Posts by Terry

9

The change in the Memorial

by Doug Mason in

up until 1954, the watch tower society said that the symbolism of the memorial loaf included the little flock and that the wine represented their sharing in jesus death.

(one example: the loaf pictures not jesus fleshly body but his body members, the christian congregation.

the watchtower, march 15, 1954, page 174).

Terry

The questions never asked and never answered:

"How is it possible to channel information which is dead wrong and why does the passage of time make the changes possible?"

"Why would the Governing Body authorize publishing and teaching doctrine, interpretation, and 'truth' which is eventually seen to be nonsense?"

Where is there truth in anything needing revision to its own opposite?

This has never been addressed. Nobody asks.

What is celebrated is the point of change (called New Light) which--when seen another way--is the moment the error is revealed.

"Hooray--we screwed up, but this time we got it right."

Oh, really? How do you know inasmuch as you thought you knew before, but were wrong?

7

An earlier date when the "great multitude/crowd" was first named: "Jehovah's witnesses"

by Doug Mason in

unlike the fonz, i can and do get things wrong..

the 1946 book let god be true ascribed the name jehovahs witnesses to the great multitude:.

page 232 of the 1952 edition.

Terry

I think the actual phrase, "Jehovah's witness. . ." appeared in Studies in the Scripture attached to the Great Pyramid ramblings.

Something or other like. . ."The Great Pyramid is Jehovah's witness in stone. . ."

But the application to the Great Crowd is equally wrong-headed as well. That's 0 for 2 for the WTS.

113

Are you religious or are you spiritual? Wake up to what?

by Deltawave in

there is a huge difference between been religious and been spiritual.

been religious is about been superior to others in the sight of god.

however, been spiritual is about self awareness, inner peace and unity with the natural world.

Terry

I'm not in the "belief" business any longer. Been there / done that.

Hope is okay, but belief takes a holiday from reality. Hope says, "I'm optimistic, but I know things can go wrong."

Belief says, "This is how it's going to be and nothing will convince me otherwise."

The world has way too many stiff-neck, hard heads--I don't need to add myself as one more.

55

why did man go from living 900 years to 90?

by sowhatnow in

i cant recall the scripture, where it says than only a few men will he live to be 80 years or so, can anyone recall that?.

so then im wondering, if it is a fact that men lived long years 900 in some cases, for what reason would god limit our lifespan if our time is so short compared to his?.

how on earth does man go from living 8 and 9 hundred years down to 80 to 100 ?.

Terry

The simplest answer is being overlooked.

There is zero evidence for the Bible's use of extraordinary age as factual.

You could almost make a case for "months" instead of years--but not quite.

It is fabulous mythmaking.

33

Richard Ashe Court Deposition - " Let elders handle child abuse- don't talk about it "

by flipper in

as some of you know i was given pdf files of much of the conti and lopez child abuse court cases and asked from a friend to peruse through it and post some excerpts on the board here that may have been missed or not addressed in the pbs newshour report or the abc news nightline report.

so after going through this richard ashe testimony i feel i found something quite interesting that exposes the real attitudes of the wt society leaders towards child abuse and the attitudes wt leaders put into it's appointed men's minds as well.

the viewpoint that richard ashe displays is repeated in elders throughout thousands of jw congregations on this planet.

Terry

The nonsensical notion that Elders are "trained" to counsel people who have been molested is totally unsupported.

What medical, psychological, psychiatric, or legal expertise do window washers, janitors, plumbers and such actually possess for the position they hold?

Let's start with: NONE.

25

So Why Do They Need The Money?

by konceptual99 in

so, as well reported, the latest jw broadcasting show is all about giving money.

as far as the wt society goes they have been pretty candid about there not being enough funds to meet the expenditure.

there are plenty of views on if this is really the case or not but underlying this is why are they spending so much money?.

Terry

Remember the RICO charges leveled against the WTS, using a Kingdom Hall as a money laundering scheme?

Had that case been properly executed with the assistance of actual attorneys we might have seen a much different outcome.

_______________________

A tax-exempt religion is just a playground for malfeasance.

Cue up the Scientology documentary and watch it happen. . .

11

JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES OLD SUPREME COURT CASE (THEY LOST) COMES UP IN THE NEWS concerning TERROR and HATE SPEECH!

by Terry in

i know about it and i'll explain the reason why.it has to do with terrorism and hate speech!________________________.

in researching my book about jehovah's witnesses, (i wept by the rivers of babylon) i studied many supreme court cases jehovah''s witnesses were fighting during the 1940's.. one such case is: 1942 supreme court ruling chaplinsky v. new hampshire.. if you had to use just two words to describe this case those two words would be: fighting words.. __________________________.

a jw street preacher incited his fellow citizens to riot against him by insulting everything they held dear: their god, their religion, their government, and their flag.. (that doesn't surprise you, does it?:).

Terry

Nobody likes TROLLING, and I've never see it defended under "free speech" underpinnings. I think this is because an agent provocateur invites civil disorder as a chief motive rather than fostering debate or merely expressing a personal, subjective POV.

JW's were clearly preaching a message of condemnation during the war years under the guise of religious freedom and free speech. They were trolling.

Today, sponsoring a contest to draw the prophet Muhammed is certainly hard to see as anything but a form of trolling. The essential question becomes: IS IT LEGAL?

You'll notice how JW's have become a kinder and gentler form of troll in modern times and not even a shadow of their former public image as hard-hitting martyrs eager to usher in the New World Society.

Do you suppose the Chaplinsky ruling had anything to do with it, or was it the death of the mean old bastard RUTHERFORD in that same year (1942) which brought an oasis of semi-sanity into the organization for a few decades under Nathan Knorr?

11

JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES OLD SUPREME COURT CASE (THEY LOST) COMES UP IN THE NEWS concerning TERROR and HATE SPEECH!

by Terry in

i know about it and i'll explain the reason why.it has to do with terrorism and hate speech!________________________.

in researching my book about jehovah's witnesses, (i wept by the rivers of babylon) i studied many supreme court cases jehovah''s witnesses were fighting during the 1940's.. one such case is: 1942 supreme court ruling chaplinsky v. new hampshire.. if you had to use just two words to describe this case those two words would be: fighting words.. __________________________.

a jw street preacher incited his fellow citizens to riot against him by insulting everything they held dear: their god, their religion, their government, and their flag.. (that doesn't surprise you, does it?:).

Terry

DATA-DOG, you're a real buzz-kill sometimes! :)

11

JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES OLD SUPREME COURT CASE (THEY LOST) COMES UP IN THE NEWS concerning TERROR and HATE SPEECH!

by Terry in

i know about it and i'll explain the reason why.it has to do with terrorism and hate speech!________________________.

in researching my book about jehovah's witnesses, (i wept by the rivers of babylon) i studied many supreme court cases jehovah''s witnesses were fighting during the 1940's.. one such case is: 1942 supreme court ruling chaplinsky v. new hampshire.. if you had to use just two words to describe this case those two words would be: fighting words.. __________________________.

a jw street preacher incited his fellow citizens to riot against him by insulting everything they held dear: their god, their religion, their government, and their flag.. (that doesn't surprise you, does it?:).

Terry

Here is what is interesting to me about this application of precedent.

The offense can only take place inside the mind of another person!

By deciding to be 'offended' I can curtail your right to say the thing which offends me!

If this isn't arbitrary, capricious, and whimsical--I don't know how else to characterize it.

It is not that different from saying "sexual harassment" is whatever causes another person to feel 'harrassed.'

This circumvents the necessity of DEFINING something specifically.

In other words, Beauty is in the eye of the Beholder and Fighting Words are whatever make somebody want to fight.

11

JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES OLD SUPREME COURT CASE (THEY LOST) COMES UP IN THE NEWS concerning TERROR and HATE SPEECH!

by Terry in

i know about it and i'll explain the reason why.it has to do with terrorism and hate speech!________________________.

in researching my book about jehovah's witnesses, (i wept by the rivers of babylon) i studied many supreme court cases jehovah''s witnesses were fighting during the 1940's.. one such case is: 1942 supreme court ruling chaplinsky v. new hampshire.. if you had to use just two words to describe this case those two words would be: fighting words.. __________________________.

a jw street preacher incited his fellow citizens to riot against him by insulting everything they held dear: their god, their religion, their government, and their flag.. (that doesn't surprise you, does it?:).

Terry

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/05/06/cnn-anchor-chris-cuomo-the-first-amendment-doesnt-protect-hate-speech-you-know/