the honorable and Christian thing to do, and she didn't want me to grow up in a single parent home.

It is very common in the organization for one person in a marriage to convert but the other to stay out of it. These situations can vary rapidly from indifference by the non-witness mate, to spousal abuse as long as the person continues to be a part of the JWs.

As it stands right now, my parents are still legally married, but they have been separated for almost six years now, and I don't see them ever getting back together.

I know exactly what you mean. This is an interesting question, and I've come to the conclusion that the more crazy or out there a religion or ideology is, the more proficient at propaganda the organization, political group, or religion is, as are their followers/ believers.

As JWs, we were constantly told that we were always supposed to be ready to represent the Watchtower well, by being well behaved in school, well behaved, honest and hard working employees, with clean houses and yards, and following all of the teachings of the Bible. We were supposed to always "ready to give a witness for Jehovah" as I remember being told hundreds of times from the platform. There's obviously nothing wrong with being honest, hard working, and law abiding citizens

In my reading of history, it always seems to me that the less desirable philosophy relies more on deception and propaganda. The people who were better at it than anyone were the Soviets, but they were deceitful out of necessity, because the ideology on its face is terrible, and it would lost out to capitalism by vote in a landslide.

My mother is a JW and i was till I was 16 im 32 now for what its worth they do teach some good moral values and I feel that as a person I am much better than most drug using people who abuse there body, make people unhappy in persuit of there next high etc etc.

I left because I didnt agree with what was being taught, also a really mad reason but the 'thursday night' meeting in kingdom hall clashed with top of the pops, as a kid that riled me no end.

isn't that the door to door salesman religion?

JW taught you some morals and you're not a drug user? Pretty weak endorsement. I'm an atheist and I've never used drugs. Don't think it's worth it to go through an experience like that just to be able to say you're a better person than an addict.

Id say I have more morals than say the youth of today and prob a lot more people, FWIW I didnt enjoy the experince

You'd say based on what exactly? Your post sounds like, "hey I went through years of brainwashing in an ignorant, restrictive cult, but at least I'm not a drug addict." Just sounds kind of funny to me. How do so many of us atheists end up moral?

I'm guessing he's considering things like promiscuity, pornography, profanity (alliteration ftw) immoral, and tends to steer clear of these things.

And overwhelming majority of the Christians I know do not steer clear of these things.

I agree, but *he* probably does steer clear, and he's now claiming causal factors due to his JW upbringing -- which may, or may not, be valid (determining causation from correlation is so ****ing hard anyways).

This is obviously not the case, since the philosophy has not simply disappeared. On the contrary, the Russian Communist Party was ranked the 2nd most popular party in Russia. (1st was United Russia (Putin's Party) Which had wide scale voter fraud)

I am just amused that a guy whose handle is pot slammer is getting all high and mighty about drugs. I know it is a poker reference not a marijuana reference but still

Lucky you were born in the time and the place you were Coach Kirby.

You could have been doing a tour in Siberia with your relatives:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_North