ok, there's been tons on this i know.
here's what i found and spent some time researching some of the companies.
in my search i found in 2014 boeing, lockheed martin & northrop grumman which supports the military.
This argument is a non-starter if you understand trusts. The WTBS has no control over what the trust owns, invests in, or how it disburses the funds. The only thing it could possibly do is send the checks back to the trust. You might make a case that by keeping the money, it is benefitting from defense industries, but I think their are much bigger fish to fry when looking for reasons to attack the WTBS.
Reminder: I'm a retired accountant.
rights seem to be everywhere nowadays.
say hello to someone in the wrong way and you've violated 101 of their human rights.
people imagine they have the right to all sorts of things - food, healthcare, housing, internet ... so many things are labelled basic rights and then you get onto their human rights - a favourite of the do-nothing bodies such as the un to declare.
My wife and I are collecting social security. If that was all we had, we'd be impoverished. I'm not sure that is a step forward. If the voting rights act was such a good deal, why did they not make it apply to the whole country?
I think the biggest problem we have is each side trying to define what the other side thinks. I've read too many articles (and a good number of posts on this site) that start out "Liberals believe that..." or "Conservatives think that..." those to phrases then followed by something about how the other side feeds kittens to wolves or some such nonsense. It destroys what little conversation we have left in us.
in the image you can see what jw wrote about how galileo was treated by the catholic church.
now they are disfelloshipping me because i believe the earth is flat.
is this coherent?.
So which idea is dumber: "The earth is flat", or "the GB is interested in my theories?"
i personally feel that vaccinations are beneficial.
there has been a modern movement that vaccinations are more harmful than beneficial to which i disagree.
what is your stance as an ex jw on vaccinating your children?
I used to drink and drive all the time (I'm a recovering alcoholic). I never got a ticket for it, or got in an accident. Should I conclude that my experience makes it OK? Or was I just f***ing lucky? Which one of us (Sober Jeff T or drunk Jeff T) do you want to share the road with?
My father was a well-known cancer researcher (look up E. Donnall Thomas). He considered statistical analysis to be the only reliable way to track medical results. The Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, where he worked keeps track of every patient from the moment they start treatment until the day they die. It is the only reliable way to measure the results of their work.
i personally feel that vaccinations are beneficial.
there has been a modern movement that vaccinations are more harmful than beneficial to which i disagree.
what is your stance as an ex jw on vaccinating your children?
My wife is just now getting over a bout of shingles. I'd like to invite all those people having "chicken pox parties" to come over and see what's going to happen to their kids down the road. She'd tried to get the shingles vaccination but couldn't find a place that had it. Apparently it's in short supply.
i personally feel that vaccinations are beneficial.
there has been a modern movement that vaccinations are more harmful than beneficial to which i disagree.
what is your stance as an ex jw on vaccinating your children?
The scientific evidence is in (actually it was always in), vaccinations are good. Right now, we have a measles outbreak here in Washington State and in Oregon. The people getting it have not been vaccinated.
i just cant begin to express my reactions to this....just watch it right through and see what i mean..... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poxpsj5s4q4.
so yesterday when i went to the library there were three older gentlemen in suits standing around the front door.
i spotted the stand with the magazines a second or two later.
they were talking among themselves, totally ignoring everybody walking past them.
So yesterday when I went to the library there were three older gentlemen in suits standing around the front door. I spotted the stand with the magazines a second or two later. They were talking among themselves, totally ignoring everybody walking past them.
As I walked by, I thought of saying "you know, if field service had been this easy when I was a Jehovah's Witness I might still be one." But I decided not to. They apparently derive something from doing what they were doing, and as long as they are being totally ineffective they aren't hurting anybody. I didn't want my words to goad them into some kind of actual activity.
When I left about twenty minutes later they were still talking to each other and ignoring all the potential converts walking past them. I don't know any of them can think this is fullfillment of Jesus comments about preaching. I think the WTBS is in the middle of a long slow death.
would i err in stating most religions and denominations have set doctrines?and yet, the watchtower's version/rendition of christianity is riven with contradictions which stem from changing predictions, policies, doctrines, and interpretations seemingly adrift from foundation or principle.wouldn't you think the constant upheaval, sifting, churn, and reorganization bespeaks whim, mood, uncertainty, and wilful speculation more than divine guidance?there's something endemically jittery and insecure about this religion which i would opine has more than a little to do with unstable mental affect than mere whimsy.what's your take on this?.
Most mainstream Christian churches share a core of accepted important doctrines, which could fit on a postcard. (After leaving the WTBS I attended an independent Evangelical church that did precisely that).
Those core doctrines concern the nature of Christ, salvation through faith, baptism, and the importance of scripture. Everything else is regarded as secondary and a matter of personal belief. I have a five volume encyclopedia of the bible that will lay out multiple interpretations of an idea, followed by the arguments for each, and then leave it up to the reader to decide what he thinks.
The problem the WTBS has in this regard is the need to be right about every single thing they can think of. Personally, I think some parts of the Bible are there to get us to think about the questions, not to provide answers.
