my wife got me started watching this show last year.
we've downloaded the previous seasons on netflix and have found it to be really well done.
the story line, scenery,costumes,old cars and compelling characters have us hooked.
First class TV. What I have come to appreciate is that there are no "fillers" in the dialogue and plot. It is very carefully written so that everything said has some bearing on the ongoing shift in social and class structure that is taking place. Good cast. Good production. Nothing bad to say really. And I am not a general fan of period movies/TV.
We've watched it to the end of series 3, and I'm pleased to hear that they will shortly start filming series 4.
regarding the governing bodys new light relative to matthew 24:45-47, anointedjw.org recently said the following:.
this new light certainly poses a problem for the governing body.
perhaps this is another reason why they have not yet published a sober and scriptural xplanation of this new light.
THE "ALPHA AND OMEGA"OF REVELATION 22:12 Refers to Jehovah God - AWAKE! 8/22/78 p.28
Refers to Jesus Christ - WT 10/1/78 p.15
Splash - I don't see Alpha and Omega referred to in the latter. They apply Rev 22 to Jesus in part, but their interpretation is that the speaker switches several times in this passage.
there is anonther topic about the new organizational sheet of the jw organisation.. it's nice to see the gb (=fds) on top of the earthly part of it.
read some interesting information about the.
severe disorder they must have:.
Phizzy - Although I can vaguely make him out
Seriously? Where? You've got me playing "Where's Waldo?" with Jesus, and I can't find him.
a friend of mine i'm in lust with, has been trying to convert / recruit me.
she's been very pleasant with me and very patient with me.
she hasn't been very pushy which i appreciate.. she's even said that if at anytime i'm getting smothered or feel this religion isn't my thing, to say so and she will stop asking about it.
If you 2 are over 21 get her a little tipsy and hit it.
dbnc - this is wrong by any standard of decency. There's a very fine line between what you are suggesting and 'date rape'. Who defines 'a little tipsy'?
Wonka - Whatever you do just work within the bounds of common human kindness. Even aside from the idea of delibrately setting someone up for the trauma of the JW judicial process, how do you want her to feel after this? Don't play with fire. Just talk over your honest feelings and research and see what happens. If you like her you will do the right thing.
while acknowledging god as the most powerful force in the universe, i wonder if he is omnipotent.
this thought came to me as i watched an old star trek: tng, where everyone's favorite fictional omnipotent being, q, was featured.. .
if he is omnipotent, why could he not remove the "bitter cup" of suffering from christ in the garden?
I would challenge that. Doesn't Titus 1:2 say that God cannot lie?
Edenone - agreed. But this is not reflective of a lack of power. Omnipotence means "all powerful". Therefore he has the power to lie, but his nature restricts him from doing so.
In a transaction, one must pay and one must receive.
Cold Steel - when I used the term "the price he was prepared to pay" I didn't use it in the sense of a transaction. I know that some people try to explain the ransom in this way, but that is not my understanding. We can use the term "paying the price" without a transaction being involved. For example in a negative way we could say "Jimmy played on the railroad tracks despite his mother's warning, and he paid the price". The price was not paid to anyone. There was no beneficiary. It simply means that something was given up.
while acknowledging god as the most powerful force in the universe, i wonder if he is omnipotent.
this thought came to me as i watched an old star trek: tng, where everyone's favorite fictional omnipotent being, q, was featured.. .
if he is omnipotent, why could he not remove the "bitter cup" of suffering from christ in the garden?
To me omnipotence means that there is no single act that he is not capable of doing.
There are two significant factors in that definition:
1) It simply says that there is nothing he is not capable of doing, but does not imply that he ought to do any particular act. So he has the unlimited potential to do anything, while at the same time remaining selective in terms of how he uses that potential.
2) I define it as "a single act" because when we look at situations involving multiple variables there are conflicts and paradoxes that arise. Is God capable of both killing me eternally and keeping me alive eternally at the same time in a single universe? The fact that this is not possible for God does not in any way detract from his omnipotence. It's just that we are capable of phrasing paradoxical questions that are outside of the realm of reality.
So could God have remove the cup from Jesus? Yes, as a single act he was obviously capable of doing so. But if he was going to do that then probably he could have avoided a lot of time wasting by wiping out Adam and Eve at the outset and starting again. Just because he was fully capable of doing something different does not mean that he will do so if it is not the best action. To assume that it was the best action is to work on the premise that there is nothing more important than for a loving Father to keep his Son from pain. Clearly from God's perspective this is not the case. There may have been nothing more painful than to watch his Son suffer and die, but that is a different matter from what he decided was most important and the price he was prepared to pay (John 3:16)
favorite:.
1.book: godel,escher,bach: an eternal golden braid [douglas r. hofstadter] .
2.movie: synechdoche, new york (written and directed by charlie kauffman) .
1.Book: Life of Pi [Yann Martel]
2.Movie: Un Coeur En Hiver [Claude Sautet]
3.Wine: Wolfball Black Label [2004]
4.Artist: Mark Rothko [biggest impact anyway]
5.Opera: Cosi Fan Tutti [Mozart]
6.Song: Baba O'Riley [The Who]
7.Classical composer: Frédéric Chopin [or Henryk Górecki as close 2nd]
8.Music (contemporary): Of Monsters and Men [just now rather than all time]
9. Painting: Black on Maroon [Rothko] [Vladimir Umanets is a c**t]
10.Scientist: Einstein [hands down]
11.Philosopher: Alan Turing [I understand he is not recognized as a philosopher strictly speaking, but in my view he is]
12.Car: TR5 [Triumph]
a new article for those who are interested.... http://jwsurvey.org/cedars-blog/patterson-on-the-line-watchtower-claims-that-paying-cash-bond-would-cause-immediate-irreparable-harm-and-hardship.
.
cedars.
For mere oppression may make a wise one act crazy ' - Eccl. 7:7.
Hatred is what stirs up contentions, but love covers over even all transgressions .' - Proverbs 10:12
i looked through your posts but couldn't find your life story.
have you written it?.
i would love to read your progression from/through jw to avid scholar :).
I have to add my voice to this thread. This forum is often much deeper due to your contribution Leolaia. I really appreciate it.
I don't always agree with you, but you often cause me to think again. I have great respect for the way you present things honestly and without any apparent bias.
I have learned many new things through your posts.
Thanks again,
FG
first off a big thanks to everyone here, you have received me with much love and support.
i appreciate all that have contributed their time and hardwork over the years here at jwn.. this post here is directed to those who are on the fence like i was.
i hope this helps you in some way to understand both the doubts and indoctrination.. i am also currently an active jehovahs witness and have been for almost 20 years (26 years old).
Sulla: But I've had dealings with more than my share of JW apologists and know enough to say that they all have the same diseases
That is generalization straight out of the WT. They would call all who were formerly associated who disagree with them "mentally diseased". To generalize in such a blanket way is to stoop to the level of someone who doesn't understand the issues or is trying to press a very specific agenda.
I think Emery made a perfectly reasonable post, and your response tries to undermine the strength of it. Many of us know the upside of the org. Denying it as if to say that someone is effectively "still in" by acknowledgeing any positive aspect does little to show a balanced view to those others who are on the fence.
