just seen reference to a recent letter read to congregations about this, anyone got more info please?.
According to what I was taught as a JW, when the end is near it is expected that their numbers dwindle.
I think they are right. It's simple logic. Actually, it's almost tautological. I would rephrase it in a better way though
When the numbers dwindle, then the end is near.
gorby went to the kh for family reasons today.. and landed right away middle in a pseudo history watchtower article.
just that aspect of the jw belief he is so sensative about.. so 1918 and 1919 are changed with one mark of a pencil.
the argument of change was in the past the argument of the doctrine.
I wonder why the WBTS decide to revisit these old doctrines. What is the added value of doing this? They run the risk that more JW's get confused and leave. And I do not see how these revised or clarified old doctrines increase the faith of the readers.
The only reason I can think of is that influential people around or closer to the gb members are sometimes raising issues (inconsistencies) with these old doctrines. Why else would they bother? Who in todays congregation is ever interested about what happened then, with Russell and Rutherford.....
Any ideas?
I think is part of their clumsy efforts to slowly transition to a mainstream religion. The new generations reject religion in general, but they reject cults even more. The unprincipled financial leaders of the WT know it and are trying to bring the profits again by creating a more mainstream theology.
one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
Catholicism is the only system that have logical internal consistency
I am speechless
one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
John Mann
Evil is a human construct. We invented the term and have provided various definitions time and time again. As I said before, these concepts and definitions are created to try to improve the collaboration efforts of humans, which ultimately advance our survival rate. Bad "morality" is that which reduces our survival, and good "morality" is that which improves our survival. Staying alive is the purpose.
Consciousness? we will get there, if we live long enough. The "help" from the Bible turned so useless in many simple cases that it would be pointless to try to use it in this complex quest.
one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
Without having read any book or opinion on the issue, I have to say that morality is a subjective concept that when you strip it of all its subjectivity what you have left is guidelines for collaboration among humans to improve our survival rate. Human evolution at its best... or worst. Time will tell
Morality from God???
We humans created God... and He created morality... Therefore we, humans, are the source of morality. Problem solved. Fear not my child.
EDIT
Simon, you stole my thunder, and I am glad:
we create him in our image rather than the other way around. Which is probably why he's usually such a jerk.
Truer words had never been spoken before
my support is with the marchers in washington and around the country today.
i was raised through my formative years by my mother and sister while my father was out of the picture.
they gave me the compassion i have today.
"Entitled to go out there and earn less than 80% of what they would get if they had been born with a penis."
Maybe men and women are not the same after all. Can we say child bearing time off for example?
If a CEO can get exactly the same productivity from an all female force, but pay only eighty percent of what he pay males, then he should be hiring as many women as possible.
Why CEO's are not doing it? I guess they are idiots, or perhaps men and women are not created equal. You already mentioned a difference that is not irrelevant to the issue. I mentioned another one that is very relevant. I am sure we can come up with some more. Those differences, whether we like them or not, affect productivity, and businesses' main goal is productivity and ultimately, profit.
By the way, I do firmly believe that men have oppressed women for millennia and continue to do so, unfairly. But in a truly free market economy the only thing that matters is profit, not gender or race.
my wife found this 1/4 page ad on page 2 of yesterday's nj star-ledger, probably the biggest newspaper in nj.
pretty telling.. .
Richard makes a propaganda type of argument, but it has merits. He claims that the victims and their lawyers have a hill to climb, but quite conveniently ignores that the Watchtower has an abyss to get out of. The Watchtower has to spent its limited resources to defend itself in many fronts while membership and donations are going down. The Watchtower can't liquidate more "Brooklyns", and the remaining assets can't be sold all at once without destroying itself.
His presidency will be better than left wingers anticipate, but not as good as right wingers predict. Most of his controversial promises were pure demagoguery, not much to worry about.
He is unprepared to be president??, so were most presidents, and somehow we made it through. We will be fine. Pendulums always come back from their highest positions.
okay i was thinking about it.
and it is a transhumanist argument and nothing new, i do realise that before anyone points it out.
but it struck me afresh today that the resurrection must happen.. firstly, to state the obvious, a rational materialist conception of reality seems to exclude resurrection.
Threads like these make me appreciate my mundane existence even more. Bring me coffee and bread. Pure joy! ...without the mental effort
my wife found this 1/4 page ad on page 2 of yesterday's nj star-ledger, probably the biggest newspaper in nj.
pretty telling.. .
Richard Oliver,
Are you in the Watchtower's payroll? or you just like having fun by being a contrarian for the sake of being a contrarian?
