o what is that sound which so thrills the eardown in the valley drumming, drumming?only the scarlet soldiers, dear,the soldiers coming.o what is that light i see flashing so clearover the distance brightly, brightly?only the sun on their weapons, dear,as they step lightly.o what are they doing with all that gear,what are they doing this morning, morning?only their usual manoeuvres, dear,or perhaps a warning.o why have they left the road down there,why are they suddenly wheeling, wheeling?perhaps a change in their orders, dear,why are you kneeling?o haven't they stopped for the doctor's care,haven't they reined their horses, horses?why, they are none of them wounded, dear,none of these forces.o is it the parson they want, with white hair,is it the parson, is it, is it?no, they are passing his gateway, dear,without a visit.o it must be the farmer that lives so near.it must be the farmer so cunning, so cunning?they have passed the farmyard already, dear,and now they are running.o where are you going?
stay with me here!were the vows you swore deceiving, deceiving?no, i promised to love you, dear,but i must be leaving.o it's broken the lock and splintered the door,o it's the gate where they're turning, turning;their boots are heavy on the floorand their eyes are burning.. - w.h.auden.
The soldiers are not any old mob, they represent the government or anyone the government allows to attack people or deny rights to.
WH Auden lived in Berlin in the late 1920s and that poem was published in 1934. My interpretation would be that he was describing the “Brownshirts”. Of course, each person to their own interpretation.
o what is that sound which so thrills the eardown in the valley drumming, drumming?only the scarlet soldiers, dear,the soldiers coming.o what is that light i see flashing so clearover the distance brightly, brightly?only the sun on their weapons, dear,as they step lightly.o what are they doing with all that gear,what are they doing this morning, morning?only their usual manoeuvres, dear,or perhaps a warning.o why have they left the road down there,why are they suddenly wheeling, wheeling?perhaps a change in their orders, dear,why are you kneeling?o haven't they stopped for the doctor's care,haven't they reined their horses, horses?why, they are none of them wounded, dear,none of these forces.o is it the parson they want, with white hair,is it the parson, is it, is it?no, they are passing his gateway, dear,without a visit.o it must be the farmer that lives so near.it must be the farmer so cunning, so cunning?they have passed the farmyard already, dear,and now they are running.o where are you going?
stay with me here!were the vows you swore deceiving, deceiving?no, i promised to love you, dear,but i must be leaving.o it's broken the lock and splintered the door,o it's the gate where they're turning, turning;their boots are heavy on the floorand their eyes are burning.. - w.h.auden.
Centuries ago, people were regularly convicted and executed (via various brutal means) for witchcraft.
if you look up the crime, you pretty quickly realise that it is basically an impossible crime to commit.
Convictions stopped, when Courts developed rules of evidence; in particular the hearsay rule. Essentially, rumours, gossip, and in this day and age, what an anonymous person spouts on the internet is not admissible evidence in Court, because of the hearsay rule.
Thankfully, in this day and age, if someone wants to make allegations (say hypothetically to take a current example) that someone witnessed voter fraud (just a hypothetical example as it appears to be a current topic), a Court would require testimony from the person who claimed to witness it, not second hand or third hand accounts from people who hear a rumour in the local town market place, or read it on the internet. This was a game changer, in terms of the conviction of witches, in the past.
The obvious problem with hearsay is that it can not be verified. The more subtle problem with hearsay is that it can not be verified by more and more hearsay. Larger and larger groups in the town market place repeating each other’s stories do not make those stories more true. Also, larger and larger internet circles repeating the same conspiracies in an echo chamber do not make the conspiracies more true.
Further, some of the vocal participants may have an agenda. To take another hypothetical example, a bad actor may spread stories that he or she has hundreds of affidavits confirming (for example hypothetically an election fraud) but never show them to anyone, even sympathetic media such as Fox News. Perhaps the bad actor has a hidden agenda, such as raising large amounts of money from the gullible? Perhaps we can detect the bad actor when he or she not only does not produce copies of such affidavits to the Courts, but does not produce such copies of the affidavits to the public either.
In this day and age, I am not concerned about the Courts or any modern country being fooled by such behaviour. What does concern me is that out in the community, where hearsay is still valid evidence, and there is someone with a loud enough megaphone with malicious intent, we are all at risk of the mob attack described by WH Audin, as Simon quotes above.
Blues Brother, in answer to your questions:
Providing that their understanding is correct and the Governor General confirms it...
The GG will approve it. Essentially, under the Constitution, the GG approves whatever the Prime Minister tells the GG to approve. (There are exceptions in extreme circumstances, such as “the Dismissal” in 1975.)
[Edit.. why does the Queen's representative have to get involved? It ought to be down to the Aus. Government ]
There is a legal fiction that Australia is still ruled by Queen (or King) of England. Under the Constitution, the Queen appoints (or fires) the GG. In practice, the Aust Prime Minister appoints the GG, but the GG is often referred to as the “Queen’s representative.” The GG exercises the same powers in Aust, that the Queen exercises in UK. Just as the Queen stamps whatever law the UK Parliament sends to her, the GG stamps whatever law the Aust Parliament sends to him/her.
In other words, loss of charity status is a “done deal”. Just a formality from here.
we were told by watchtower that no way jesus was born on dec. 25th.
.
what do you think now?.
Come on... everyone is told these days That December 25th is not really the birth date of Jesus. You can read that in lots of books, see it in tv documentaries....... the date is no longer an issue
Totally agree. My parents were staunch Roman Catholics and I went to Catholic schools, and as kids we were taught that:
Not saying that that is 100% correct, or the full story, of course.
phttps://www.jw.org/finder?wtlocale=e&pub=syr20&srcid=share .
plus another increase in memorial partakes number etc .
Thanks road to nowhere.
phttps://www.jw.org/finder?wtlocale=e&pub=syr20&srcid=share .
plus another increase in memorial partakes number etc .
Just a question; how does Watchtower define an active publisher at the moment? I had thought publishers are not required to report their hours at the moment.
this is my latest video.
it is part 1 of a series that reveals the mathematical trickery watchtower uses to con people about the 1914 doctrine.
it takes a radically different approach to that of carl olof jonsson who dealt with dates.. this video focusses on how watchtower misuses the numbers in scriptures and creates a mental fog that prevents people from understanding and therefore prevents them from challenging.. the full title of the video is maths virus - revealing the antivirus to 1914. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llkmrul3afg.
Quick comments, given comments directed at me:
Hi Jeffro, you might be misunderstanding my point of view. I am not saying that because the Bible is the only record of the destruction of Jerusalem, the event did not occur. I am solely focused on Watchtower’s strawman argument, where Watchtower claims that “secular” historians are the source of 586/587 BC. To repeat myself, outside of the Bible, there is no evidence of the event. Therefore, outside of the Bible, there is no date. The 586/587 BC date is a biblical date.
And in relation to whether it is 586 or 587, I leave that to others, because my understanding is that it is not so straight forward.
Hi Harry, your quoted text appears to confirm what I said, that the relevant Babylonian record is not available.
Hi Anna Marina, my comment was not directly aimed at your presentation. Your video did mention “secular”, which reminded me of the way Watchtower tries to rebut 586/587.
this is my latest video.
it is part 1 of a series that reveals the mathematical trickery watchtower uses to con people about the 1914 doctrine.
it takes a radically different approach to that of carl olof jonsson who dealt with dates.. this video focusses on how watchtower misuses the numbers in scriptures and creates a mental fog that prevents people from understanding and therefore prevents them from challenging.. the full title of the video is maths virus - revealing the antivirus to 1914. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llkmrul3afg.
Thanks Anna Marina,
I very much look forward to the rest of the videos. The presentation is excellent.
For what it is worth, I wouldn’t call mathematics a branch of science, but that is neither here nor there.
Now throwing in my own 2c worth, on this topic generally:
One thing I have noticed that keeps getting overlooked, is the use of “secular” in the discussion on when Jerusalem fell. I think Watchtower started it, and others continually fall into the logical trap. Just it be clear; there is no “secular” date for the destruction of Jerusalem. The issue in its simplest form:
1. We know from multiple sources (Ptolemys Canon etc) that the reign of Nebuchadnezzar commenced 605BC;
2. The Bible says the destruction of Jerusalem occurred in the 19th or 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign (depending on which passage, and what type of “year” you use).
3. Therefore (assuming the Bible is true) the event occurred in 586 or 587 BC.
Babylonian tablets record events in some years of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, but the relevant tablet or tablets from (going from memory) the 11th to 20th years have never been found. The event isn’t mentioned by the Egyptians etc, either. Thus there is no record of the event outside of the Bible. Therefore 586 or 587 is not the “secular” date. It is the one and only biblical date. There is no “secular” date because the event didn’t occur, as far as secular history is concerned.
my fathers best friend passed away a couple of days ago.
admittedly, i live in a country that is covid free, although the local dubbies are still following the advice of not meeting in the hall.
with the death of my fathers friend, the local boe must have had a change of heart.
I think I live in the same country. Our local KH was opened for a funeral earlier this year, and has been closed since. A number of people “attended” via zoom.
i’ve been gone a long time.
after my mother passed away a few years ago, i pretty much lost most contact with the witnesses.
a couple that were family friends for many years stopped checking on me to say hello.
I have never been a witness, so I don’t really know what it was like in the past. But now I over hear many of the zoom meetings and broadcasts.
To me, the meetings sound arrogant, nutty and culty, with lots of references to avoiding any other point of view, we are other only ones who practice “true worship”, shun your kids if they leave, even if it hurts, because that is Jehovah’s plan etc.
Outside of meetings, there are lots of social catch-ups and lots and lots and lots of letter writing. Sometimes they do a weird thing, where a group of them meet on zoom and write letters in front of each other, in near silence. I reckon my wife posts up to 20 letters per day. I am probably paying for postage. She has an excel spreadsheet with all the addresses (where from? Dunno), and the letters are word processed and printed, not handwritten. She has created a separate email address for replies, and puts the KH as the return postal address. I am tempted to send a follow up letter with a link to jwfacts, but why bother; I am sure most if not all her letters go straight to bin.
You would think that letter writing could be far more efficiently and more effectively done via a central process. But i suppose the real object is to create busy work for the sheeple, not attract members. It is quite funny listening to what passes for uplifting experiences (or lack thereof). Last week, I think someone reported running into a letter recipient at a supermarket, and got what I would interpret as a polite rejection/fob off. It was encouraging that it wasn’t a blunt rejection, apparently.
