Coded Logic

Joined

• started 181 topics
• posted 1,465 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Coded Logic

• 
  31

  The GB know it's all lies and wants to dismantle the WTS ... then what?

  by Simon in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  so imagine the gb have a sudden attack of honesty and realize "crap, this whole thing is lies - we're not god's spokespeople at all !".

  how do you dismantle a religion that has +8 million members in a responsible way?

  you can't just publish a watchtower saying "we were wrong" because that would be irresponsible - you need to let people down gently, put people off gradually.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  This would be a fairly simple problem to solve. Over the course of a couple of years they could phase out the term F&DS and slowly stop being so authoritarian about everything. The second step would be to hand over more power to individual congregations and make almost everything a "conscience matter". The final phase would be shutting down the various headquarters, retiring the organisational name "Watchtower", and having each Kingdom Hall operate with autonomy under the umbrella term of "Jehovah's Witnesses" much like the the Methodists Church does.

  http://www.umc.org/who-we-are/constitutional-structure
• 
  42

  What I thought CLAM meant , can you think of anymore ?

  by smiddy in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  for a while there i was confused as to what clam stood for .. ideas that crossed my mind .

  christ left a ministry , or meeting .

  children`s lives are mine .....( pedo`s in the borg ).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  Contemporary Lies for the Absent Minded
  

  Calculated Lunacy and Astounding Madness

  Convoluted and (over)Lapping Apocalyptic Malarky

  or maybe it's another way of talking about elders? - Clueless Lackys who Arrogantly Manage

  
  
• 
  67

  Is proselytizing less condescending when evolutionists do it?

  by paul from cleveland in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  is it just me?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  Crofty,

  You're arrogance is truly astounding, how dare you use verifiable facts and multiple lines of evidence to support your conclusions - all the while propagating informed opinions and making an effort to understand the necessary principles at hand on any given topic. Why the gull! The nerve!

  First it starts with evolution - next thing we know you'll be promoting science!!! DOES YOUR DEBAUCHERY KNOW NO BOUNDS?!!!
• 
  14

  Conversation with a Biblical scholar - Richard Dawkins

  by CookieMonster in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  quite interesting when you look at the bible objectively and the historical records.

  it highlights the problems of using the bible as authoritative and validation of history.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxcutg0lvr0.

  spoiler: didn't know that the immanuel prophecy attributed to jesus as being born from a virgin is actually a mistranslation.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  Slimboyfat,

  I'm not sure if it's a miscommunication issue on my part or if you're just being obtuse but let's give it one more try shall we? You made the claim:

  This professor says the names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not applied to the gospels in the manuscript tradition before the mid-fourth century.

  Plain and simple, the professor did NOT say this nor did he remotely imply it. He even went so far as to specifically point out that, for the Gospel of John, we have a late second century manuscript that includes the name. No one here is saying that the early manuscripts lacked these titles.

  You attacking this guy for a position he doesn't hold.

  More importantly, the reason the Gospels are "anonymous" is because the names were never meant to establish authorship. Rather, they were place holders to tell the narratives apart.

  We know this for several reasons:

  1.) The Greek preposition κατά (speculative - "handed down", "according to") is used to identify the Gospels instead of a proper genitive case that would imply an author's ownership or identity.

  2.) None of the Gospels identify the Author's in the body of the work which was common practice at the time.

  3.) The Gospels are written in the 3rd person instead of being first hand accounts.

  4.) When the Gospels are quoted by early writers (Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, etc.) they never use the Gospel names.

  5.) It's highly unlikely that a fisherman (John) and a tollbooth collector (Matthew) would be literate. Even worse, as Galileans, they spoke Aramaic. Not the Greek the books are written in.
• 
  14

  Conversation with a Biblical scholar - Richard Dawkins

  by CookieMonster in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  quite interesting when you look at the bible objectively and the historical records.

  it highlights the problems of using the bible as authoritative and validation of history.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxcutg0lvr0.

  spoiler: didn't know that the immanuel prophecy attributed to jesus as being born from a virgin is actually a mistranslation.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  It's a bit disconcerting when an "expert" makes such a jarring factual error. This professor says the names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not applied to the gospels in the manuscript tradition before the mid-fourth century. That is plain wrong.

  Wow SBF, that would be a major error on the Professor's part . . . IF you were right.

  But you're not. Dawkins asked him when the names were added and he said, "The bulk of the Gospels - in terms of the manuscript tradition - you have to go all the way into the fourth century." (16:50)

  This is an accurate statement. The vast majority of manuscripts did not have the names attached. The paper you cite even goes on to explain that we have only one manuscript from the 2nd century with the name John attached to it. And, for the other Gospels, we never see the names attached until the 3rd century. But the point made is these manuscripts with names were the exceptions. Not the tradition.

  It's not until the 4th century before we start seeing the names being applied to the Gospels with any regularity.
• 
  11

  Are you related to me?

  by Coded Logic in

  1. social
  2. current

  the chances that anyone on this forum is my biological brother or sister, purely from a statistical point of view, is rather low.

  but how many generations back would we have to go to have a fair chance that one of my ancestors married one of your ancestors (or procreated anyway)?.

  i was born in 1985. less than 20 years before my birth my two parents were being conceived by a combined 4 parents of their own.. and if we go back even further, to 40 years before my birth, then i'll find an additional 8 ancestors.. around the 60 year mark i have another 16 ancestors.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  The chances that anyone on this forum is my biological brother or sister, purely from a statistical point of view, is rather low. But how many generations back would we have to go to have a fair chance that one of my ancestors married one of your ancestors (or procreated anyway)?

  I was born in 1985. Less than 20 years before my birth my two parents were being conceived by a combined 4 parents of their own.

  And if we go back even further, to 40 years before my birth, then I'll find an additional 8 ancestors.

  Around the 60 year mark I have another 16 ancestors

  80 years back gives me an additional 32 ancestors

  And so on

  . . .

  By the time I've gone back to the year 1545 I would expect to have around 8.3 million LIVING relatives. Only 50 years after Columbus had discovered North America more people alive were grandparents to me than are currently active publishers with the Watchtower today. Just 22 generations back . . . 22 conceptions and births and surely one of my ancestors would have witnessed Martin Luther's separation from the Catholic Church. Or would have served under King Henry the VIII. Just 22 generations ago.

  So, are you related to me? Well of course - we're all related. But we probably don't have to go back the thousands or tens of thousands of years we might expect to find our common ancestry. Perhaps 500 years ago one of my 8 million living relatives married one of your 8 million living relatives.

  Chances are none of you here are my biological brother or sister. But there's a pretty good chance you're my cousin from the last millennium.

  http://io9.gizmodo.com/5791530/why-humans-all-much-more-related-than-you-think
• 
  62

  Brooklyn news on sending the elderly packing

  by I am a Bible Student in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  johnny the bethelite on this program talks about the older bethelites being targeted by watchtower.they are getting rid of those at bethel who are 65-87 years old, some being anointed even the widows of former governing body members who gave decades of loyal service time to the watchtower organization.. the reasons the very elderly are being expelled are money in that for their age range they cost so much to cloth, fed, and medicate, having problems from high blood pressure to dementia.

  they include persons such as sister henschel whose husband had been a watchtower president and marian sydlik whose parents are long dead.. https://soundcloud.com/rick-fearon/jan-16-2016-johnny-the-bethelite-watchtower-insider-host-his-radio-program-from-brooklyn-ny .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  I agree that extraordinary claims require vigerous evidence. But this isn't an extraordinary claim. We know Bethel has been cutting costs for some time now. We know they have been reducing the number of staff at Brooklyn. And we know that many services are no longer going to be offered (food, laundry, cleaning, etc.).

  The idea that they're no longer going to look after the elderly in their ¨family¨ seems to be completely in line with that. And while consistency doesn't necessarily equate accuracy I feel the claim being made here (regardless of the source) is exactly what we would predict to happen next. They're cutting costs at all costs - compassion and human decency be damned.
• 
  29

  The WT in 10 years time

  by Coded Logic in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  a. in 2026 in what state do you think the organization will be?.

  ) 9million + members.

  ) roughly the same amount of members as today (7-9 million)..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  I don't think the ¨having babies¨ strategy is going to work. Less than 1/3 of JW children stick with the religion. And - in the US at least - witness couples average less than 2 children.

  Or, another way of putting it, every 10 JWs results in less than 3 kids that will stick with the religion into their twenties. This is not a sustainable model.
• 
  29

  The WT in 10 years time

  by Coded Logic in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  a. in 2026 in what state do you think the organization will be?.

  ) 9million + members.

  ) roughly the same amount of members as today (7-9 million)..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  Wow Smiddy, I like your optimism! :) Though I think my own projections are a little more conservative.

  In ten years time I would expect them to have 1 or 2 million less members, almost no printing in languages outside of English, French, German, Spanish, and Portuguese. And I would expect quite a bit less printing in English too.

  Concerning Bethel facilities, they've already closed so many I don't know how much more they'll really trim. But if I had to guess I would say their worldwide operations will be down another third.

  Another thing I forgot to bring up was number of weekly meetings. I think, for the R&F, it will be cut to one meeting a week with an additional "special" meeting every month or so - along with a second weekly meeting only for Elders, MS, Pioneers, etc.
• 
  29

  The WT in 10 years time

  by Coded Logic in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  a. in 2026 in what state do you think the organization will be?.

  ) 9million + members.

  ) roughly the same amount of members as today (7-9 million)..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  A. In 2026 in what state do you think the Organization will be?

  1.) 9million + members

  2.) Roughly the same amount of members as today (7-9 million).

  3.) Less than 7million members

  4.) Roughly half the number of members as today

  5.) Split or dissolved.

  B. In 2026 do you think amount of literature printed in other languages (not English) will be:

  1.) More than today

  2.) The same as today

  3.) Less than today

  4.) None at all

  C. In 2026 do you think the amount of literature printed in English will be:

  1.) More than today

  2.) The same as today

  3.) Less than today

  4.) None at all

  D. In 2026 do you think the number of countries that have Bethel facilities will be:

  1.) More than today

  2.) The same as today

  3.) Less than today

  4.) Only in one country

  5.) No Bethel