it's not a biggie, it's just that i had a hard time findng this with google,.
but please let me know if you can provide any pictures of the jws sound cars/.
trucks that broadcast rutherford decades ago.. i found this one in a video on you tube:.
It's not a biggie, it's just that I had a hard time findng this with Google,
but please let me know if you can provide any pictures of the JWs sound cars/
trucks that broadcast Rutherford decades ago.
I found this one in a video on You Tube:
http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/7114/000soundtrucks1aht2.jpg
i wanted to post this research i did that helped convince my husband a few years back that it was o.k.
to celebrate christmas, despite the objections he was taught by the watchtower.
hopefully this will help others out there ease their conscience about this particular day.
Sanity clause
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ulwl_pYLUOE
Jingle Bells by Der Bingles and Patty, Maxene, and LaVerne
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUHMB3Oci-w
Springstein
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yErhglOXIxM
Darlene Love
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3l-dm9K8Ms
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UV8x7H3DD8Y
Twas the Night Before Christmas by Emily (2 yrs. old)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HS5bw7hpLIw
Art Carney Twas the Night Before Christmas
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wB9Xi8BHvXc
for those that are interested, i've made the gail bethea-jackson video available for download the video being talked about in this thread:.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/11/148574/1.ashx.
it's rather large (89mb), but i decided to include in the video then entire jw website so you know exaclty where it came from.
If it helps support Gail's or anyone else's case about the JWs leaders' misuse
of reference material, you might find more evidence to back up your case at my
"GTJ Brooklyn" site (I also write Grand Theft Auto walk-throughs) at either of
the next two links.
http://www.freewebs.com/glenster1/index.htm
http://gtw6437.tripod.com/
So far, I've gathered batches of it at:
"We must preserve the sanctity of our stance on blood--truth and other's
lives, we're not crazy about" on p. 1a.
"Complaints about the JWs leaders' use of reference material: the issue of de-
termining when Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem" on p.1d.
"Complaints about the JWs leaders' use of reference material: the issue of the
identity of Jesus and the holy spirit" on p.4.
"Complaints about the JWs leaders' use of reference material: the issue of
pedophilia" on p.6. (Gail's case)
"Complaints about the JWs leaders' use of reference material: the issue of
early Christian history and related research material" on p.9.
"Complaints about the JWs leaders' use of reference material: the issue of the
medical use of blood and major blood fractions" on p.14.
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/6dc0ac2739be6e63862573b000160633?opendocument
should not she just get a job?
or express her faith that jehovah will take care of her?
I think you might be thrown if you try to understand it as a matter of the
sincere belief of the victim if the question in this case is the responsibility
of their religious leader. Are they liable if they knowingly misled someone to
do something that caused them harm?
Peter Popoff's insincere affected exclusiveess = the JWs leaders' insincere
affected exclusiveness.
Radio transmitter gimmick = quotes out of context to make it seem there's
support in research books that aren't supportive, misrepresenting the
comparison of their distinctive stances with alternative stances, forced points,
and omission of pertinent evidence.
Throw away nitro-glycerin and insulin = refuse the medical use of blood and
blood products for yourself and your kids.
Same ethics.
not to go on about the jws leaders' overblown teachings about worldliness and the alleged pagan connotations of things verses apostle paul in rom.14, 1 cor.8-11:1, or whether you need to celebrate christmas or not or if so which way--i just thought this was cute and didn't see another message board for it:.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hs5bw7hpliw.
Not to go on about the JWs leaders' overblown teachings about worldliness and the alleged pagan connotations of things verses apostle Paul in Rom.14, 1 Cor.8-11:1, or whether you need to celebrate Christmas or not or if so which way--I just thought this was cute and didn't see another message board for it:
from the edinburgh journal .
brief excerpt:.
in a period marked by state opposition to their doctrines between the 1930s and the 1950s (particularly in europe and north america), the witnesses needed to maintain their exclusivity in order to re-establish their universal collective identity and to detach themselves from orthodox christianity.
The focus of my criticism is on the JWs leaders when they try to define them-
selves as the spokesmen of a literal 144,000, and they try to show that the
dozen or so rules meant to define it are shown to have the best case by reason-
ing and evidence for what's meant by the Bible. I'm especially critical if
any of the followers are hurt or killed trying to follow them, so I have a few
criticisms of the article.
- It doesn't distinguish between the leaders and the followers, between the
cynical victimizers and the hopeful victims, but tries to take a sociological
approach to explain how the whole group is responsible for the transfusion ban,
as though to put them all on the same plane and liken it to any concern to mini-
mize unnecessary division and have unity in any flock. You might as well try to
make a sociological argument to blame the abused woman the same as her abusive
husband.
The JWs leaders have the first responsibility for their blood rules, which are
among the ones for which they use methods as phony as Popoff's radio transmitter
gimmick to set themselves apart and create unnecessary apartness between follow-
ers and others (who could tip off the followers about the leaders).
Radio transmitter = quotes out of context from research books, forced points,
and omission of pertinent evidence, etc.
Throw away your insulin = throw away the medical use of blood and major blood
fractions for yourself or your child.
Same ethics.
- In giving the JWs leaders' blood rule in distinction from orthodox Chris-
tianity, the idea of it being part of the JWs leaders' motive to affect sepera-
tion from government has possibilities, although it doesn't criticize the over-
blown rendition of worldiness at the root of it as a JWs leaders' concoction.
Instead, where scriptural basis is addressed, it uncritically gives the scrip-
tures as though supporting the JWs leaders' methods of teaching their additional
rules about worldliness or the medical use of blood and major blood fractions:
"based on an intellectual empiricism of the Bible"? Big mistake. Empirical
logic doesn't add a step unless the previous step is observed as true beyond a
reasonable doubt. Because of that, such distinctive rules are generally left to
be personal opinion.
- It gives the JWs leaders use of the AIDS scare as though further justifying
their medical (and scriptural) propaganda. Big mistake compounded.
- It gives the JWs leaders as teaching pacifism whereas actually they don't,
the last I heard, anyway--they taught a centric view that restricts defense by
JWs for other JWs.
- It gives the death as though illustrating the choice of whether not someone
chooses any belief in a possible God instead of illustrating for the agreement
of believers and non-believers alike how that hope is misplaced when thrown
recklessly at insincere Popoffs or JWs leaders out for a buck, leaders whose
responsibility, credibility, and sincerity aren't possible.
It gives the death as though reaffirming the existence of belief in God. Like
one of Popoff's followers throwing away their insulin because Popoff told them
to, the lady had that belief, but the article missed the target and shot at the
grandstands, where some nice sincere believers could be sitting, in missing the
focus of how the JWs leaders, like Popoff, are especially cynical in going for
personal gain by exploiting those sincere people's hopes without caring what
harm could happen to them.
i am in this discussion with an elderm and it is all about the age of the polar caps, coral reefs etc.
for abvious reasons this is important discussion.. anyway, what is good scientific information proving (or priving not) the age is more then a few 1000 years old.... i know there have been some drillings done etc.
most siytes just give this as a fact, which i do not doubt so much, but of course he wants more prove.. same with the age of the coral islands (atols).. thanks all.. end_of_eternity.
Flood geology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_Geology
JCanon:
"The other thing is whether or not science can use any other method to effec-
tively calculate the true age of anything by other methods? Even the universe
could be artificially aged by Jehovah himself. Per the Bible it seems, for in-
stance, that the stars and illuminaries were created after the Earth was. Not
sure how long the Earth was in existence before that, but if God decided to have
the stars in the heavens simply for the purpose of the Earth, when God said "let
there be light" so as to bring the light of the stars in the universe to the
surface of the Earth, then God could have sped up that light process. Thus
stars billions of light years away were created with an aged light source. Soft
of a pre-aged universe. God certainly could do that if he wanted."
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/146197/1.ashx
1. That God could create "aged light" is easy to imagine. But why should God
put out a word "day" in a context that allows a longer period than 24 hours (as
in "in Noah's day"), create evidence for various fields of science to corrobor-
ate on an older Earth (billions of years), then hold us to an assumption of a
younger one (thousands of years)?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlight_problem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth
For example, the young Earth idea asks us to imagine He created light to leave
the false impression of a star exploding 170,000 years ago, but the star didn't
really exist--God created the light as a practical joke? And He'd base salva-
tion on it? Talk about a bad sense of humor.
Since He also left evidence of those who've forced the point about their Bible
interpretation as the only Bible interpretation, notably ones who haven't kept
up with the latest evidence to reconcile it with, He would most reasonably ex-
pect us to assume a young Earth creatonist is just causing us to read more from
one of them.
2. If you're going to try to play special messenger of God with special re-
quirements for salvation at all credibly (if that's possible at this point), you
better ask God to get a spell checker. There's no such word as "illuminaries."
i've been several months out now (da'd in feb 07).
i took to wearing a pentagram , since i really do believe in these five main elements to life.. however, as you will know the pentagram is also reffered to as 'star of satan and various other things.. my point is: as far as the witlesses are concerned, i worship the devil since i dont worship jehoobah.. but!.
i would rather be a worshiper of satan, who everyone knows can be a bit of scumbag at times, but at least i know where i stand with him, than worship a god who proffesses to be the only true god, yet devastates his followers when they realise the true extent of the lies of his apparent earthly organization.. so i wear my pentagram with pride!.
dear friends,.
i have a question for you... the jws teach jesus is micheal the arc angel right?
so here is my question...according to the jws..is jesus a god or a angel??
What I have on it is on pp.4 and 7 to 10 at the next link.
http://www.freewebs.com/glenster1/index.htm
I think the mainstream view has the stronger case than the JWs leaders' stance
for being the originally intended view.
A few highlights without all the details and sources:
The Canaanite God and gods idea was abolished for Judaism during Isaiah's
time. God in Isaiah denied He used the JWs leaders' method of having a god or
anyone with Him to create or that there is a god. The most common objection
the JWs leaders use is that God and Logos suggest two seperate beings, but
Jewish culture knew how to think of Wisdom in Prov.8 as God's wisdom personified
(also in other wisdom literature), no one else with Him to create, and many knew
the similar Demiurge and Logos idea. They knew how to think of God and Logos
the mainstream way in the 1st century.
The basic abilty for God to appear as a man is indicated by His ability to
know everyone's thoughts and hearts, which both views figure He can do though
neither can fully understand what it's like. It wouldn't take His full mental-
ity to listen or talk to one person, so it wouldn't to moreover appear to one.
The mainstream stance on monism basically is that if He can do that with
billions He could do such a thing in three ways. Strictly one is out or we'd
have to take turns getting prayers through.
Several ways the 1st cent. Jews indicated worship of their one God were wor-
ship, prayer, and the Shema (one Lord and one God), and all three are done for
Jesus (one God the Father and one Lord Jesus, and Thomas delivering the whole
Shema to him) with nobody calling him Michael.
When Jesus and Stephen are threatened with death by stoning, they don't bring
up Michael to stop it--there wasn't a rule to kill angels or people who said
they saw one. Jesus says a God in Isaiah-type "ego emi" and Stephen prays to
Jesus.
One of the earliest indications of the mainstream view is in the writings of
Paul and Acts regarding the mid-30's AD: that Paul as Saul condemned Christians
to death for praying to Jesus. When Paul converts, he prays to Jesus.
Seeing the early Christians beyond the Bible as witnesses in a court case, the
mainstream view has the stronger case, too. When it's clear which view of the
two the writer had, very early ones had the mainstream view and with better
connections (taught by John, knew Peter and Paul). The Arian view shows up in
the late 200's and it only referred back to Lucien of Antioch as the founder.
i am half way through this book by carl o. jonsson and the more i read the more certain i become that the 607bce date for the destruction of jerusalem by babylon is nothing more than a fabrication designed to uphold 1914 and hence the "authority" of the watchtower leadership.it makes me sick to think of how they have duped millions of people with their phoney chronology.it makes sitting through studies that mention these dates irritating to say the least.especially when all the heads nod in unison at the mention of the "magic 607"
Thanks for the welcome!
I looked in earlier posts for a claim of divine exclusiveness:
"But I'm sort of unique I think. Maybe a little like OBVES. When people
leave the Borg some sort of drift into that foggy agnostic, anti-Biblical, non-
inspired world out there. I don't. I'm on the OTHER SIDE of the Borg. I'm
the anointed JW who has the advanced Biblical knowledge and totally pro-Biblical
absolutism. I'm into the religion, anti-evolution, spoken to God personally, a
prophet, the whole nine yards here."
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/143706/1.ashx
"Now the 144,000 only applies to the Jews and they make up only 10% of the
entire number. Thus the entire number if 1,440,000! (Isa 6:13)" "...there
are a LOT OF SEATS AVAILABLE!"
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/143820/1.ashx
Bingo.
So I looked for what's meant to substantiate it:
"Scientists who logically calculate the speed of light, logically figure they
are looking at stars billions of years old because that's how long it took for
their light to reach the earth; but not necessarily so, if God needed the stars
in the heavens to shine onto the earth without waiting. God has the ability to
create the stars along with their billion-year light source if he wants.
"BUT IF... you want to hang your chance for eternal life on a scientific theo-
ry that might be wrong and based upon inaccurate conclusions rather than believ-
ing the Bible, be my guest."
The next passages remind me of Louis Farrakhan using numerology except meant
as corroboration to support the Jesus/Michael stance.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/142523/1.ashx
"Interesting. I gave up discussing issues about the Flood when I found out the
ice cores used to introduce millions of years of chronology were standing on
top of tropical vegetation on the floor of the Antartica. That's enough global
flood evidence/indication for me."
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/142717/2564194/post.ashx#2564194
A disagreement with the credibilty of the above:
http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/iceage.html
A recent rendition of arbitrary historicism about Matt.24:15, etc.:
"1939-1945: THE HOLOCAUST. The above references are to the Holocaust and the
focus of this tribulation against Jews and Jehovah's witnesses, who are con-
sidered to be the "holy ones" or the holy place."
"30And then the sign of the Son of man will appear in heaven, and then all the
tribes of the earth will beat themselves in lamentation, and they will see the
Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
"1947-1954: The 'sign of the son of man' would begin to appear during this
time to the 'eagle anointed.' Whether that was fulfilled or not you have to
check with them, but we assume that it was. The sign was in the form of cloud
images of the dead messiah and so that's why they beat themselves in lamentation
and cry over the messiah. Of course, a lot of explanation goes with that, but
the sign continued to appear to the anointed and it was specifically photo-
graphed in 1998. Here's what it looked like:
http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/clouddove.jpg
"So we know what the sign was, what it looked like, the nature it took in that it
was cloud imagery and thus fulfilling that it would 'appear in heaven'. An
explanation of what the sign means in connection with the Christ can be found
elsewhere in my posts."
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/143817/1.ashx
I wouldn't recommend giving the sign you gave of the suffering Messiah in the
clouds in 1998 a substantiation for calling other people foggy and uninspired.
It's not a very friendly variation of day dreaming about cloud shapes.
http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/clouddove.jpg
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_n1_v22/ai_20577442
I wondered what all the forced point insincerity and straining to seem exclu-
sive was all about. When the JWs leaders feign it with their stance of being
the only spokespeople for a literal 144,000, they use horse*** to seem exclusive
and don't care who it hurts, even if kids die at hospitals, with any distiction
they claim I've checked. You're not crazy, claiming to be Christ, or a sincere ex-
extremist--you're a variation of that.
The dumpster statement wasn't far off. If you're going to play prophet, not
caring if it aims to create unnecesary division between people at the least,
there should be a sign of God for it. You're welcome to knock it off so your
friendliness is credible--not much if you don't.
