jw's around the globe have been encouraged to write letters to putin and the russian government.
they are expected to give their personal details on the envelope.
i appreciate that this might be normal when writing to your own government if they are tolerant, but is this not a bit strange that the gb want to give putin the address of every jw in the world?
Russian Ministry set to reply to all 8,000,000 Jehovah's Witnesses around the world with information packets detailing the reasons for the actions taken. Information packets will include detailed material demonstrating that the Watchtower's "blood policy" is hypocritical and dangerous.
...and a small free sample of Polonium, perhaps.
Seriously, that would be a smart move by Putin, if true. It wouldn't fit well with the Watchtower narrative.
mathematically measuring evolution.. when judging relationships in terms of morphological characteristics we will always be bound by the subjective.
morphologically one cannot exactly measure the distance between two organisms strictly in mathematical terms.
using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish.
Towerwatchman, you say you cant accept most Christians do not believe in a "supernatural intelligent designer"
Just as an example: I was brought up in a strict Catholic family, and went entirely to Catholic schools, taught by a mix if priests, nuns and secular teachers (mostly practising Catholics). (I have never been a JW - I found myself married to one.) I can specifically remember the point being made at school many times that Genesis should not be read literally. I remember one Jesuit priest saying it was "childish" (exact word) to think it literally occurred.
From talking to people and a bit of research, I can not identify ANY mainstream Christian religion that rejects evolution. The only ones I can identify that do reject evolution, are the fundamentalist ones, mostly from the USA.
I do agree, however, that pre-Darwin or thereabouts, most Christians were creationists.
The majority of Christian I know and have known do not believe in evolution.
You were probably born in USA, or at least exposed to a fundamentalist US religion from a young age. You were almost certainly indoctrinated with the "creation story" right from when you were a little baby. Your entire terms of reference for how you view the world around you, stems from that indoctrination. You seek evidence to support your viewpoint (aka confirmation bias). You are good at debating, and seek further comfort by projecting your views on others and shouting them down if they disagree.
How close am I?
mathematically measuring evolution.. when judging relationships in terms of morphological characteristics we will always be bound by the subjective.
morphologically one cannot exactly measure the distance between two organisms strictly in mathematical terms.
using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish.
Towerwatchman: Note nothing I have posted as evidence is supported by the Judeo Christian belief in a supernatural intelligent designer.
Most Christians do NOT believe in a "supernatural intelligent designer". From what David Jay says, it appears Jews don't either. Most Christians accept (and are often even taught) that Genesis should not be read literally, and that evolution is a fact.
Most of the Christians that do believe in a "supernatural intelligent designer" come from fundamentalist Christian sects (such as JWism) that have arisen in the last couple of hundred years in USA.
apart, of course, from the obvious example of believing the evidence-free assertion of the governing body to be god's representatives on earth.
not to side-step that issue, but i wonder if it might be interesting to relate that huge mistake to other things i've been wrong about and how they compare and contrast with the big one.
a couple of examples of things i was wrong about:.
For a long time I thought anthropogenic climate change was all a load of nonsense. I was assisted in that view because i tend to be suspicious of anything put forward by "greenies", and there was a friend of the family who was a leading oceanographer (now deceased) who seemed to be a skeptic. Also, I know someone well who has some scientific credentials (not a lot, but more than the average person) who is an avid denier and talks a convincing line.
At one stage I read a lot of arguments on a site similar to this, which gave me a head start to do my own critical research. I won't go into details, but I am fairly certain now that anthropogenic climate change is really occurring. Some of the suggested solutions I still don't agree with.
interpret john 1:1 by john 1:1. .
the greek language has the definite article which has approximately thirty variations, is translated into english as “the”, and points to an identifiable personality, someone we have prior knowledge of.
but the greek language has no indefinite article corresponding to the english “a”, or “an”.
How can we verify that what Jesus said about the afterlife is true? By the resurrection.
We have numerous lines of historical evidence, proof that the tomb of Jesus was found empty by a group of His women followers.
We have several lines of historical evidence established that on numerous occasions and at different places various individuals and groups saw appearances of Jesus alive from the dead.
and
Thereafter, Jesus appeared from the dead to the disciples,, including Peter, who then became proclaimers of the message of His resurrection. Also appeared to His brothers James and Jude, and to Saul. All four Gospels testify to these facts. Many more details can be supplied by adding facts that are attested by three out of four. So minor discrepancy should not affect our case.
What are these "numerous lines of historical evidence" and "several lines of historical evidence"? Outside of the bible, the only mention of a resurrection I am aware of , is a brief reference in the Testimonium Flavianum (by Josephus), which when translated reads something like:
About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and many of Greek origin. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
There have been many more documented sightings of Elvis, leprechauns etc. Even accepting the bible as accurate, apart from the supposed appearance to Paul, it is all second-hand accounts.
And why didn't Jesus just walk into Jerusalem on the Sunday morning and just yell: "Ha ha, I am back!" I think I know why.
from an apologist site:.
http://thirdwitness.com/607_bce/www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/607/realissue.html.
hence, counting back from 537 bce (the year the bible says the jews returned home) for a full seventy years, we arrive at the year 607 bce.. .
I should add that even though my posts concentrate on the academic issues, I broadly agree with Tor that this is not what drives most dubs to stay or leave.
from an apologist site:.
http://thirdwitness.com/607_bce/www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/607/realissue.html.
hence, counting back from 537 bce (the year the bible says the jews returned home) for a full seventy years, we arrive at the year 607 bce.. .
As I understand it, the end of the last remnant of the Assyrian empire was in 609 BC, which seems to fit fit very nicely with 539 BC as the end of the Babylonian empire. Is that correct?
The collapse of the Assyrian empire certainly had a major role in the rise of Babylon as a regional superpower. However, if you are looking for a period to match the biblical 70 years, that is not a likely choice, because the beginning of the 70 years is bionically linked to Nebuchadnezzar. As I see it, there are 2 main alternatives for reconciling the biblical 70 year period with secular history:
(a) the 70 years is actually 68 years, beginning with Nebuchadnezzar commencing his domination of the region - a mainstream view held by religious scholars, at least back as far as Bishop James Ussher, writing in the 17th century; or
(b) the explanation given by Doug Mason, above.
from an apologist site:.
http://thirdwitness.com/607_bce/www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/607/realissue.html.
hence, counting back from 537 bce (the year the bible says the jews returned home) for a full seventy years, we arrive at the year 607 bce.. .
Just to reinforce the point others above have made about this apologist piece. I went through the lot, trying to find on what basis the author supports the dates of 539 BC and 537 BC. The only thing I could find, was the following, on about page 12:
Of course, there is abundant secular evidence to show that 539 BCE is the date of Babylon’s defeat, and most importantly, such evidence is accepted by us because it does not contradict the scriptures.
So the whole piece rests on that. Accept the secular 539 BC datum and reject the secular 587 BC datum. No explanation as to how one can be accepted and the other rejected.
On another thread, I reported that I went back through the old literature for where 537 BC came from. The history is lengthy. I will try to very briefly summarise.
Russell assumed the dates of 536 BC and 606 BC. Back then, historians had already known for centuries (from Ptolemy's canon) that the date Cyrus conquered Babylon in around 538 or 539 BC (and that Jerusalem fell in about 587 BC), but the date of 536 BC had a special numerical allure for the Millerites. Millerites assumed Ptolomy's calendar was out by 2 years, not understanding that that was impossible, because the timing of the eclipses in Ptolomy's canon could not be out that far. Russell just copied the 536 date as fact, from around the 1890's onwards, without checking.
this can only be a good sign.. my old congregation in liverpool has had a lot of money in it's bank account for years.
for a long, long time (almost 8 years) they've been looking for land to build a new hall.
the one they're in now is literally falling to bits.
Wow!
Of course it is not just the £200k gone, it is the proceeds of the sale of 2 more Kingdom Halls, as well. Where is all the money going?
i have always maintained that i hold nothing personally against individual witnesses, even those that have actively slandered our name and reputation based on the actions of some individuals.. i have often said that all these ones, (even the ones spreading gossip), are victims of the culture of the organization, and the directions of the gb.. but recently i have been rethinking this, and wonder if ignorance is really an acceptable excuse?.
i mean, with so much information now readily available about the society, its origins, its scandals, issues and conduct, is it simply ok for a witness to remain wilfully ignorant about the organization that dictates every aspect of their lives?.
is ignorance an excuse?.
Ignorance may not quite be the right word. It seems to be more a mental refusal to deal with something unpleasant.
Someone I know used to be fond of saying that most of the world's problems are caused by weak people, not evil people. (Weak in this context meaning lack of strength of character, compromising principles, hedonistic, unwilling to stand up to bullies, etc.)
I think that this religion would have died out long ago, if people within it and outside it had the courage and conviction to call it for what it is, more often.
So in my opinion, "ignorance" is not an excuse. Worse, it is a fundamental part of the cause.
