I remember the intermission as a little girl in the early '70s. An ice cream seller figured it was good business to park outside the KH at those times
AnnOMaly
JoinedPosts by AnnOMaly
-
82
Do you remember the 15 minute break at the Sun. meeting?
by 3rdgen ina poster on another thread reminded me of when there was a 15 min.
break between the talk and the wt study on sundays.
the break was supposed to be to allow jw's time to drive their bible studys home from the talk.
-
-
-
49
A QUESTION FOR JW'S who say, "The brothers were overly zealous" about 1975
by Terry in"what was the actual significance of that year, then?".
if jw's were overly zealous, what was the exact amount of zeal encouraged by the wts for a non-event which took up.
over 7 years of every jw's time?.
-
-
AnnOMaly
I found that the question, "Then why did the Society/Org. leadership officially express regret over the part they played in the 1975 hype?" usually shuts the person up.
-
82
Awake January 2015: How did life begin? - More misquotes
by Designer Stubble in[quote]some might assume that a scientifically-minded person would pick evolution and that a religious person would pick creation.
but not always.. rama singh, professor of biology at canadas mcmaster university, says: the opposition to evolution goes beyond religious fundamentalism and includes a great many people from educated sections of the population.[/quote].
end-of-quote in awake.
-
-
AnnOMaly
The Awake quote comes from the bottom of page 870.
The 2nd quote in the OP comes from the article's abstract on page 868.
I know. I can see that. Hence the query.
-
35
JAN 2015 Awake - Yet More Fallacies and Disingenuous Statements re Evolution/Creation
by konceptual99 inso the new awake is up.. first question..... "how did life begin?.
how would you complete the following sentance?.
life is the result of..... a. evolution.
-
-
AnnOMaly
...if you have to cheat to defend your beliefs, your beliefs don't deserve to be defended.
Well said. Nailed it
-
82
Awake January 2015: How did life begin? - More misquotes
by Designer Stubble in[quote]some might assume that a scientifically-minded person would pick evolution and that a religious person would pick creation.
but not always.. rama singh, professor of biology at canadas mcmaster university, says: the opposition to evolution goes beyond religious fundamentalism and includes a great many people from educated sections of the population.[/quote].
end-of-quote in awake.
-
-
AnnOMaly
Rama Singh, professor of biology at Canada’s McMaster University, says: “The opposition to evolution goes beyond religious fundamentalism and includes a great many people from educated sections of the population.”[/quote]
end-of-quote in Awake
Actual Rama quote however continues:
[quote]...who may not be logically opposed to evolution nevertheless do not accept it. This is because the process of and the evidence for evolution are invisible to a nonspecialist, or the theory may look too simple to explain complex traits to some, or because people compare evolution against God and find evolutionary explanations threatening to their beliefs. Considering how evolution affects our lives, including health and the environment to give just two examples, a basic course in evolution should become a required component of all our college and university educational systems.[/quote]
sir82 gave a link to the article. In this article the two quotes do not join up (Pistoff gives the full sentence). DS, were you using a different source to sir82's?
-
82
Awake January 2015: How did life begin? - More misquotes
by Designer Stubble in[quote]some might assume that a scientifically-minded person would pick evolution and that a religious person would pick creation.
but not always.. rama singh, professor of biology at canadas mcmaster university, says: the opposition to evolution goes beyond religious fundamentalism and includes a great many people from educated sections of the population.[/quote].
end-of-quote in awake.
-
-
AnnOMaly
Interested in response.
-
35
JAN 2015 Awake - Yet More Fallacies and Disingenuous Statements re Evolution/Creation
by konceptual99 inso the new awake is up.. first question..... "how did life begin?.
how would you complete the following sentance?.
life is the result of..... a. evolution.
-
-
AnnOMaly
"Why is it that even some scientifically-minded people have trouble accepting evolution as the origin of life?"
Not a good start.I shall read the rest of the thread now.
-
48
Service meeting video....what a non-event
by sir82 inat our service meeting we saw the video of a jw explaining his beliefs about 1914.. it was.....well, "underwhelming" does not do it justice.
what is below "underwhelming"?
"boringly tepid"?.
-
-
-
33
Watchtower REMOVES "Trinity" Booklet---ONLINE! Video
by BlindersOff1 inanother great catch by "the snarky apologist" on youtube......................................................i'm looking for this pdf can anyone give me a link.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hihh1_uc9s4.
-
-
AnnOMaly
I keep hearing this about misquotes in it but I never see any evidence of that.
http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/trinity.php
By saying that there are misquotes in it, are you saying that there is a trinity?
The Trinity doctrine is an explanation which tries to harmonize and make sense of God/Jesus/Holy Spirit biblically and philosophically, and still retain monotheism.
Or is the contention that the Watchtower writers were not being honest in their attack on a doctrine that is false.
Yes. That is the contention.
Those quotes don't mean anything anyway. A person over 1000 years ago said something. Is that supposed to mean anything?
The quotes help in tracing early Christians' ideas about God/Jesus/Holy Spirit and how the Trinity doctrine evolved.
The only thing that means something is that God himself says it or if Jesus says it.
OK, but then you have to tie all the texts together to form a consistent whole. That is hard to do when you're faced with verses that apparently contradict each other or are ambiguous.
Then if someone was inspired by God to say it.
The others such as apostles, Paul, Peter, James, Jude, John (except for Revelation) were not inspired. And those after them were
not inspired. What they said matters not.
It does matter if you are a Bible-believing Christian because the epistles and Revelation are understood to be inspired.
-
28
is the big show on 1914 at Service Meeting evidence of factions in the GB?
by Wasanelder Once insometimes the gb do end runs around each other, as when freddie franz didn't agree with the whole governing body concept and spoke against it at the gilead graduation.
could this video/demonstration at the service meeting tonight on why they believe in 1914 and how to explain it to others be an effort to bolster that belief because there is a challange coming against it by factions within?
i guess we can't really tell but i wouldn't put it past the boneheads running the society.
-
-
AnnOMaly
Could this video/demonstration at the Service meeting tonight on why they believe in 1914 and how to explain it to others be an effort to bolster that belief because there is a challange coming against it by factions within?
Sure. It happens periodically.
When there were murmurings about 1914 and chronology in the aftermath of Russell's death and the end of the war, Rutherford shouted down the dissenters, dug his heels in, and made adherence to Russell's chronological scheme a test of loyalty to the Society in a series of articles in 1922.
The 1960s saw many and more detailed articles about chronology. JWs like e.g. Max Hatton had corresponded with the Society and asked them lots of awkward questions they couldn't satisfactorily answer. (We need to remember also the 1975 thing was launched which focussed on the WT's 'Bible chronology' too.)
Carl Jonsson's findings rattled HQ in the late '70s and so the WT views were restated and 'defended' in 1981's Kingdom Come book.
Age of the internet, lots of discussion, criticisms, Furuli's nonsense and 100 long years since the Kingdom's alleged birth - all this exposure makes JWs look at and/or question WT chronology, especially now. The WT response? Do what it's done in the past. Put on its game face, thump the same tub, quash doubts and ensure the r&f unitedly toe the party line.
Not a good start.
Classic.