2 Peter is one of my favourite Bible books. Maybe it was written by Peter, maybe it wasn’t, it’s still great either way. It says God wants everyone to repent and live, but it’s not alone, there are plenty of other verses that say similar.
slimboyfat
JoinedPosts by slimboyfat
-
19
A gospel of LOVE or a gospel of HATE?
by JanH in" (the watchtower, 10/1 1961, p. 596; bold added).
" (the watchtower, 11/15 1952, p. 703; bold added).
" (the watchtower, 10/1 1952, p. 599; bold added).
-
-
-
19
A gospel of LOVE or a gospel of HATE?
by JanH in" (the watchtower, 10/1 1961, p. 596; bold added).
" (the watchtower, 11/15 1952, p. 703; bold added).
" (the watchtower, 10/1 1952, p. 599; bold added).
-
-
slimboyfat
I think Charles Tase Russell was at heart a near universalist and that JWs should get back to their universalist roots. At one time it was Bible Student/JW understanding that millions of non believers would survive Armageddon and that even Adam had a chance in the resurrection. We should get back to that mentality, because God can do anything he wishes, and the Bible clearly states that God wishes all to attain to repentance and be saved.
-
1
More Fun with AI
by ballistic ina jw once asked me if i knew that an "orange" is conscious and even though he did not explain further (told me i wasn't ready yet) i bet he never knew i would think of this from time to time over the years.
so i asked gemini what he could have meant and a lot of ideas came back, different philosophies and religions.. so i asked gemini, can you design a new religion by combining these ideas in a way that has not been done before and suggest a name for the religion and this is what it came back with:.
(ai generated text:).
-
-
slimboyfat
I think panpsychism, the view that all matter is conscious, is an interesting idea with some interesting proponents such as Thomas Nagel and Philip Goff, but ultimately I find idealism a more convincing explanation of reality: that is the view that consciousness is the basic level of reality and that matter is a result of consciousness rather than the other way around, consciousness arising out of matter, which is largely the common sense physicalist/materialist understanding in the modern world.
-
7
Things Rutherford got wrong that Fred Franz had to clear up
by slimboyfat ini was interested by the suggestion in a recent discussion that rutherford was in some way preferable to fred franz, because i’ve not come across this view before.
it made me rethink my assumptions and try to work out why i hold the opposite view and prefer fred franz to rutherford.
i haven’t done any additional research, so i’m only drawing on what i can remember off the top of my head, but i thought i’d list a few things where i reckon fred franz’s approach was preferable to rutherford.
-
-
slimboyfat
Yeah cleared up some stuff, vidiot, and made a whole lot of other stuff more complicated and obscure - no doubt! 🧐
What was Franz’s role regarding blood I wonder. Did he 1) come up with the idea to refuse blood transfusions 2) someone else came up with the idea and he fully supported it 3) he went along with the idea but was not enthusiastic, or 4) some other option?
I’ve read that it was Gene Smalley who came up with the blood ban and maintained it over the decades.
-
7
Things Rutherford got wrong that Fred Franz had to clear up
by slimboyfat ini was interested by the suggestion in a recent discussion that rutherford was in some way preferable to fred franz, because i’ve not come across this view before.
it made me rethink my assumptions and try to work out why i hold the opposite view and prefer fred franz to rutherford.
i haven’t done any additional research, so i’m only drawing on what i can remember off the top of my head, but i thought i’d list a few things where i reckon fred franz’s approach was preferable to rutherford.
-
-
slimboyfat
I don’t think it needs to be either/or, Tonus. I reckon everyone doubts to some degree, no matter what their belief or position. Rutherford had a lot of good reasons in his personal experience to suspect that he was being used by God. Consider his backstory of being imprisoned by the US government and being opposed within his own movement. Not only did he overcome all that, but by the end of his life the movement was thriving and expanding like never before. If you really put yourself in the mind the person, who wouldn’t believe you are blessed by God in that situation?
On the other hand, there is good evidence he didn’t treat his wife particularly well, was estranged from his son, fell out with many people, afforded himself luxuries in a time of poverty, not to mention suspicions about his womanising and alcoholism. Don’t these indicate cynicism rather than true belief? Possibly. Yet even biblical stories such as David combine true belief with shocking immoral behaviour. One apparently doesn’t exclude the other, especially for those in positions of power and wealth. We can judge their behaviour but it’s not the same as saying that he himself didn’t believe what he preached.
Strangely, I think a stronger case might be made for Knorr having doubts about the religion he led, because there is testimony from a few people that he didn’t believe the more eccentric doctrines and was far more interested in the technicalities of managing a publishing empire than in the niceties of theology.
-
17
The JW's are suing Mark O'Donnell in civil court for millions.So protect the pedos, and suit the whistelblowers? Shame on this cult!
by WingCommander inlink to his announcement on www.jwchildabuse.org:.
https://www.jwchildabuse.org/news/jehovahs-witnesses-sue-editor-of-jw-child-abuse-website-for-millions/.
if anyone needed any further proof of how low and despicable this cult has become, here's more evidence.
-
-
slimboyfat
Sometimes politicians get caught in recordings at private events which are publicised in the media. I don’t know the legality of that but Austrian politicians, for example, have lost their position because of damning comments made in private that were recorded without their knowledge. Was the person doing the recording also prosecuted in those cases? Or is a politician who makes damning comments in private fair game whereas ordinary people deserve privacy. It’s different countries and different laws too. I don’t know what the law is here. On the one hand it seems reasonable that people have a right not to have their private conversations recorded. On the other hand if it uncovers illegality or serious hypocrisy that others should know about is there a justification for it? I don’t know the answer, I’m just trying to understand the issues involved.
-
17
The JW's are suing Mark O'Donnell in civil court for millions.So protect the pedos, and suit the whistelblowers? Shame on this cult!
by WingCommander inlink to his announcement on www.jwchildabuse.org:.
https://www.jwchildabuse.org/news/jehovahs-witnesses-sue-editor-of-jw-child-abuse-website-for-millions/.
if anyone needed any further proof of how low and despicable this cult has become, here's more evidence.
-
-
slimboyfat
I see, he recorded the meeting. That makes sense as a basis for legal action. He should have known not to do that, or at least not to publicise that he had recorded it.
-
7
Things Rutherford got wrong that Fred Franz had to clear up
by slimboyfat ini was interested by the suggestion in a recent discussion that rutherford was in some way preferable to fred franz, because i’ve not come across this view before.
it made me rethink my assumptions and try to work out why i hold the opposite view and prefer fred franz to rutherford.
i haven’t done any additional research, so i’m only drawing on what i can remember off the top of my head, but i thought i’d list a few things where i reckon fred franz’s approach was preferable to rutherford.
-
-
slimboyfat
I was interested by the suggestion in a recent discussion that Rutherford was in some way preferable to Fred Franz, because I’ve not come across this view before. It made me rethink my assumptions and try to work out why I hold the opposite view and prefer Fred Franz to Rutherford. I haven’t done any additional research, so I’m only drawing on what I can remember off the top of my head, but I thought I’d list a few things where I reckon Fred Franz’s approach was preferable to Rutherford.
1. Rutherford stopped songs and music at the meetings. Fred Franz loved music and singing and restored them when Rutherford died. It would be pretty strange to have meetings with no music.
2. Rutherford insisted on the rather forced reading of Romans 13 that the “superior authorities” are not governments but Jesus and Jehovah. That was a pretty incredible claim that Franz had to walk back while maintaining neutrality as a principle that is not dependent on this forced reading of this passage.
3. Rutherford introduced a strange teaching that in modern times God uses only the angels rather than the holly spirit to guide his followers. Again, Franz dropped that.
4. Rutherford introduced militaristic language to describe congregations rather as “companies” as if engaged in warfare (a bit like the Salvation Army). Again, Franz ended that.
5. Rutherford got rid of elders as the means of organising congregations. It is not as clear in this instance that Franz was instrumental in restoring bodies of elders, or if he allowed the change to be made by others, but elders did come back, in a new form.
6. Rutherford engaged in personal attacks in bethel and through the pages of the publications against Johnson and Moyle and others. Whatever his other faults, I don’t think Franz engaged in that, certainly not in the printed literature as Rutherford did.
7. Rutherford was anti-intellectual as well as anti-cleric, anti-business, anti-politics (some would say anti-social - ha!) whereas, whether you agreed with Franz or not, he did attempt to read and engage with academic literature on Bible languages and interpretation, which made for more interesting material.
Those are some things where I think where Franz was preferable to Rutherford. I am probably forgetting and/or missing loads of relevant issues. These don’t get into the personal habits of either which is a whole other, though largely unverifiable area where Rutherford has come in for greater criticism than Franz.
-
66
Who will Survive Armageddon?
by Vanderhoven7 inbreaking news....there is hope for good hearted non-jws!!!.
according to sergio:.
are jehovah's witnesses the only ones to be saved during the end time?.
-
-
slimboyfat
We must have the faith that the Bible does revive
We must build such faith if God’s war we would survive
Do we have a faith accompanied by works
This kind of faith preserves our souls alive
-
17
The JW's are suing Mark O'Donnell in civil court for millions.So protect the pedos, and suit the whistelblowers? Shame on this cult!
by WingCommander inlink to his announcement on www.jwchildabuse.org:.
https://www.jwchildabuse.org/news/jehovahs-witnesses-sue-editor-of-jw-child-abuse-website-for-millions/.
if anyone needed any further proof of how low and despicable this cult has become, here's more evidence.
-
-
slimboyfat
Does anyone know what law he is accused of breaking? Are there precedents one way or another about Zoom meetings? If attending Zoom meetings you’re not “supposed” to be at is criminal then there should surely be lots of cases involving it. But in this case it seems like they regret allowing him into the meeting, which sounds weaker still. They should have thought about that when they were admitting people to the meeting.
If somebody held a physical meeting that they considered sensitive and carelessly left a door open, is a journalist breaking the law by listening at the door? This is what it seems like to me but I have only read a bit.