did taze when originally created this religion did he plan for the massive cult organization that it has become or was it mere chance and did he plan to prey on the weak and downtrodden people in society or was this originally supposed to encompass all people into "life saving" religion
Thanks Pickled
The part about A.H. MacMillan being one of Rutherford's cronies isn't hard to get at if one has access to the book he wrote in his later years, Faith On the March. I have a pristine copy of the book and MacMillan sort of admits as much, though he tries to couch it more positively.
Forscher
potentialjwconvertwife said:.
well, as you know, i never was a dub.
but i am and have been a born again christian for many years.
I find the phrase "tolerance of intolerance" a rather odd way to characterize our concept of religious freedom over here Narkissos.
It misses the whole point of religious freedom completely. It was not about tolerating sectarianism at all. The whole point was to make it the official policy of the new government that everybody could do his or her thing as long as they did not harm others. Mormonism was not tolerated since its polygamist stance was seen as both morally wrong and harmful of women and children.
Out of the founding fathers, only one, Jefferson, can be called a deist for sure. George Washington is a bit harder to peg because his wife destroyed their personal correspondence after his death and he was very careful to keep his own views private because he did not wish his personal views on religion to become an issue during his service to the country he helped found. Franklin admitted to deist leanings as a youth, but kept his own views to himself as his stature rose. They were only a few of the founding fathers, and Jefferson was on the sidelines in France while the republic was founded and had little to do with the finished product.
The vast majority of the founding fathers were "sectarian" by your definition. However, the most influential on religious issues were the Quakers, who both preached and practiced tolerance. They were the ones largely behind the inclusion of religious freedom in the First Amendment, though I've already acknowledged Madison's role. I think it a given that they were securing their own right to practice their own faith as much as securing the same for others.
Forscher
potentialjwconvertwife said:.
well, as you know, i never was a dub.
but i am and have been a born again christian for many years.
I might add an important difference in the American and European experience which Nakissos didn't mention,
The fact that State churches continued to dominate the European landscape long after we rejected them on this side of the pond. I think we have Madison to think for that one. The famous story is that he had an experience which turned him into an activist for complete freedom of religion. He was traveling in Virginia and saw some Baptist ministers who were in jail for "preaching without a state license." Since one had to be credentialed by the Church of England to get a license to preach in Virginia because that church was the state church, Bsptist couldn't get a license and their faith was essentially banned.
So Madison insisted that his own home state and the Constitution of the United States include provisions guaranteeing each individual his natural right to follow whatever faith he thought was right. The provision in the US Constitution was placed in what became the First Amendment.
Europe, on the other hand, continued the institution of the state church supported by the funds and power of the state right into the twentieth century. The use of the state's police powers to support institutions such as the Roman Catholic Church and others increased the resentment of the populace towards those churches and encouraged the rise of atheism in a way which the first amendments guarantee of freedom of religion prevented over here. I think having to be careful about publicly expressing opinions counter to the teachings of state churches over in Europe probably also contributed to the tradition of keeping one's religion to oneself and considering religion a private matter. The US tradition of an open religious freedom negated any such need.
So the European and United State's religious experiences followed quite divergent pathways.
Forscher
did taze when originally created this religion did he plan for the massive cult organization that it has become or was it mere chance and did he plan to prey on the weak and downtrodden people in society or was this originally supposed to encompass all people into "life saving" religion
Kifoy
The quote you gave us runs up against a wall in one regard. Russell didn't centralize the power among the Bible Students. The local elders were elected by the congregations themselves instead of appointed by the Society. And because of that they answered to their congregants, as they had to be reelected every year, instead of Russell. Sure, they nominally promised to follow his general directions. But there was nothing he could do if they didn't. whatever you want to think about him personally, he did believe that was the right way for the Bible Students to be organized. That tells me he was a better man than most like to admit around here.
And in case folks never noticed it around here, when Russell figured out what kind of man Rutherford was, he put him out of the headquarters and bribed him to go as far away from Brooklyn as he could get on the American continent. What he didn't anticipate was that Rutherford already had some cronies highly placed at the Watchtower who were willing to do everything they could to see Rutherford in power. One of those cronies, A.H. MacMillan, was close enough to Russell himself that Russell left him nominally in charge of directing things at the Watchtower when he went on his final trip away from Brooklyn. Thus unknowingly setting the stage for Rutherford's triumphant return when Russell died and his seizure of power.
The centralization of power was done by Rutherford. And most sensibly left when they figured out what was going on.
Forscher
Thanks for the opportunity.
Many years ago, during my pre-dub days I spent quite a bit of time in the back of nowhere. My family were camping fanatics. And we preferred what is known as "primitive" camping, that is camp grounds which might have outhouses and hand driven water pumps, if we went to campgrounds at all. Our family would pack up and go into the wilderness within days after the end of the school year, and we wouldn't come back until days before school resumed.
I've been camping in the back of nowhere just about everywhere east of the Mississippi river and from as far north as the upper peninsula in Michigan, to the edge of the everglades just West of Hallandale, Florida. Naturally us kids were often partly responsible for providing food. So, I've picked blueberries in the same field with a black bear, fished, and gathered morrells and wild onions among other things.
One summer we spent the whole summer in a campground with a mixed Apache-Navaho family. My brother and I spent that summer roaming the forest nearby with the boy from that family who was our age learning woodcraft Indian style. Those were wonderful years.
Naturally, when I went into the boy scouts I became something of the troop expert on hunting, trapping, and survival skills. Even the troop leaders acknowledged my knowledge and skills in those areas put me in a league above them. I recall one time they decided to have a contest in which they sent the scouts into a field several acres in size and had a prize for whoever could find the most edible items out in that field. I was not allowed to compete, but was instead sent into the field to see what was there and was the authority who decided whether something was edible if the the leaders were unsure. After the winner was decided, I was asked to tell the troop what I'd found just to make the point of why I'd not been allowed to compete and what everybody, including the scoutmaster, had missed. The most amusing item which folks missed to me was a wintergreen tree which stood right beside the rally point. The boyscout survival manual of the time included wintergreen among the edible plants one should know about, it makes a great tea, so there was really no excuse for anybody missing that one. Everybody else also missed sources for good meat, both a rabbit warren and Pheasants. So I was the only one who could've put together a complete meal meat, vegetables, including but not limited to wild onions and edible mushrooms to stew or saute the meat with, starch, cattail tubers which can be made into something much like mashed potatoes, and tea.
Thanks for the chance to go down one pleasant memory lane.
Forscher
It feline instead of canine (I don't see nail prints).
It is large, about five inches across. To compare, a bobcat will have tracks about 2-3 inches across. Compare it with the following track:
http://www.beartrackersden.com/beartracker/cougfrontsized.jpg
That was a track left by a cougar and the characteristics are quite similar. I don't think a Lynx gets that big, though they have a wide spread foot to enable them to walk high in the snow. I lean towards the cougar, though it has been almost a quarter of a century since I last saw a set of large cat tracks.
Forscher
P.S. There is a slight notch in the last toe. but whether that is due to melting alone, or the track of a large canine has melted enough to hide the nail prints is hard to be certain.
the outbreak of war in 1914 was maybe not in the true sense a world war because at that date it was a war between some european states and was not the earlier american civil war a war between states?
maybe it could be said that the actual world war only happened when the americans came into it on april the 6th 1917 and then only lasted until the following year.. the point i'm making is what's the big deal with 1914 anyway, maybe the true date of jesus arriving in the minds eye was much later maybe it was in 1939 which was the start of another fine old mess.. the jdubs could hang their predictions on any old date because it don't mean a thing..
It is heartwarming, is it not, to think that for the last year of his life CTR was thinking, "Just HOW FULL of shit am I?"
Ah, but in his foreword to the 1916 edition of that work, the last he commissioned before he died, he did have the moxy to admit he'd been wrong. That makes him better than the current crop of JW leaders in my book.
Forscher
time to recall old attitudes about guns .
by dan sernoffsky .
lebanon daily news .
Beks,
I wasn't ignoring your last reply to my comments, the forum wouldn't let me post to this topic the last few nights. I stand corrected. But I couldn't help but noticed that all three studies cited belong to that body of bogus "studies" carried out by medical folks I mentioned.
I waded through reams of those studies while in college. Believe me, they are a big rip-off of taxpayer funding.
Forscher
the outbreak of war in 1914 was maybe not in the true sense a world war because at that date it was a war between some european states and was not the earlier american civil war a war between states?
maybe it could be said that the actual world war only happened when the americans came into it on april the 6th 1917 and then only lasted until the following year.. the point i'm making is what's the big deal with 1914 anyway, maybe the true date of jesus arriving in the minds eye was much later maybe it was in 1939 which was the start of another fine old mess.. the jdubs could hang their predictions on any old date because it don't mean a thing..
As to whether prophecy was fulfilled in the manner the Witnesses claim, That is another matter entirely.
Forscher
the outbreak of war in 1914 was maybe not in the true sense a world war because at that date it was a war between some european states and was not the earlier american civil war a war between states?
maybe it could be said that the actual world war only happened when the americans came into it on april the 6th 1917 and then only lasted until the following year.. the point i'm making is what's the big deal with 1914 anyway, maybe the true date of jesus arriving in the minds eye was much later maybe it was in 1939 which was the start of another fine old mess.. the jdubs could hang their predictions on any old date because it don't mean a thing..
I know somebody will probably argue with me about it.
But the minute Great Britain entered the conflict, the war went global since Germany moved to attack the empire's global merchant shipping with raiders in the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian oceans. Also, the Battle of Frontiers took place August the 12th through 24th in 1914. Since the British Expeditionary Force fought in that series of battles, I would say Britain was already in the war.
Forscher
