I totally agree with the bot that newspapers get things wrong all the time. They habitually get names, dates, locations, sequences of events, and other important details wildly wrong. I’ve seen newspapers and broadcast media do this many times and assume it’s ubiquitous. What newspapers don’t usually do, and would be somewhat harder to mess up is, say, present a photo of a JW claiming to be the pope’s cousin complete with her JW convention badge on, when instead she’s actually a Mormon who fell down a hole in the street and is suing for lifelong impairment, for example. I mean I wouldn’t totally put it past some newspapers to be as wrong as that, but they are usually wrong on the details rather than the entire framing.
slimboyfat
JoinedPosts by slimboyfat
-
-
-
-
23
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
This is interesting and seems entirely plausible. If true, it means that Franz was responsible for the blood ban.
Also Gene Smalley wasn’t around early enough to be the originator of the idea. 👍
If I remember correctly, there was a Golden Age article in the 1930s that commented on blood transfusion in a positive light. As in, it’s a miracle of modern medicine, kind of idea, without saying the Bible forbids it. -
-
-
slimboyfat
Am I reading this wrong?
A grandfathers children and how many children they have determines if the grandchildren have cousins.Nothing in the verbiage makes any sense, don’t be fooled by the formatting and analytical sounding language. Remember that the same bot was arguing not long ago that they couldn’t be related on the basis of the woman’s acquired married name. 🤨
Also the claim that a Viennese nickname can’t be used in Bavaria is bizarre. Those two regions share a lot of language patterns. Plus people are tremendously inventive and eclectic in language use and always have been, and get their influences from all sorts of places: neighbours, books, the radio, schoolmates who just moved from somewhere else, and so on. The idea that a nickname can’t possibly be used one place because it was also used a couple of hundred miles away is just bizarre and I can’t relate to the so-called logic of it at all. It’s as if it’s not human-based logic at all but some sort of algorithmic generation or hallucination.
At the end of the day what’s more likely: that and old JW woman happened to be related to the pope or that an old JW woman all of a sudden decided to fabricate her background, memories and false quotes and invited a newspaper to photo her with her convention badge telling him a load of nonsense. I can’t prove which is true, but I know which option makes better sense. Who does aqwebot think made up the story if it’s not true? The woman? The newspaper? The branch? Who and why?
-
-
-
slimboyfat
I have personally been told that “Jehovah’s Witnesses do the work we should be doing” in more or less those words by a few different people, including a Christadelphian and a Church of Scotland member. They apparently came up with the same thought all on their own by looking at JW preaching. I didn’t take it to mean they suddenly think JWs are the true religion. It just seemed to mean exactly what they said, and that they admired the persistence of JW preaching even if they didn’t agree with the content. It’s really not that remarkable an observation and is entirely believable as something a Catholic, even the pontiff might say. I’m not saying he definitely did say it, I wasn’t there, but any argument that he couldn’t possibly have said that is clearly wrong.
-
23
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
These are good points 👍
-
24
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
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.
-
24
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.
-
3
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.
-
23
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.
-
23
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.