my recent sidewalk discussion with a couple of jw's has gotten me in the mood to say more when appropriate.so the wife and i were riding in the car and cat stevens comes on.
i mentioned to her that cat stevens left music when he was still popular and converted to islam back in the 1970's- how he was told that his music would have to be morally acceptable and he found it easier to just abandon making new music for at least 20 years.
so i didn't really remember all the details and i figured the conversation would die.
OnTheWayOut:
Great conversation. You are fortunate that you have someone you can speak to congenially. If she was quiet after your comparison, something was rolling around in her mind. Hopefully, it will fall into the hole it belongs to sometime in the future. I don't have much luck talking to people with JW ideas (like family) or with other religious fanatics. Good for you!
i am getting new appliances.
i have decided on black stainless for the finish.
the house is stubbed for gas and electric for the range.
I've had both. Definitely gas. It just cooks better because I feel I can control it better. It's also cheaper in most places.
Etude.
to all you young and old alike what would you have as a farewell party from this earth , would you party with friends months before or would you go out quietly and rather have input into the wake.
i have heard of these duck hunters who put their ashes in shotgun shells.
.
Yes! Definitely a plan: A big-assed party! Not a funeral. Unless it's like a New Orleans funeral. I want a remembrance where people are free to say what they loved about me and what pissed them off about me. Don't hold back and don't expect repercussions. What people felt about me is real, good or bad. I would hope that the good mentioned is enough to offset the negative. I want music...lots of music. If you feel like dancing, dance away. If I have sufficient money left, I'll leave enough to rent the venue and pay for the food and drinks and a DJ. That's my last hurrah! I don't expect to be a conscious part of this universe anymore. If my JW family wants to show up, they're welcome to join in with the others, in the terms I've described. No religious speeches or Bible quoting allowed. But if they feel that's essential (I don't to completely restrict them) and and they declare it ahead of the event (they would have to), then someone gets to read all about what I think of that sick organization FIRST! Let them follow with their feeble explanations. Otherwise, no one needs to hear my last "beef" on the JW. After that, let the party begin!
Etude.
i am working with paul grundy from jwfacts and with the administrator of avoidjw.org, and they are ok with me doing the work that i am doing right now, which is to try and complete, as much as possible, the availability of everything the wt has ever published, in pdf format.therefore, i will start listing in this thread what i have not been able to find anywhere online.
please let me know where i can find the pdf's for the following:(now, i know that there are multiple versions of these and that there are some that seem the same but they are not.
i am looking for the wt published versions of these publications.
That's a collisal task. Scanning whole bibles too??? I wouldn't have the patience
I would. I think it's important enough in order to document changes and defeat a lie. I volunteer to do it if you have the material. I have a pretty good scanner (50 pages at a time). I just have to prep the pages. That means that sometimes they have to be cut and trimmed, sacrificing the original bounded text.
Etude.
for background, read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/yahweh, the section, "iron age i: el, yahweh, and the origins of israel.
" "el and his sons made up the assembly of the gods, each member of which had a human nation under his care, and a textual variant of deuteronomy 32:8–9 describes the sons of el, including yahweh, each receiving his own people.
"el, the kind, the compassionate,' 'the creator of creatures,' was the chief of the canaanite gods, and he, not yahweh, was the original 'god of israel'—the word 'israel' is based on the name el rather than yahweh.
vienne: I never let my students use wikipedia as a resource. It is often wrong.
So, do you think it's wrong in this case? I don't know if it's right. But neither do you. The way to update a Wikipedia entry is to change the text and then it's examined by the panel of experts who will approve it. Yes, the "experts" are arbitrary. That means that anyone can make an entry in Wikipedia. But no all entries are approved, especially if a verification process has shown some errors. Entries need to be challenged. I don't know and probably there's no way to know how often Wikipedia is wrong. So the characterization by you of "often wrong" is really incalculable. How many times has Britannica been wrong? I don't know. But I know it has had incorrect entries (read the link). If something is wrong in Wikipedia, you must feel privileged that you have the power to make it right. Anyone can make the changes and submit for approval. If you have the truth, by all means help us all achieve it.
Etude.
3 missed calls from my jw brother last night.
i didnt answer because he's actively shunning me and when he does ring it always to preach to me about how we're so close to the end and how i should "humble myself before the mighty hand of god" .
he then texts me saying "we need to talk".
Reverse shun these arseholes
pale.emperor: That's what I would do. Except that I would not have the courtesy of telling them that or anything else. I'd keep in the dark. When they ask out of wonder if I'm dead or wonder if something happened to me, then I would respond telling them that I'm protecting myself from bad association from them for several reasons, including that they are in a cult and have given up their intellect to a lying organization.
My family is not like that. But they live 3,000 miles away and seem to be aware that I'm still alive. Once in a while, they seem to know what I'm up to.
Etude
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=go3arnnsfkk&feature=youtu.be.
no mention whatsoever that it was watchtower themselves that strongly hinted towards this date.
instead they blame those who "put their trust in a date, not jehovah".. let's recap... .
It's always interesting to parse the WT dialog. For many years, I noticed the unique phrases they use, not just in literature but also in speeches. They stood out because English for me is a 2nd language. For example, they'd say: "It may well be that..." or "Some believe..." In the video, the dialog stated: "some were looking to a certain date as signifying the end of this old system of things". The key words or phrases here are "some were" and "a certain date". So, t's not that they're too fucking scared to say "we were" or "looking to 1975". It's that they have always had a manner that can work to deflect and provide deniability. Using the passive voice ("mistakes were made") is a good technique. I heard it from Fred Franz's mouth. He was the best practitioner of subterfuge I knew up-to-then. I think we need to give the bastards their due and admit that they know what they're doing. They are not just zealots. They are world-class manipulators.
I remember the first International Assembly in 1969 in Yankee Stadium. There were indications back then about 1975. After being in Bethel for a few months in 1974, we attended the Gilliad graduation at the Sunnyside Assembly Hall in Queens, NY and I heard Fred Franz say, after stating his deduced chronology that it would be an appropriate time for Jehovah God to begin his 1,000-year reign through Christ precisely in 1975. Of course, that lit up everyone's imagination. I wasn't sure what to think then.
Etude
what i'm saying is the white race is the only one that has a verity of eye and hair colors , so what gives?
is it that this race was influenced genetically by a group of pre humans that didn't mix with other races?
.
Race exists because we (collectively) have defined it. The problem is that we (lay people as well as scientists) have defined it in dozens of ways and the definitions accumulate as time and understanding increases. Some of our definitions or the ones we agree with can be subjective. Throughout this conversation, I've seen attempts at definitions (some more accurate than others) and the superimposition of someone's understanding of race over a different explanation. Unless there's some consensus, the conversation is doomed. I suppose that's what happens in the larger world, away from this microcosm, and why race is such a touchy issue. Only real knowledge can help.
Etude.
may 15, 2017 to all bodies of elders re: regular pioneers.
uk version.
Thanks, Hairtrigger. I'm beginning to suspect your experience was typical. But, in a way, so was that elderette's. The expectations placed on publishers makes that happen. I'm glad to see that some are "creative" about it. As suggested here, it may help prop up their tax-exempt status. However, it also hurts them. They are not really doing work that leads to growth. If it were a real corporation, the CEO would have been fired and they would have declared bankruptcy. It occurred to me how large the group is now compared to how large it was when I was in back in the 1970s. I think it's about the same size! But all the time they were talking about "growth". What maroons!
Etude.
what i'm saying is the white race is the only one that has a verity of eye and hair colors , so what gives?
is it that this race was influenced genetically by a group of pre humans that didn't mix with other races?
.
Crazyguy: I didn't interpret your comments as "racist" as such, but more uninformed. Aside from the information provided in this thread, some personal exploration can correct your perception of races. I've also observed that it is some degree of ignorance and not hate that makes some people perpetuate racist ideas and stereotypes. So, you can understand to some degree some of the reaction here.
But when we see comments like those from snowbird and from Ruby456 for defending her, the level of ignorance is heightened and creates a counter-productive dialog. I was going to agree with flipper and hope that a calmer discussion would not derail the object of the thread. I'm the type who would rather label an argument as "moronic" if it's illogical and has nothing to back it up. But how long does one have to argue the point on the side of facts instead of just accepting what someone believes? After failure to engage, we must conclude that the person is a moron. Upon recognizing that the arguments are stupid, we must admit they emanate from a stupid person, not just because because the argument isn't sound but more so because the individual seems unwilling to reason.
I respect belief, but I don't respect stupidity. That is quite different than ignorance. I'm ignorant about a lot of things, but always strive to find answers and solutions. The stupid refuses to seek answers or face unwanted conclusions. This is why someone famous once said: “There is no sin except stupidity.” -- Oscar Wilde
