this is absolutely feckin' priceless.. https://www.jw.org/en/publications/videos/viewpoints-origin-of-life/petr-muzny-law-professor/.
in yet another appeal to authority, jw.org has trotted out a professional to vouch for creation.
this guy is a law professor.
according to his 'testimonial' on JW.Org, he received his law degree in 2004 and according to prabook he received a Doctorate in Philosophy in 2005. Prabook could possibly be incorrect and this could be cleared up if someone could translate his curriculum vitae into English
He qualified to practise law in 2000, his doctorate was awarded in 2004, he obtained his first tenured position in 2005 and became a professor in 2006. ( http://transius.unige.ch/fr/membres/membres/petr-muzny/ ).
this is absolutely feckin' priceless.. https://www.jw.org/en/publications/videos/viewpoints-origin-of-life/petr-muzny-law-professor/.
in yet another appeal to authority, jw.org has trotted out a professional to vouch for creation.
this guy is a law professor.
Dr. Muzny has a CV posted online. However, I can't read it because it is in French, so I am not sure exactly what he was trained in at university. Interestingly enough, I found a website that says his Doctorate was in Philosophy! According to this website, he received his Doctorate in Philosophy from University Montpellier, France. It can be found here: http://prabook.com/web/person-view.html?profileId=488834
Doctor of Philosophy is just the full form for Ph.D (Philosophiae Doctor}.
tl;dr: if you live either in scotland or in other parts of uk and you don't mind traveling, you might be able to help a fellow ex-jw by being present during a courtcase where she alone has to face more than two dozens of jws who have ruined their business.
please contact me directly for details on when and where the court case will be held (i will know these details in few days probably).
ps.
If it's been in the local newspaper, any link to, or image of, the story they printed?
this has probably been discussed before so please feel free to include links as well.
so what would wt be now if it had encouraged it's members to use the internet or technology for spreading the good news.
.
One of the reasons for them initially trying to stamp out internet use was that initial surge of JWs online leading some to getting non-approved information and then asking awkward questions. (I remember the various bits about it in the 90s in their publications - "would you invite an apostate into your home?"). At the time, digital media was limited by access and cost (metered connections at 56k!) so it wasn't even a way for them to reliably distribute the WT as a text document.
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-study-august-2016/do-you-see-the-need-to-train-others/.
much of the article is the usual thoughtless mush that we have come to expect these days.
the rank and file bros. are urged to reach out to train the new ones... .
What I got from that is that they know that they're not converting people on the doorstep, and the little paragraph at the end there about perseverance hints at far more than just 'new ones' feeling it's all a bit pointless. The problem with the men who stay inside really not wanting to climb the WBTS leadership ladder is making them increasingly shrill about it. Probably is not helped by them trying to guilt elders into doing even more.
seriously, you can't make this shit up.
and these same people will accuse hillary of rigging the election after she wins:.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/trump-supporters-repeal-19th-amendment-article-1.2828571.
seriously, you can't make this shit up.
and these same people will accuse hillary of rigging the election after she wins:.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/trump-supporters-repeal-19th-amendment-article-1.2828571.
i just received the following message from a friend this morning.. barbara.
eloise dupuis, 27 years old, died at the hotel dieu hospital in lévis, quebec, canada, wednesday, october 12th.
she died because of her religious principles.
So sad.
here is something i found interesting:.
biblical scholar claims the story of jesus christ was a hoax designed to control the people.
http://simplecapacity.com/2016/10/biblical-scholar-claims-story-jesus-christ-hoax-designed-control-people/.
If the gospels aren't historically accurate documents then everything which Jesus is recorded as saying needs to be seen more as which words each writer wanted him to say. Think you have to split the biblical Jesus from a historical Jesus. The biblical Jesus may or may not bear some or any relationship to the historical Jesus. The biblical Jesus is, very arguably, a construction of decades later - which is where mythicist ideas tend to mesh with the scholarly consensus. eg the development of ideas about the nature of divinity.
So not sure a biblical Jesus sounding eerily similar to a Jewish Rabbi writing in Babylon either proves or disproves a historical Jesus. Where it gets interesting is whether the person writing down the sermon on the mount knew of that Rabbi's thoughts. There's a similar argument around the writer of Luke/Acts and Josephus. Atwill gets it backwards. The argument runs that it's not Josephus writing Luke/Acts but that portions of Luke/Acts seem to indicate its writer had read Josephus - and was in fact copying parts of Josephus and making factual errors based on Josephus' works. It's all interesting for the origins of Christianity and of the writings of early Christianities. But not so much useful for saying whether there was a bloke who did walk around first century Palestine claiming to be a messiah (or not?) and ended up having followers who, after he had been executed/died, thought he was God.
here is something i found interesting:.
biblical scholar claims the story of jesus christ was a hoax designed to control the people.
http://simplecapacity.com/2016/10/biblical-scholar-claims-story-jesus-christ-hoax-designed-control-people/.
Robert Price and Bart Ehrman are debating the 'did he exist?' question in a week or so's time. Sure it'll end up on Youtube. Personally, I lean towards a historical Yeshua Ben Yosef - who may or may not have had much in common with the Jesus of the Gospels. Regardless of that though, Atwill writes absolute tosh. It's about as useful as using von Daniken to understand pre-Columbian South American civilisations. It's not even wrong.
