i'm sure this has been discussed, but 1914 has to go away.
instead of, the overlapping generation teaching, they should have just ditched 1914. .
they should have done that a long time ago with 1975. it's the last of the teachings in the charles taze russell era.. i'm thinking they just will stop talking about it, and it will be out of the mind of the rank and file loyal witnesses .
1914 is pivotal to everything modern about them. It leads to 1919 when they say they were appointed by the Big J.
They can't get rid of 1914 without changing the date they were assigned to be the slave appointed over the domestics etc.
Of course, 1914 does stand up to scrutiny given 607AD is utterly false and the whole lunar v solar years.
“supplies of offensive weapons to the kyiv regime would lead to a global catastrophe,” state duma chairman vyacheslav volodin said.
“if washington and nato supply weapons that would be used for striking peaceful cities and making attempts to seize our territory as they threaten to do, it would trigger a retaliation with more powerful weapons.”.
what is russia implying?
US, UK, Germany & others away to send their best tanks to Ukraine.
Russia's response? We will destroy the tanks. Thought they said previously that sending these types of weapons would result in the attack of said nations supplying them.
Bluff has been called....I'd expect in the months to come more tanks and eventually superior aircrafts.
Game over Russia...they have lost and simply do not know it yet.
“supplies of offensive weapons to the kyiv regime would lead to a global catastrophe,” state duma chairman vyacheslav volodin said.
“if washington and nato supply weapons that would be used for striking peaceful cities and making attempts to seize our territory as they threaten to do, it would trigger a retaliation with more powerful weapons.”.
what is russia implying?
Invade country, declare states as your own, advise nukes if you take back states.
Complete and utter bluff.
UKraine territories inc Crimea will be back with Ukraine by the end of the year and Putin dead or "gone".
if there is evidence that jesus invisibly chose specific men at headquarters in brooklyn new york in 1919 to be his faithful slave and that mandate and ability passed on to future directors...then the answer might just be a resounding maybe.. what is the evidence for this invisible appointment and what is the evidence that this is just watchtower mythology?.
i hope jws like scholar and fisherman will explain why the trust the gb.. i must be honest, i see no evidence at all to put trust in either the 1919 selection or the current men taking the lead in warwick.
.
The criteria used by "Jesus" and "Jehovah" to choose in 1919 the "JW's" back then was not attitude but rather the truth on the doctrines they taught. Attitude was not the reason because the Proclaimers books advises that many zealous groups were around back then.
So the criteria used was the Bible Students taught truth.
Why I know the JW's were NOT selected in 1919 to represent any god is because the criteria that is published today as "truth" is vastly different to what they taught in 1919.
If Jesus/Jehovah chose them in 1919 then either they both got it wrong too or the JW's were not selected.
But you can't have them be selected in 1919 on the basis of teaching truth and doctrines and then change said doctrines and attribute the changes to the very beings who selected them in the first place.
If they were selected in 1919 because of truth and doctrines then those truths and doctrines should still be in place today.
They are not.
ask most fitness coaches, nutritionists or health professionals and they will tell you that weight control is about calories in versus calories out (cico).
after all, you can’t ignore the laws of thermodynamics!.
the flaw in this simplistic reasoning ought to be obvious; a human body and a steam engine are two different things.. our bodies have evolved complex systems of control and feedback loops in order to maintain a steady interior environment, also known as homeostasis.
I don't think it's rocket science....eat a balanced diet, exercise and you will not be overweight or unhealthy due to your diet.
I was 20 stone (280 pounds or 127 kg) and lost 9 stone in 2 years simply be eating healthy, avoiding alcohol and exercised.
I ate little fat, little carbs etc but don't think you need to go to extremes at any length.
the wt engages in history revisionism when insisting the world changed overnight in 1914. in fact the european power struggles that came to a head were centuries old.
millions of lives had been lost in the wars of the 19th century, with the world a powder keg the years prior to the assassination of franz ferdinand in june 1914 which is often said, albeit rather arbitrarily, as the start of the war that escalated over the next 4 years into the great war.
take a look at these two pages and ask if the wt's interpretation of history seems accurate to you.
What criteria did Jebus use to select the JW's in 1919?
Proclaimers book says it was not attitude as many groups were very zealous back then.
It was doctrine they say...except comparing what was taught in 1919 and what is taught now there is a vast difference.
The whole 1914/1919 falls down on so many levels.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/scottish_national_party - "however, others in the party were explicitly pro-nazi.
hugh macdiarmid, who stood as an snp candidate in 1945, believed that the nazis were "less dangerous than our own government" and wrote a poem about the london blitz that included the line "i hardly care".
arthur donaldson, who went on to lead the party between 1961 and 1969, believed a nazi invasion would benefit scotland: "the government would leave the country and england's position would be absolutely hopeless, as poverty and famine would be their only reward for declaring war on germany.
56% now support independence. How much longer can unionists keep holding back democracy?
Sigh...it fluctuates like this all the time and will do so after the Supreme Court "bounce".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/scottish_national_party - "however, others in the party were explicitly pro-nazi.
hugh macdiarmid, who stood as an snp candidate in 1945, believed that the nazis were "less dangerous than our own government" and wrote a poem about the london blitz that included the line "i hardly care".
arthur donaldson, who went on to lead the party between 1961 and 1969, believed a nazi invasion would benefit scotland: "the government would leave the country and england's position would be absolutely hopeless, as poverty and famine would be their only reward for declaring war on germany.
Exactly my view @BoogerMan and the view of most sensible Scots.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/scottish_national_party - "however, others in the party were explicitly pro-nazi.
hugh macdiarmid, who stood as an snp candidate in 1945, believed that the nazis were "less dangerous than our own government" and wrote a poem about the london blitz that included the line "i hardly care".
arthur donaldson, who went on to lead the party between 1961 and 1969, believed a nazi invasion would benefit scotland: "the government would leave the country and england's position would be absolutely hopeless, as poverty and famine would be their only reward for declaring war on germany.
It hasn't changed at all in real terms. It fluctuates and has done with a peak after the Supreme Court but that will level out again.
https://www.politics.co.uk/reference/scottish-independence-polls/
Point is there has not been a consistent more than 50% and therefore no appetite to grant a ref.
Why do you ignore all the points about how to win people over with economics, good governing, devolved issues being mismanaged etc. You realise if my points are addressed to a satisifaction then those like myself who want independence but will not ruin the future generations would actually vote yes.
Independence is easy to get...SG cannot simply produce any credible plan with real facts and figures though...until that is produced the status quo remains.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/scottish_national_party - "however, others in the party were explicitly pro-nazi.
hugh macdiarmid, who stood as an snp candidate in 1945, believed that the nazis were "less dangerous than our own government" and wrote a poem about the london blitz that included the line "i hardly care".
arthur donaldson, who went on to lead the party between 1961 and 1969, believed a nazi invasion would benefit scotland: "the government would leave the country and england's position would be absolutely hopeless, as poverty and famine would be their only reward for declaring war on germany.
Scotland cannot afford to be part of it any longer. Brexit is a disaster, austerity has ruined our public services
Our public services are ruined through devolution. Education and the NHS are nowhere near as bad in the UK compared to Scotland...fully devolved.
So how does removing tens of billions from our economy and not have the ability to lend on the greater shoulders of the UK in any way address that. This single point I keep making and there is not one answer from any pro-indy supporter, ever.
How does Scotland borrow? What currency do we use? How is going back to the EU any better than the UK when 60% of our trade is with the UK? How will we fund pensions when over 20% of the workforce in Scotland are civil servants? How do we fund mass infrastructure like a HMRC, DWP, Bank of Scotland, Defence, etc etc.
Support for Independence is split 50-50 and nothing has changed since 2014...if we voted again the same result would occur.
There is literally no point in voting or wanting independence if there is no credible economic plan to get us there.
A vote for independence is to make Scotland weaker, impose mass austerity that makes the Tories look like angels and impose higher tax on those that earn.
Is that really the sell here to Scotland in the midst of a cost of living crisis?
You are living in cuckoo land if you think people would vote for that. We need info, we need a plan, we need sensible economics and we need a stable and sensible government.
We have none of that thus status quo.
