Posts by NeonMadman

8

"Worldly" P.R. and Marketing Firms ???? ...

by TTATTelder in

i have noticed a few comments lately about worldly pr firms and marketing companies being used by the wt.. does anyone have any information confirming this to be the case?.

for many jw's this would be borderline scandelous considering the venom constantly spewed about satan's world.. if i missed any threads about this topic, please give a link.. thanks for any input.. -te.

NeonMadman

This organization villifies anything from the religous, political, or business sectors of society. They claim they are directed by God, guided by Holy Spirit, and are motivated by Christian love. Worldly "Big Business" is supposed to be greedy, corrupt, and immoral (Satan's world remember?).

In the "real world" there is nothing wrong with it, BUT, and it's a big BUT, in their world it is supposed to be beneath them. They claim divine blessing.

Angels are supposed to be directing people to the "truth". They are not supposed to have to use worldly advertising techniques.

Now getting people to create some web designs is not as much the issue as using a PR firm to help mold their image or guide them through such things as spinning this 2014 embarrassment.

Sorry, I still don't see what the big issue is. They buy toilet paper for Bethel bathrooms that is made by "worldly" companies. They buy all kinds of goods and services from "the world." It's just business. You say that "they are not supposed to have to use worldly advertising techniques," but where does the WTS ever say anything like that, or imply that such a thing is beneath them? You are imputing arguments to them and then knocking down the arguments they never made; that's a straw-man fallacy. Remember the famous cry, "Advertise, advertise, advertise the King and his Kingdom?" I don't recall the Judge adding afterward, "but don't use any worldly advertising techniques." I think you are creating a tempest in a teapot here out of nothing.

8

"Worldly" P.R. and Marketing Firms ???? ...

by TTATTelder in

i have noticed a few comments lately about worldly pr firms and marketing companies being used by the wt.. does anyone have any information confirming this to be the case?.

for many jw's this would be borderline scandelous considering the venom constantly spewed about satan's world.. if i missed any threads about this topic, please give a link.. thanks for any input.. -te.

NeonMadman

What would be the big deal if they were? They have a web site that needs to be designed, events that need to be promoted, brochures that need to be laid out, logos, signage and lots of other things that would be expected of any large organization. If they need outside expertise to make these things effective, I'm not sure what the problem would be with consulting a "worldly" firm that specializes in such things, any more than I would be concerned if they had a plugged up toilet at a Bethel home and called in a "worldly" plumber. It's a non-issue, as far as I can see.

45

Religion vs the gospel

by Fernando in

our family's journey out of the watchtower has led us to see the gospel as the antithesis or exact opposite of religion.. for us religion is men telling us what to believe and do (to control us).. for us the gospel is god telling us what he has done (to liberate us from such men).. how have you come to see the relationship between religion and the gospel?.

NeonMadman

LOL, what Jesus taught while he was alive- what actually attracted people to him- has nothing to do with the religion that was created after his death. Obviously, Jesus didn't say 'follow me because after I'm dead it will all make sense', but he had his own teaching- which has been obscured by the writers of the Gospels after Jesus died. So you can't follow Jesus- you're 2,000 years too late.

How could anyone possibly know that? If what Jesus taught was distorted by the Gospel writers, what other source do you have to assert that he originally taught something else?

28

My First "Publication Free" Study...

by HeyThere in

was not so publication free.

do witnesses not know how to talk about the bible without a wt pub to guide them?.

fist, she tried to get me to start once again in the bible teach book as if i had never said i didnt want to study from the pubs, so i reminded her.

NeonMadman

Was not so publication free. do witnesses not know how to talk about the bible without a wt pub to guide them?

No, most don't. They have no idea about using the text with proper regard to context, or getting the message of the entire chapter or book as part of the study. For most JWs, the Bible is like a dictionary that they can use to look up the isolated proof texts that the publications direct them to. They know lots of individual verses, but not very much about the Bible.

119

Get well Grace (Mouthy)

by label licker in

jw
friends

a loud get well grace from all of us to you.

everyone, grace has been in and out of the hospital and i'm sure she would love to read your get wells.

we miss you grace:) wish i could post pictures.

NeonMadman

Feel better, Grace!!

62

End shunning or lose tax free status

by kneehighmiah in

jw
friends

which would the watchtower choose if it came down to this in the united states or europe?

losing tax free status would mean losing millions of dollars.

ending shunning means people would leave by the boatloads.

NeonMadman

Obviously the Watchtower could end their shunning policies if they wished, just by issuing some "new light." From a legal standpoint, however, I'm not quite sure how you would be able to enforce any action against shunning. Would you require that individual Witnesses now spend time with people who have left the organization, whether they want to or not? How could you ever enforce such a requirement? What if they simply don't like the person, apart from any religious considerations?

Would you require that the Watchtower issue a statement repudiating the doctrine? What if they did? Couldn't shunning still be carried out as a "private conscience matter" (as, in fact, they would like you to think it is done now)? Wouldn't this set a dangerous precedent of government dictating what doctrines a religious group may and may not teach? Actually, I can see where interference by government of that sort could easily be a back door to the establishment of a state church.

The topic of government agencies somehow pressuring or forcing the Watchtower to "end shunning" comes up fairly often, but I can't imagine how the logistics of such a move would work, apart from some serious erosions of religious freedom that would negatively affect people of all religions.

17

Letters to the Body of Elders (BOE) - Change in Letterhead

by Oubliette in

within the last few hours, two separate posters, watchtower87 and pixel, independently posted news of a april 22nd, 2014 letter to the boe regarding a change in how elders are to be appointed and deleted:.

boe - pdf - confidential 2014-04-22 adjustment in process for appointing elders and minisletter to boe: adjustment in process for appointing elders and ministerial servantswhat i found very interesting is the letterhead and the signature.

they are both from "the governing body of jehovah's witnesses" and not from "the christian congregation of jehovah's witnesses.".

NeonMadman

My guess would be that the letter is from the Governing Body rather than the CCJW because the GB up to now has been the agency that appointed elders and MS. Therefore, the change should come from them and not from the legal corporation. Elders and MS, after all, are spiritual positions in their view, not corporate positions.

40

What happens to marriages upon the arrival of Armageddon?

by insearchoftruth in

a couple of paradise earth questions: .

1) if you are a married, baptized witness couple (both people being baptized) and armageddon arrives, will the couple still be married on paradise earthtm?

2) if you are married to an unbelieving mate (ubm) and armageddon arrives, will the witness be free to remarry on paradise earth?.

NeonMadman

My understanding was that if a couple was married and survived Armageddon, they would potentially remain married forever, though childbearing would be stopped at some point. This, of course, was why JW girls were so doggone fussy about who they dated. If they married him, they could be stuck with him forever (you know, because Armageddon was so close), so he'd better be a real catch. Anyone who died and was resurrected would never again be able to marry. Single persons who survived Armageddon could probably still marry, but nobody seemed completely sure about that.

10

Brooklyn Bethel in the 1940 census

by dissonance_resolved in

jw
friends

prompted by another post, i looked up 124 columbia heights in the 1940 census.

a few interesting things: all occupants are listed as having the profession of "sell- religious books," except rutherford who is listed as an "editor.

" odd that they aren't listed as ministers.. also, all the educational levels of the occupants were provided- many had not even graduated high school and some not even grammar school.

NeonMadman

At the end of page 27, it lists Rutherford as "Head". His age as 70. M for married... "Judge" Rutherford's schooling is listed as C3. (3 years of College) At the end of his line it says "Institution". So he was Head, and Editor of an Institution.

Gotta wonder how he became a lawyer with only 3 years of college.

30

what is the answer to the old question about the immovable object and the irresistible force?

by Hortensia in

i know isaac asimov's answer, which makes sense to me.

anyone else have any answer to the question about what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?.

NeonMadman

It's always seemed to me that the question is not meaningful. If a force comes against an object, one of two things happens:

1. The object moves.

2. The object does not move.

I can't think of any alternatives to these two options.

If (1) is true, then the object was never immovable.

If (2) is true, then the force was never irresistable.

Therefore, the posited interaction could never happen. You could not have both an immovable object AND an irresistable force, even in theory. One or the other, maybe (in theory), but not both.

By the way, several here have indicated that a force will cause any object to move, even if so slightly as to be undetectable. Maybe so, but I don't see that as being relevant. Either the object moves or not. The degree of movement makes no difference.