Posts by glenster

Most important uses of blood/blood fractions have long been matters outside
the operating room, and the JWs leaders' have long played prophet badly in re-
quiring agreement with their scriptural stance.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFZmk4g_uRc&feature=related

What I have on it is on pp.12-42 of GTJ Brooklyn:
http://www.freewebs.com/glenster1/gtjbrooklyn12.htm

106

There is so much evidence around us to prove an Intelligent creator.

by nicolaou in

that's an 'ever so slightly' adapted quote from tophat on another thread; http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/108341/2880755/post.ashx#2880755.

i've been really dismissive of god/s, religion, faith and the abandoning of reason but when it comes to the 'argument from design', well you just have to give it a bit more .

respect?

glenster

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5TXEUiR1Xk

21

Atrocities in the name of god

by lilyflor in

http://www.jordanmaxwell.com/articles/religion/christian%20bloodshed.pdf.

.

glenster

P.S: a couple more thoughts about the deliberation on God's prerogative:

It would be nice to imagine a God that has all of us live in heaven forever
from birth, but that God disaappears with one look around. The God concept, to
be credible, has to be reconciled with the real world, meaning with all the good
and bad things about it.

In the Devil/Job concerns in the OT, the Devil-type view emphasizes that we
all die, some aren't happy, etc., so encourages the view that you should turn
from God. The Job-type view recognizes the same bad things but decides we got a
chance at life and didn't have to, and he liked what good he managed to find in
his part in it, etc., so maintains his hope for God.

To see Job's side of it, imagine deliberating over the same thing without
God--not that God set it up so what do I think of Him, but just about life. Are
you miserable about life and wish you'd never been born or are you glad you got
a shot at life and are glad for what good you managed to find in it? That's all
Job did. Then just add God to it.

5

Challenge to Christians to read this! What do you make of this?

by chrisjoel in

the gospel story, with its figure of jesus of nazareth, cannot be found before the gospels.

in christian writings earlier than mark, including almost all of the new testament epistles, as well as in many writings from the second century, the object of christian faith is never spoken of as a human man who had recently lived, taught, performed miracles, suffered and died at the hands of human authorities, or rose from a tomb outside jerusalem.

there is no sign in the epistles of mary or joseph, judas or john the baptist, no birth story, teaching or appointment of apostles by jesus, no mention of holy places or sites of jesus career, not even the hill of calvary or the empty tomb.

glenster

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus-myth_hypothesis#Scholarly_response

33

Did Jehovah's Witnesses ever claim they were inspired?

by slimboyfat in

jehovah's witnesses insist they are not false prophets despite making false predictions because they never claimed inspiration.

but is that true?

well most of the time they seem to have been careful only to claim divine "guidance" or that they are "god's channel".

glenster

The Wathtower leaders have wavered in and out of a direct claim to be pro-
phets.

But even if you don't make predictions and deny you're playing prophet, if you
claim to guarantee things are meant by the Bible beyond what can honestly be
claimed--"Noah wore red socks--only those who agree with me are saved"--you're
playing prophet--that you're getting special revelation. Popoff did it with his
earpiece pretending to get special messages from God.

From Russell in 1876 and on, the Watchtower leaders have pretended to be the
spokesman for a literal 144,000, which isn't going to be shown be a forthright
presentation of the research material. The Watchtower leaders play their ver-
sion of the scam with a dozen or so rules at any one time and use forced points,
quotes out of context, and omission of pertinent evidence to cook up the case
for it.

When it gets rocky, sometimes they tip their hand on the insincerity of it and
just lie (Russell claming the Jewish people hadn't thought they would be moving
to Palestine before he predicted it when Disreali and others were hoping big
things for it beforehand:

"Even our enemies must concede, and many of them do concede, that the facts as
they have developed year by year since we began these presentations in 1876 have
most wonderfully, most remarkably, corroborated our expectations and continue to
do so. For instance, the Jews had not thought of returning to their own land
when, in 1878, we pointed out that the time for favor to that people had chrono-
logically begun, in fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy...." ("Views from the
Watch Tower," Jan.1, 1908, p.5, Reprints 4110)
http://ctr.reslight.net/1914.html

"Benjamin Disraeli wrote in his article entitled 'The Jewish Question is the
Oriental Quest' (1877) that within fifty years a nation of one million Jews
would reside in Palestine under the guidance of the British."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism

"During World War I God's people expected it to lead directly into Arma-
geddon, but Jehovah prevented such a climax at that time. We didn't succumb to
such an expectation during World War II." ("Kingdom Ministry," Jan.,1968, p.5)

They predicted it every year of WWII, Rutherford even saying you shouldn't
have kids because the time is so short and you should use it peddling his stuff,
etc.):

"Armageddon is surely near, and during that time the Lord will clean off
the earth everything that offends and is disagreeable." "We can well defer our
marriage until lasting peace comes to the earth. Now we must add nothing to our
burdens, but be free and equipped to serve the Lord." "Eunice, my decision is
made. I shall shun politics, religion, and commerce, and I shall avoid the
cities." "Our present duty is plain. We must now be witnesses to the name of
Jehovah." ("Children" by Rutherford, Nov., 1941, p.366)
http://www.quotes-watchtower.co.uk/children.html

384

A STUNNINGLY simple question about JOHN 3:16 "For God so Loved the world."

by Terry in

on what basis did god so love the world?.

the world of mankind had been condemned to death by god's curse in eden!.

god viewed mankind as "dust on the scales".

glenster

It won't be easy to come up with anything new imagining different things for
the main characters with something so old and deliberated about by so many. I
saw a movie with the idea, as a twist at the end, that God was the Devil. The
twist included that people were praying for the 2nd coming (through a portal,
like in The Sentinel), and they realized at the end that they'd done all they
could to set the Devil free, etc. Mark Twain played with the idea near the end
of his life, too.

You could look at the book of Job as showing people to deliberate on both
sides of the prerogative coin, with one side Job and the other the Devil, a long
time ago. To favor the positive side includes the regard of a presentation of
just the negative side of the court case as a half done job at the deliberation.

A couple of things to consider in playing with the main characters:

Is God still the creator/provider/sustainer one, who didn't have to give
anyone life so any He gave is a gift He didn't have to give? Then Job still has
a case for the positive side of God's prerogative, and the Devil, seen as a
contesting lawyer in a court case (as in Judaism), will still play the negative
side to the hilt.

Is the Devil the creator/provider one? Then the negative side of God's prer-
ogative (we all die, etc.) shifts to him, so you can't make him the all nice side of
the prerogative.

It's neither? It's like deciding which idol you like better and not the con-
cept of creator/sustainer and prerogative, etc.

In any event, the God concept and the positive and negative sides of the case
don't go away for the sake of a purview about the negative.

6

Shunning policy from the 1920's

by tsar_robles in

i found this post in you tube:.

"in the meantime the brother may merely be treated in the kindly, courteous way in which it would be proper for us to treat any publican or gentile, withholding the special rights or privileges or greetings or voting opportunities that belong to the church as a class separate from the world" (wt 3/1/1919, p. 69).

can anyone in this forum validate this quotation?

glenster

An early example of Russell acting that way is that he wrote advising others that it would be improper to say things like "Good
morning" to Maria.

In a letter of July 9, 1896, Russell wrote: "To avoid misunderstanding, let me
say, under the circumstances it properly devolves upon you to make the advances
on the line of social amenities between us. It would be improper for me to take
the initiative in the matter of amenities such as, 'good morning,' 'good night,
'etc." (Exhibit 2, Superior Court)

Reviewing the evidence, Justice Orlady ruled in Mrs. Russell's favor with
barely concealed anger:

"The indignities offered to [Mrs. Russell] in treating her as a menial in the
presence of servants, intimating that she was of unsound mind and that she was
under the influence of wicked and designing persons, fully warranted her
withdrawal from his house, and fully justified her fear that he intended to
further humiliate her, by a threat to resort to legal proceedings to test her
sanity. There is not a syllable in the testimony to justify his repeated
aspersions on her character and her mental condition, nor does he intimate in
any way that there was any difference between them other than that she did not
agree with him in his views of life and methods of conducting business. He says
himself that she is a woman of high intellectual qualities and perfect moral
character. While he denied in a general way that he attempted to belittle his
wife as she claimed, the general effect of his own testimony is a strong
confirmation of her allegations.

"In an analysis of the testimony it is quite difficult to understand the view
of the respondent in regard to his duty as a husband to his wife. From his
standpoint he doubtless felt that his rights as a husband were radically
different from the standard imposed upon him by the law, and recognized by all
the courts of this country.... His course of conduct toward his wife evidenced
such insistent egotism and extravagant self-praise that it would be manifest to
the jury that his conduct toward her was one of continual arrogant domination
that would necessarily render the life of any sensitive Christian woman a
burden and make her conditions intolerable."
http://www.exjws.net/vg2.htm

12

hidden illustrations in the watchtower magazine

by Wendy_Warden in

i have been visiting the site of the six screens of the watchtower and one of the things they speak about under screen three (i think) is the hidden pictures in the illustrations contained in the awake and watchtower mags.

i was blown away but what they found.

however, i don't want to seem paranoid about it go some of you should go and see it for yourselves and see if i'm crazy.

glenster

Let's all stand around and admire the white guy--lol!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDnxmGzQ2Mo