glenster

Joined

• started 243 topics
• posted 2,933 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by glenster

• 
  87

  To: Barbara Anderson -- Re: First WatchTower President

  by West70 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i am primarily posting this to barbara anderson, but obviously everyone is welcome to correct or comment on my remarks as they see fit.

  mrs. anderson, i realize that trying to cover all bases in your pending russell bio would be impossible, but i do hope that you will be able to include a section on the first president of the watch tower society, william h. conley.

  i hope that you have had a chance to research conley with some degree of thoroughness, so as to dispel some of the half-truths that some bible students and jws try to promote (such as that conley's age and health caused his inactivity with russell after 1881).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  glenster

  A couple of articles that bring up Conley:
  http://www.freeminds.org/history/russellnotfirst.htm
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watch_Tower_Bible_and_Tract_Society_of_Pennsylvania
• 
  15

  Gen 2:18-22 ---------my take....STORY OR REALITY??????????????????????????

  by fedorE in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  jehovah creates adam......ok...all is good.........but jah recognizes that this creature that he just created is all alone...it seems he didnt have plans to create more than one!!!!

  but be that as it may.......ok... all is good........then he says im gona make him a "helper"............ok all is still ok.................. ......so at this point when he recognizes his creatures lonliness what does he do??????.

  beasts............ are introduced to adam .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  glenster

  What I have so far for some of those things (the JWs leaders' distinctions in
  regard to the Bible and related history, and the JWS leaders' ransom idea (Mi-
  chael sacrificed to make up for a literal Adam, etc.) is on pp.1a, 4, and 7-10
  of the "GTJ Brooklyn" article at the next link. Their coverage of science made
  to fit their stances on such things is included on pp.1 and 1a, Jesus issues are
  on pp.4 and 7-10 with the ransom things on p.8, and their coverage of related
  early Christian history versus an actual account of the things they bring up
  about it are on p.9.
  http://www.freewebs.com/glenster1/index.htm

  I don't think having some kind of hope commitment for the God of the Bible,
  which you might or might not do and be a friend of mine, is dependant on agree-
  ing with JWs leaders about all the distinctions they play prophet in requiring
  for salvation. The only concern to not take people as more important than the
  Bible I had in mind is shown in giving some reasons there for why I think it
  would be a mistake to take the JWs leaders seriously that way as they ask to be
  taken. Not wanting to do that about a literal Adam, etc., isn't the same as having to lose faith.
• 
  5

  Survey on rejecting blood and deaths

  by Mrs Smith in

  1. watchtower
  2. medical

  has there ever been a survey done on how many jw's die because of the blood issue?

  i was just thinking that if a world wide survey could be done it would make people realise just how dangerous this religion is.

  i remember reading somewhere that about 1% die because of refusing blood.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  glenster

  If you compare having all the choices of medical use of blood and alternative
  treatments, and information about related risks, to a limited choice cynically created by playing
  prophet with people's lives, the first is better medically. The JWs leaders
  didn't have a humanitarian concern to warn people of the medical risks in all
  manner of medical treatment to have a better informed choice of lower risk
  treatment, but used risks of the medical use of blood to rationalize their out-
  right ban of whole segments of use of it, which isn't the responsible result of
  that information.

  When I first looked into it, in the late 1980's, doctors I contacted were
  already saying that most important uses of blood and major blood fractions were
  found outside of the surgery room, yet JWs leaders have usually emphasized that
  JWs had surgery without blood. Again, it's supposed to make something irrespon-
  sible look responsible.

  Spreading information about medical risks while not playing prophet and un-
  necessarily banning whole segments of the use of it would be better medically.
  What they've done is as cynical as Popoff telling people to throw away their
  insulin knowing he'd conned them with a radio transmitter gimmick. It's not
  somehow holy because you could show that some doctors didn't prescribe the right
  dosages.

  According to "AWAKE!" May 22, 1994, p.2, "thousands of youths died for putting
  God first."
  http://www.cftf.com/comments/kidsdied.html

  You also have to consider that alternative treatments are more available in
  some U.S. cities and such than in some other places in the world. Also, the
  numbers of JWs leaders' followers are a lot bigger now than about 60 years ago
  when the ban started--the farther you go back, the fewer followers there were
  but fewer alternative treatments there were, too.
• 
  15

  Gen 2:18-22 ---------my take....STORY OR REALITY??????????????????????????

  by fedorE in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  jehovah creates adam......ok...all is good.........but jah recognizes that this creature that he just created is all alone...it seems he didnt have plans to create more than one!!!!

  but be that as it may.......ok... all is good........then he says im gona make him a "helper"............ok all is still ok.................. ......so at this point when he recognizes his creatures lonliness what does he do??????.

  beasts............ are introduced to adam .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  glenster

  An alternative interpretation to taking Genesis literally, when that interpre-
  tation is at odds with science, is imaginable without intending theological dam-
  age to the scriptures.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo#Natural_knowledge_and_biblical_interpretation
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis

  Whether you take Adam and Eve literally or not doesn't matter for the cruci-
  fixion belief. Either way you end up with God considering people as fallen
  from his good graces then reconciling them to himself. If Adam and Eve are
  imagined to have literally existed, they got themselves killed, but it would
  have been God's prerogative to consider mankind altogether as fallen from his
  graces since justice would only call for judging against those two.

  You end up with the same thing whether a literal Adam and Eve prompted it or
  not. Regardless, the crucifixion would be there as a break for the people that
  resulted--from considered as fallen to being given a way for reconciliation.
  http://www.freewebs.com/glenster1/index.htm

  Also, either way, I thought fedorE's post was pretty funny, too!
• 
  23

  HAVE YOU MET JAMES RANDI YET? Hold on to your hat!

  by Terry in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  showing 120 of about 127,000 see all videosjames randi exposes uri geller and peter popoff.

  13:50from:rationalresponse.

  views: 447933 peter popoff vs james randi 2007.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  glenster

  
  The Popoff expose was a honey. The thing I think of relating him to JWs
  leaders concerns is:

  Popoff played prophet with the radio transmitter in his ear, which is espe-
  cially cynical since he got people who bought the deception to throw away their
  nitroglycerin and insulin, etc., though Popoff knew some could get hurt or die.

  I think the JWs leaders play prophet with their stance of beng the guided
  chosen ones of the elite "144,000." The stance is affected with exclusive rules
  which the JWs leaders require agreement with for salvation and cook up cases
  for. One of their rules that no one else calls a guaranteed intended meaning of
  a conservative interpretation of the Bible is their ban of the medical use of
  blood and major blood fractions. It's especially cynical for the JWs leaders to
  maintain their pretension despite the fact that people and their kids have died
  over those rules (and expanded ideas about worldliness, etc., leading to deaths
  in Germany, Malawi, possibly somewhere else where it may run into another in-
  tolerant political leader). They even come a hair's breadth from bragging about
  the fatalities being in the thousands, as if to brag, "Look how many martyred
  themselves for us."

  The JWs leaders don't believe their exclusivist routine/marketing strategy any
  more than Popoff thought God talked to him through that radio transmitter. Ei-
  ther way, an expose of it is an expose of lying that's done though people can get
  hurt or killed, not intolerance for sincere harmless difference of belief or
  non-belief choice.

  I think Randi has helped a lot with his findings but I think he ought to pitch
  in on the case of the JWs leaders. It's like the Popoff case and he's in a
  position to spread awareness about it. I don't know why he doesn't do that.
• 
  10

  the issue of blood can you explain using scripture

  by rightlydividingtheword in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs
  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  glenster

  What I have for that so far (comparing the exclusive JWs leaders' rules with
  more common interpretations, relevant history and information, etc.) is on pp.
  12-42 (and some on p.1) at the next link:
  http://www.freewebs.com/glenster1/gtjbrooklyn12.htm
• 
  9

  Last Days by Carl O. Jonnson

  by concerned x in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i have just finished reading the book by carl olof jonnson about the subject of the last days.

  a very interesting and enlightening book.

  i noticed though that there was no discussion concerning the preaching of god's kingdom as a sign of the "time of the end".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  glenster

  What I have on that so far is at the listing for 1987, "Signs of the End," on
  the timeline at the next link:
  http://www.freewebs.com/glenster1/gtjbrooklyn1a.htm
• 
  22

  The sacrifice of Christ to redeem humankind, Why?

  by VM44 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the perfect man and woman, soon after being created, failed short of god's requirements and so sin was introduced into the world.

  according to the watchtower, god's law required a "life for a life" and so a perfect human needed to be sacrificed, i.e., killed, in order for humanity to be redeemed.. my simple question concerning this doctrine is....why?.

  how does the death of a human, perfect or otherwise, help matters?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  glenster

  What I have so far on the difference between the mainstream and JWs leaders' versions of ransom, etc., is at "Ransom" a little more than 1/5th down the page at the next link:

  http://www.freewebs.com/glenster1/gtjbrooklyn8.htm
• 
  22

  Does evolution destroy the fall and by consequence sin and the cross?

  by Qcmbr in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  if we postulate that creation in the six day magic rendition of genesis is tosh and replace it with evolution how does that effect the concept of the fall?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  glenster

  Some people were taking the start of Geneisis figuratively for years before
  Darwin. If the basic idea is that God let mankind go into a fallen state, made
  them of inherent sin and to grow old and die, and reconciled people to Himself
  with the crucifixion, the idea can still work if you take the Adam and Eve ac-
  count literally or as a figurative representation of God basically letting man-
  kind be in a fallen state. Evolution ideas can change some people's interpreta-
  tions of Genesis, but that's not the same thing.

  Most of what I have for that so far is in the timeline at the next link in the
  listings for 1914 "Scientific reasons for predictions about 1914: 'The Photo-
  Drama of Creation' anf 1985 "Dowsing for evidence."
  http://www.freewebs.com/glenster1/gtjbrooklyn1a.htm
• 
  16

  Make the Devil Happy

  by moomanchu in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i got 10 out of 10 woo hoo !!!!!

  (this is a stupid e-mail from jw relatives, how encouraging).

  make the devil happy .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  glenster

  The JWs leaders' thing about Satan that seems funny to me is to combine their
  custom expanded ideas abuout worldliness (beyond the love God and your neighbor
  ethics into connotations of things and the ban of most gov't involvement as too
  worldly or Satanic) and Rom.13:1-8. The combination could be taken to mean God
  put the Devil in charge of human government as His representative to do good in
  the world: "A much maligned supernatural being who's worked tirelessly all over
  the world to combat crime and sin and defend people from attack. You should
  fall on your knees and thank sweet Satan for minimizing the sin in the world.
  The JWs leaders' followers should take no part in it no matter how much good it
  does."

  You get things like Satanic Civil Service dentists where the JWs leaders'
  ideas bump into each other, too.