The bible says nothing about any of this, that's what's so frustrating. If JWs were to read Revelation without any of the WTS baggage, they'd see how obvious it is that it was written in the late-1st century, and aimed at people who were living during that century; it even says so in the opening chapter. There is no greater fulfilment, not in Revelation, nor in Daniel, it's all just nonsense.
Fred Franztone
JoinedPosts by Fred Franztone
-
13
World Powers
by Fred Franztone injws have a unique interpretation of the seven kings of revelation.
they of course refer to roman rulers, but the wt believe they represent certain 'world powers'.. the problem with these world powers is how arbitrary they are, not to mention the fact that none of them truly were world powers, in fact none of them even covered the entirety of europe, and the anglo-american world power isn't even a distinct entity.. then there are all of the world powers that are left out for convenience, many of which were far bigger.
the mongolian empire and the ottoman empire were both bigger than half of the chosen world powers, such as medo-persia.. has anyone ever taken this topic up with jws?
-
-
-
13
World Powers
by Fred Franztone injws have a unique interpretation of the seven kings of revelation.
they of course refer to roman rulers, but the wt believe they represent certain 'world powers'.. the problem with these world powers is how arbitrary they are, not to mention the fact that none of them truly were world powers, in fact none of them even covered the entirety of europe, and the anglo-american world power isn't even a distinct entity.. then there are all of the world powers that are left out for convenience, many of which were far bigger.
the mongolian empire and the ottoman empire were both bigger than half of the chosen world powers, such as medo-persia.. has anyone ever taken this topic up with jws?
-
-
Fred Franztone
It may be consistent, but it's wrong. The Mongolian invasion of what we now call Russia had a huge impact on Christianity.
JWs need to try harder.
-
13
World Powers
by Fred Franztone injws have a unique interpretation of the seven kings of revelation.
they of course refer to roman rulers, but the wt believe they represent certain 'world powers'.. the problem with these world powers is how arbitrary they are, not to mention the fact that none of them truly were world powers, in fact none of them even covered the entirety of europe, and the anglo-american world power isn't even a distinct entity.. then there are all of the world powers that are left out for convenience, many of which were far bigger.
the mongolian empire and the ottoman empire were both bigger than half of the chosen world powers, such as medo-persia.. has anyone ever taken this topic up with jws?
-
-
Fred Franztone
JWs have a unique interpretation of the seven kings of Revelation. They of course refer to Roman rulers, but the WT believe they represent certain 'world powers'.
The problem with these world powers is how arbitrary they are, not to mention the fact that none of them truly were world powers, in fact none of them even covered the entirety of Europe, and the Anglo-American world power isn't even a distinct entity.
Then there are all of the world powers that are left out for convenience, many of which were far bigger. The Mongolian empire and the Ottoman empire were both bigger than half of the chosen world powers, such as Medo-Persia.
Has anyone ever taken this topic up with JWs? And if so, what sort of responses have you received?
-
15
192-page books
by Fred Franztone inthis is my 192nd post, so i thought it'd be fitting to ask a somewhat banal question which i've occasionally pondered over the years.
does anyone know what's behind the wt's penchant for 192-page books?
is there some kind of logistical reason for this?
-
-
Fred Franztone
This is my 192nd post, so I thought it'd be fitting to ask a somewhat banal question which I've occasionally pondered over the years. Does anyone know what's behind the WT's penchant for 192-page books? Is there some kind of logistical reason for this? I'm curious.
It's occurred to me that there must have been occasions where they've padded out books (or compressed them) in order to land on the magical 192. It's such an annoyingly unround number; 200 would be better, although it would mean an additional eight pages of nonsense, so perhaps not.
-
50
1969 Awake on Education - A Sore Spot for Me
by NotBlind inmy father would have started college 49 years ago this week.
about three months earlier, the week he graduated high school, the awake!
magazine came out with some very clear direction to teenagers.
-
-
Fred Franztone
I’m curious. Was your dad viewed negatively in the congregation for having a career, or was it ignored because he was a man??
I mean it's not so much a double-standard as a founding principle; women in the WT are third class citizens (men are second and elders are first). Whatever a woman's career-situation, she won't have many 'privileges' in the organisation, beyond the 'joy' of field service.
As for my dad, he had minimal privileges, but then his organisational aspirations weren't especially lofty to begin with.
-
10
Is the blood doctrine idolatrous?
by Fred Franztone ini'm not a god-fearing individual, but when i was still a believer, many suns ago, it occurred to me that the blood doctrine had an idolatrous foundation; it was one of the initial anti-wt thoughts in my mind that eventually led to me leaving the religion and ultimately (and somewhat ironically) to atheism.. the bible says that one should 'abstain from blood', and putting aside whether this is a mistranslation of bloodshed (which i've never bought), the wt are quite picky about which commandments they follow; they don't observe the sabbath, and they've even provided justifications for lying, so why the preoccupation with the blood commandment?
and why is it so serious a matter that it's a disfellowship-worthy offence?
the justification i was always given by elders was that blood is sacred, it's a symbol of life, and whilst the commandment to abstain from blood clearly meant that one shouldn't eat it, it's not unreasonable on the surface to extrapolate it to include transfusions (although some would disagree).. the problem with this reasoning of course is that by abstaining from blood transfusions, death from massive blood-loss is a possibility, unlike with abstaining from eating it.
-
-
Fred Franztone
I'm not a god-fearing individual, but when I was still a believer, many suns ago, it occurred to me that the blood doctrine had an idolatrous foundation; it was one of the initial anti-WT thoughts in my mind that eventually led to me leaving the religion and ultimately (and somewhat ironically) to atheism.
The bible says that one should 'abstain from blood', and putting aside whether this is a mistranslation of bloodshed (which I've never bought), the WT are quite picky about which commandments they follow; they don't observe the sabbath, and they've even provided justifications for lying, so why the preoccupation with the blood commandment? And why is it so serious a matter that it's a disfellowship-worthy offence? The justification I was always given by elders was that blood is sacred, it's a symbol of life, and whilst the commandment to abstain from blood clearly meant that one shouldn't eat it, it's not unreasonable on the surface to extrapolate it to include transfusions (although some would disagree).
The problem with this reasoning of course is that by abstaining from blood transfusions, death from massive blood-loss is a possibility, unlike with abstaining from eating it. And so by suggesting that a person potentially sacrifice their life for the sake of maintaining the sanctity of blood, the WT is essentially advising that its followers put the symbol of life ahead of life itself, and putting the symbol of something ahead of what it represents is quite literally idolatry.
If blood is sacred because life is sacred, then surely life should come first, as in the case of the smoking ban. And in the case of blood transfusions, you're generally better off with one that without, regardless of the risks; all medical procedures involve risk, even a simple anaesthetic presents a threat to life, so the risk-factor is no excuse, not unless the WT bans anaesthetics.
Thoughts?
-
242
Do You Think President Trump Will Be Impeached?
by minimus inwhether you like him or not.... it doesn’t matter.
do you think he will be impeached?
?.
-
-
Fred Franztone
No I think he will get 2 terms and no impeachment, and I'm not a fan of any prez to date.
I don't see how he's guaranteed a second term, he didn't even win the popular vote in his first election and is now disliked by many who voted for him because he's been softer than many assumed he'd be. A lot of people voted for him because they wanted a wall, that's how he won. There's no wall, there will be no wall, and that will likely cost him the next election.
-
50
1969 Awake on Education - A Sore Spot for Me
by NotBlind inmy father would have started college 49 years ago this week.
about three months earlier, the week he graduated high school, the awake!
magazine came out with some very clear direction to teenagers.
-
-
Fred Franztone
Interestingly, my dad joined the religion around this time, and he went on to have a white collar career as a witness, and is now retired with a private pension, so thankfully not everyone took the organisation's advice.
-
5
Ezekial.
by zeb ini rarely comment on the bible itself as i believe it can be a 'merry go round' and nothing achieved.
in my gradual reading of the bible for the third time i am now up to the book of ezekial.
the message goes into a great detail as to what the almighty will do to fallen nations but there is so little as to the good that is promised later in the scriptures as to the 'new order' (but the jw dont use that term anymore).
-
-
Fred Franztone
All I remember about Ezekiel is that god made him eat poo.
-
4
the next time
by pepperheart inthe next time we hear about cuts that the watchtower are making and some people say .
"oh they are a multinational group and far to big to fail.
well so were lehman brothers and the royal bank of scotland.
-
-
Fred Franztone
Even if the organisation collapsed financially, the religion itself would survive, in fact if anything it would force many members to double-down on their beliefs; they'd see it as a sign that the end is super-close. Time would pass, and the organisation would re-emerge in a new form. People don't just throw away their faith when a company goes bust, unfortunately.