i am trying to prove or disprove a statement that i read today.
i read a statement by someone that i trust that the wtbts purposely distorts the number of anointed left alive in their reports.. i used to be a jehovah's witness.
i know all of their teachings very well.
Why would you suggest they are altering the #s of annointed when the #s are doing precisely the opposite to what they are supposed to be doing and opposite what you claim you are observing?
I'm going to go ahead and say the increasing #s are accurate and have been a cause for much perplexing at WT HQ lately
i have more to say on this and its implications, but i'll keep this short to get some initial discussion.
to those that believe in god, suppose he were to hypothetically change various standards of right and wrong, suppose with the new scrolls to be opened.
things such as rape, theft and immorality are now perfectly fine and acceptable.
I have more to say on this and its implications, but I'll keep this short to get some initial discussion.
To those that believe in God, suppose he were to hypothetically change various standards of right and wrong, suppose with the new scrolls to be opened. Things such as rape, theft and immorality are now perfectly fine and acceptable. Would you feel fine to practice those things now, or no?
[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> </w:compatibility> <w:browserlevel>microsoftinternetexplorer4</w:browserlevel> </w:worddocument> </xml><!
[endif][if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:latentstyles deflockedstate="false" latentstylecount="156"> </w:latentstyles> </xml><!
[endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* style definitions */ table.msonormaltable {mso-style-name:"table normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"times new roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif].
In the case of the diabetic, the doctor can clearly and rationally explain to the patient exactly why he is not going to give the sweet based on medical and scientific evidence and his personal experience. The patient can ask questions which can be answerd.
If God could physically answer the pleas (and moreso, satisfactorily give sound reason for inaction) to people who lost their entire family in a tsunami, or who are living their childhood being raped, molested and abused by those close to them, or to those being wasted away in horrific diseases. if they can get an answer for "why can't I stop being raped?" etc then I'm certainly willing to carefully consider the answer because I can't honestly even begin to contemplate what rational for not stopping things like that would be.
today when i read it, i see a completely different story.. the bible is completely true, or at least that's what many people believe.
when asking them which translation is true, the person might pick their favourite translation.
when asking about things that contradict, be logically incorrect, or refer to unscientific things like the four corners of the earth, one might get a response that some of it is symbolic, and not meant to be taken literally, but everything else is entirely true.. the same principle can be applied to any piece of writing.
So God created the heavens, before he created light? Okay, I suppose this could be possible, depending how you interpret it, like "heavens" could refer to the atmosphere, but it sounds to me like he made all the stars, but they weren't glowing. Lets skip ahead to verse 14...
Your points are all good and true. Just a note though on this one: the model of the expansion of the universe notes that there was millions of years in which the universe was completely dark (no light sources) and eventually as the stars began to form themselves, the universe "turned on" with stars flickering on throughout the sky in a remarkeable display.
so this weekend my wife had a major grand mal seizure for the first time in her life.
she was rushed to the er.
a few hours later while i was at her side she had another major one.. it was the scariest moment in my life.
Dan,
You've got to stop saying to yourself that you're a bad person and you hurt people. Right now you're devestation is not what has happened to you but that, rightly or wrongly, YOU are the source of a good person's pain. Thats probably the worst feeling a good person can feel.
Yeah, I was goign to try to type something encouraging, but thats not what you want to hear right now, is it? Right now you're miserable and feeling guilty and its going to stay that way, probably for a long while. Not much you can do to get around that.
But you're not a bad person. You're caught up in a world in which suffering happens. Its just that some people feel bad when things happen to them. And some people feel bad when they cause pain to others. Sorry you're the 2nd type. If its any consolation. me too.
to the intellectually honest witness, it seems like it often comes down to this principle.
"fine, if the witnesses aren't the truth, then show me the better answer and i'll consider it.
" and how do you deal with that?
salty, you sound like a nice person, this is going to be my last post to you discussing this because my intention is not to try to tear down your beliefs so you are at the same points I'm at. But I did ask you the question about prayer because it illustrates the point I'm making:
Dear Simon17 - I will indeed pray for you right now - but I have no magical powers - I can't make ice cubes appear on a hot summer's day.
No you can't, I know. But God is supposed to be able to have unlimited power. Thats what prayer is supposed to be: allowing yourself to get beyond what you are capable of yourself. So I see prayer as a (useful) tool of postive mental thinking allowing you to accomplish things on your own. If it can't do something that I can't do on my own, they its certainly not indicative of a higher power.
if a friend of mine starts to say things out of emotion and i call him "schizophrenic" then that might be an insult.
however if he is having auditory hallucinations, paranoid or bizarre delusions, or disorganized speech and thinking then that word becomes a description of his situation.. now i ask you.
does the attendance to the kh promote intelligence?
You are also describing 7 million people with one brush-stroke which is unfair. I think the major thing here is whether you are being insulting vs. giving constructive criticism. Yes, it is insulting to say your breath stinks probably. Try that on a date, see how it goes. Perhaps, "Care for a piece of gum" would work better.
"I find the work of JW's to be intellectually dishonest because of xxxxxx research into the quotes of the Craetion book or xxxxxx inaccurate translations of this word from the ancient Greek" etc etc etc.... is going to go a lot further than "Jehovah's witlesses are retards who waste their time in field circus"
if a friend of mine starts to say things out of emotion and i call him "schizophrenic" then that might be an insult.
however if he is having auditory hallucinations, paranoid or bizarre delusions, or disorganized speech and thinking then that word becomes a description of his situation.. now i ask you.
does the attendance to the kh promote intelligence?
why? and you still haven address my original question... is it really offensive or descriptive? I dont care they someone find it offensive, is it descriptive..
If someone calls me "hey you mexican".... well even if I dont like it, I am.
The person using an insult is not the one that gets to determine if it's offensive or not. So, yes, I'm sure every active JW would find it offensive, so in my opinion it "is" an offensive term. Especially on a website that has as one of its functions getting browsing JW's to think deeper and more clearer about their religion.
Mexican is your nationality. That is the official term and a real word. If you went to a JW and said "oh you're just another witness" than they shouldn't be offended by it, even if they may be annoyed by your tone. But the WORD itself would not be an insult. I'm sure most Mexican's would not react the same way to being called a "Mexican" to being called a "Spic Drug Runner" yes?
when told recently of someone in the congregation who had "given in to temptation", the person relating the incident said: "satan waited until just the right moment to tempt br.
weak.
i began thinking about the correlation between temptation, free will, and what jws teach about wicked spirit creatures' abilities (or lack thereof).. jws teach that wicked spirit forces can affect the material world-- move objects, speak in audible voice, create visions, possess living creatures (humans included); yet they also teach that they cannot read or manipulate our thoughts.
Tell a JW man to audibly say which supermodel or actress asking them out would tempt them the most. With all the spirit realm listening, see how long that temptation takes to come to fruition...
if a friend of mine starts to say things out of emotion and i call him "schizophrenic" then that might be an insult.
however if he is having auditory hallucinations, paranoid or bizarre delusions, or disorganized speech and thinking then that word becomes a description of his situation.. now i ask you.
does the attendance to the kh promote intelligence?
I find all those things childish and lazy. People nowadays have lost so much command of the English language that it is sad. Its such a powerful thing, and we tend to simply degenerate into insults (not just here, in general). I find it much more convincing and powerful if you carefully evoke the reasons and emotions behind why the insults are valid to begin with.
