Posts by konceptual99

11

Why I think the Trinity doctrine is an irrelevant talking point with JWs, and what I believe could be a better approach.

by Island Man in

there are no authentic/uncontested bible verses that prove a trinity.

the trinity doctrine is arrived at by inferences - not unlike the way that jws arrive at the doctrine that jesus is michael the archangel.

the jw proof texts against the trinity are at least as strong, if not stronger than, trinity proof texts.

konceptual99

I don't think the majority of dubs under the age of 30 could debate the doctrine anyway. It's becoming all about emotion.

130

2017 Annual Meeting

by Jules Saturn in

this just in from the 2017 annual meeting:.

1. watchtowers and awakes won't be released regularly, at least three watchtower and awakes per year.

6 magazines a year.. 2. a new book is being released: remain in god's love, more of an update like how they did for the what does the bible really teach book.

so there i was earlier today, enjoying a spot of lunch in a pleasant little cafe whilst out shopping, when up came a fella i vaguely recognised from the dim and distant past just as i was tucking into my highland soup with bread roll and butter..

"i would never ignore you you know".. "eh?

what" i ventured wondering wtf is this all about.

konceptual99

Agree with joe. When I was waking up I made a concious effort to acknowledge the DFed and inactive I came across. His manner may have been awkward but I think it shows that there are those in the org that struggle with the exclusion of those who are DFed or inactive.

I get the cynicism over some of these acts but better that than a perpetuation of cult tactics IMHO.

42

U.K. NHS Attitude to Blood Transfusion and its Safety

by BluesBrother in

while visiting someone at the local hospital i saw this leaflet " will i need a blood transfusion ?

- patient information" .

now i was raised in the belief that doctors are transfusion-happy and just give you one willy nilly if they operate , further that a trans.

konceptual99

I was speaking to a friend on the HLC the other day and they know how safe they are but that's not what the issue is. It's a smoke and mirrors exercise with the professionals and an organisational loyalty issue with the R&F

33

For ELDERS: Kingdom Ministry School for the 2018 Service Year (Picture)

by pixel in

i know wifibandit will post the pdf soon, this is just a snack for you guys and girls.... .

konceptual99

How about "Apply Yourself to Shepherding"?

p.s. Sparrow - fat fingers, meant to like not dislike!

146

Just woke up turn TV on to hear yet another nut case with a gun.

by Still Totally ADD in

jw
friends

first they said 20 dead with 100 injured.

now i just heard 50 dead and 200 injured.

whatever it is it just another nut case who was able to get a high power gun to kill people.

konceptual99

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41519815

NRA calling for change. This is great news.

146

Just woke up turn TV on to hear yet another nut case with a gun.

by Still Totally ADD in

jw
friends

first they said 20 dead with 100 injured.

now i just heard 50 dead and 200 injured.

whatever it is it just another nut case who was able to get a high power gun to kill people.

konceptual99

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

I assume you would prefer it if North Korea didn't have nuclear weapons and that ISIS were not allowed to buy weapons from any business who would be willing to sell to them?

Is it an essential liberty for someone to be able to legally walk around carrying a military grade assault rifle through the unsecured area of an airport? For the love of Judas H Priest!

146

Just woke up turn TV on to hear yet another nut case with a gun.

by Still Totally ADD in

jw
friends

first they said 20 dead with 100 injured.

now i just heard 50 dead and 200 injured.

whatever it is it just another nut case who was able to get a high power gun to kill people.

konceptual99

acid attacks like the 458 London alone had last year...

A massive rise in 2016 which has also continued into this year. The response? New laws to restrict the sale of acid to U18s. Will it stop all acid attacks? No. Will it reduce them significantly? Time will tell but I suspect it will do.

The key point here is that the government is empowered to respond. There is no lobby working to prevent legislative change. I am sure that the same action would be taken if this was a problem in the States. Except it isn't because people can shoot each other instead and not even the POTUS can drive change when it comes to guns.

161

Help! Mike & Kim videos all being deleted by Youtube

by mrmagic in

due to watchtower flagging the mike & kim videos on youtube for copyright, youtube is giving them 6 days before they are shutting down their entire youtube channel.

can you help with a mass downloading program and then reuploading them on a mirror ?

would hate to lose all those good videos!

konceptual99

Can't stand to watch them for any more than a couple of minutes but very pleased for them! Well done them! Perhaps the WT will come back at them but let's hope not.

146

Just woke up turn TV on to hear yet another nut case with a gun.

by Still Totally ADD in

jw
friends

first they said 20 dead with 100 injured.

now i just heard 50 dead and 200 injured.

whatever it is it just another nut case who was able to get a high power gun to kill people.

konceptual99

Here is the crux of the matter. I have read the above about 10 times. I would really like to know what you mean by a "cultural change" specifically. From above it really sounds like those that "most cherish the right to bear arms" should start to put the "rights of the nation as a whole" first by changing their mind on cherishing guns. In other words, the cultural change you speak of is having everyone agree to give up owning weapons. Correct me if I am wrong.

I think the cultural change required should be focused in two areas.

Firstly is in the attitude to dialogue and debate. My impression is that the broad camps of pro and anti gun ownership are in complete and utter ideological standoff. The debate is heated, aggressive and polarised - with very little real effort to find common ground, reach compromise and discuss what the end point should be and what the road map to achieving it really us.

Of course this is not entirely the fault of the pro gun lobby and I get that the anti-gun lobby can be as vociferous and dogmatic as anyone but what I see is bullish rhetoric, often centred on the 2nd amendment right to bear arms and epitomised by that Charlton Heston "cold, dead hands" quote.

I think that there needs to be a move away from this defensive, entrenched position - from both sides. I think it is better to accept that the 2nd amendment is not likely to change any time soon, that guns are part of life in the US and that it's better to look at what Americans want America to be like and work out how you do that together.

The second area is in access to high powered, semi automatic assault type weapons. Sure a handgun can kill but the scale of harm is reduced and the assailant far more easily contained by law enforcement or even, dare I say it, competent members of the public. I think that for the sake of the nation people should accept that ownership of and access to these type of weapons should be far more controlled than it is.

It's a bit like the rules around speeding. The German autobahn laws demonstrate that allowing people to do whatever speed they like does not automatically mean carnage on the roads however most countries put a speed limit in place to help moderate the abuse of speed. It does not stop speeding or road accidents completely but does put some constraints on people, especially on congested road networks like the UKs. We accept these constraints on our freedoms for the perceived good of the society as a whole.

I think it's a non-starter to assume the US could go the way of other countries overnight but I do think that people could change their view about what sort of weapons are reasonable for the average citizen to own whether it be for pure pleasure or protection. An acceptance that just because you can doesn't mean you should could over time make a real difference.

Perhaps, over time, people would feel less wedded to guns and the culture of gun ownership. Perhaps reducing or restricting handgun ownership would be more realistic over time. Encouraging people to ask why they feel the need to carry a gun just to go shopping, what the psychology of wanting to wander around town with an unconcealed weapon is - getting people to question this seemingly unassailable conditioning that "it's my right" and getting them to consider an alternative.

So I don't mean give up guns. I mean change the way you think about guns and how they are seen as part of the cultural and social landscape.

Also, what does it mean for the "nation as a whole" to have rights? What is the right that a nation has in this case?

I mean society as a whole. The right of people to go about their business with minimal risk to their health and well-being. At the moment the interpretation of the 2nd amendment means it is essentially impossible to enact change so citizens countrywide are at increased risk of being involved in a gun related incident.

Did you notice that if you remove suicides, you lose about 60% of the gun deaths (at least in the US)?

Yes but the homicide only figures are still way different to nations with a different gun ownership culture, as is the rate of ownership. We have suicides here but I would bet money that the rate would increase if more people had access to a gun.

The vast majority of gun owners are not in a militia. They are just people, like the kind that got shot up the other day.

Understood. I was just pointing out that this is another aspect of the culture towards guns in the US where you can have a heavily armed militia of quasi soldiers that can operate completely within the law but outside the control of the law enforcement or military authorities, yet no one bats an eyelid. No one is the least bit concerned that in principle a nationwide private army could be put together completely legally. No one is concerned that a group can walk the streets carrying battlefield ready hardware and it's entirely down to the organisation of the group as to how well trained and disciplined they are.

I would wager that the argument against that is that "well we don't have to worry about some dodgy militia because we have another militia who are the good guys and they've got loads of feck off guns" or "I better get myself a feck off gun so no fecker comes and take my stuff". Until this cultural approach changes then nothing will change.