sleepy

Joined

• started 402 topics
• posted 1,282 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by sleepy

• 
  66

  Is it all Rutherfords fault?

  by sleepy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  it has been said that the gb are just followers of followers.. they had belived a lie all their lives and have taught others the same.. in another post i've disscussed how i'd like to know more about russell and rutherford.. were they followers of followers or corupt.. many seem to point to rutherford as the bad guy.. even in the societies own books he seems to come off as a dodgy guy.. was russell guenuine in his belief , or was he courupt too?.

  so who is mostly to blame for the jw religon russell or rutherford?.

  or is it ourselves ,did we just decive ourselves and seek to pass the blame when the truth dawned?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  sleepy

  What was Russell on?
  "No, the truths I present, as God's mouthpiece, were not revealed in visions or dreams, nor by God's audible voice, nor all at once, but gradually, especially since 1870, and particularly since 1880. Neither is this clear unfolding of truth due to any human ingenuity or acuteness of perception, but to the simple fact that God's due time has come; and if I did not speak, and no other agent could be found, the very stones would cry out[/b]."

  He tells the truth was not revealed by 1.Dreams 2.audible voice 3.Human ingenuity 4.acutness of perception.
  So how the $#!* was it revealed?
  How many ways are left after that?
  How did God comunicate with him ? Sign language a message in his porridge?
  He then says its owing to, "the simple fact that God's due time has come;"
  So he tells all the ways it's not , but doesn't venture to tell us how he has this "truth"
  He then says it because God time has come but doesn't show why that indicates the "truth" comes through him.

  Basically hes not willing give away his source. Inticeing people with the idea that it is from God but never telling how.
  Just like the GB today.

  Yes he's talked his way around it besause he knew he could never prove it was from God.
• 
  5

  Pivitol dates.

  by sleepy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the society often makes a big fuss about so called pivitol dates.. i think these are 15 ce and 536 bce.. my question is do archeologists and historians see these also as pivitol dates from which to work or is it just the witnesses?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  sleepy

  Its to date the baptism of Jesus.
  (Luke 3:1)
  This helps to work out the date of 70 weeks of years by working backward(as usual) from jesus baptism.
• 
  66

  Is it all Rutherfords fault?

  by sleepy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  it has been said that the gb are just followers of followers.. they had belived a lie all their lives and have taught others the same.. in another post i've disscussed how i'd like to know more about russell and rutherford.. were they followers of followers or corupt.. many seem to point to rutherford as the bad guy.. even in the societies own books he seems to come off as a dodgy guy.. was russell guenuine in his belief , or was he courupt too?.

  so who is mostly to blame for the jw religon russell or rutherford?.

  or is it ourselves ,did we just decive ourselves and seek to pass the blame when the truth dawned?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  sleepy

  What is going on here?
• 
  20

  Top 10 Comments _NOT_ to make at the Hall

  by teejay in

  1. social
  2. humour

  # 10 - along with br.

  blanks comment, we can see it's important not to gossip and spread rumors, and some people in here need to start applying that in there lives, and get out of my business!.

  # 9 - we know we're in the last days... when i was at the movies yesterday watching scream part 3, i could see how the actors in the movie couldn't get along and solve a problem without cursing and swearing all over the place.. # 8 - i know we're all witnesses, so can i get a witness.... # 7 - uh, excuse me brother, but your talk is going overtime and kfc closes in 15 minutes, you know what i'm saying?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  sleepy

  "President Clinton is a dick head."
  Yes an elderly sister DID say that in my book study group a number of years ago.
• 
  17

  Did you have dream's of bringing the society down?

  by sleepy in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  so when you started to work out all you thought so logical and true was actually rather pear shaped what did you think?.

  "i'm ging to bring this organisation down".

  "when i tell people this (whatever point you like 607 etc)they'll be shocked like me and want answers".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  sleepy

  So when you started to work out all you thought so logical and true was actually rather pear shaped what did you think?
  "I'm ging to bring this organisation down"
  "when I tell people this (whatever point you like 607 etc)they'll be shocked like me and want answers"
  "the truth will end the religion of Jehovahs witnesses"
  "my best friend will listen to me"
  "maybe my parents"
  "my wife, er anyone"
  "Why's no one listening?"
  Then you realised this isn't as straight forward as you thought.
  Will anything work?
• 
  5

  Pivitol dates.

  by sleepy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the society often makes a big fuss about so called pivitol dates.. i think these are 15 ce and 536 bce.. my question is do archeologists and historians see these also as pivitol dates from which to work or is it just the witnesses?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  sleepy

  The society often makes a big fuss about so called pivitol dates.
  I think these are 15 CE and 536 BCE.
  My question is do archeologists and historians see these also as pivitol dates from which to work or is it just the witnesses?
• 
  22

  Can you answer this?(scientific question)

  by sleepy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  here is and interesting question which touches on some points raised in other posts.. can things really move?.

  if you haven't thought about it before it may seem like a stupid question, but i'll try to explain.. one of the principles of quantum physics is that things do not get infinatly smaller.there is a granuality to objects so at some point things don't get any smaller.. the same holds with energy if you take energy out of a system you can not go on forever .eventually you hit absolute zero were every thing is still.. in the other direction , the speed of light is an absolute limit.. so what happens if you make smaller and smaller movements eventually you would stop.but what is the next smallest movement between being stopped and moving?.

  if we put some figures on it it may make it easier.. if to be stoped is 0 and the next possible amonut of movment is 1 you could not move say 1/2 as that is smaller than 1 and if you could keep dividing forever like this you would never reach absolute standstill.. so like the particals in the universe movment has to be granular as well.made up of definate jumps though very tiny.. if this is the case then there is a problem how does one object , if we imagine the smallest to be a quark jump from one place to another is it technicaly the same object or a new one ?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  sleepy

  Hi lauralisa,

  I would say Hi to my brothers but some pale faced young lady has just knocked on the door better see who it is.
• 
  66

  Is it all Rutherfords fault?

  by sleepy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  it has been said that the gb are just followers of followers.. they had belived a lie all their lives and have taught others the same.. in another post i've disscussed how i'd like to know more about russell and rutherford.. were they followers of followers or corupt.. many seem to point to rutherford as the bad guy.. even in the societies own books he seems to come off as a dodgy guy.. was russell guenuine in his belief , or was he courupt too?.

  so who is mostly to blame for the jw religon russell or rutherford?.

  or is it ourselves ,did we just decive ourselves and seek to pass the blame when the truth dawned?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  sleepy

  I want to see those photo's.
  Can anyone trace them?
• 
  22

  Can you answer this?(scientific question)

  by sleepy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  here is and interesting question which touches on some points raised in other posts.. can things really move?.

  if you haven't thought about it before it may seem like a stupid question, but i'll try to explain.. one of the principles of quantum physics is that things do not get infinatly smaller.there is a granuality to objects so at some point things don't get any smaller.. the same holds with energy if you take energy out of a system you can not go on forever .eventually you hit absolute zero were every thing is still.. in the other direction , the speed of light is an absolute limit.. so what happens if you make smaller and smaller movements eventually you would stop.but what is the next smallest movement between being stopped and moving?.

  if we put some figures on it it may make it easier.. if to be stoped is 0 and the next possible amonut of movment is 1 you could not move say 1/2 as that is smaller than 1 and if you could keep dividing forever like this you would never reach absolute standstill.. so like the particals in the universe movment has to be granular as well.made up of definate jumps though very tiny.. if this is the case then there is a problem how does one object , if we imagine the smallest to be a quark jump from one place to another is it technicaly the same object or a new one ?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  sleepy

  Sorry Bally,

  Didn't mean to be critical.
  An analogy is used to illustriate a point, if it doesn't fit it doesn't work.
• 
  22

  Can you answer this?(scientific question)

  by sleepy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  here is and interesting question which touches on some points raised in other posts.. can things really move?.

  if you haven't thought about it before it may seem like a stupid question, but i'll try to explain.. one of the principles of quantum physics is that things do not get infinatly smaller.there is a granuality to objects so at some point things don't get any smaller.. the same holds with energy if you take energy out of a system you can not go on forever .eventually you hit absolute zero were every thing is still.. in the other direction , the speed of light is an absolute limit.. so what happens if you make smaller and smaller movements eventually you would stop.but what is the next smallest movement between being stopped and moving?.

  if we put some figures on it it may make it easier.. if to be stoped is 0 and the next possible amonut of movment is 1 you could not move say 1/2 as that is smaller than 1 and if you could keep dividing forever like this you would never reach absolute standstill.. so like the particals in the universe movment has to be granular as well.made up of definate jumps though very tiny.. if this is the case then there is a problem how does one object , if we imagine the smallest to be a quark jump from one place to another is it technicaly the same object or a new one ?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  sleepy

  Sorry Balistic thats not quite right.
  Although Digital is a good example of granuality at a higher level so are analoge recordings.
  The variations in a grove of a record are made up ultimatly of atoms.
  The smallest modulation of a record grove is the same size as the smallest atom so it is granular also, just on a smaller level.
  There is no such thing a half the smallest increment as it would not then be the smallest.

  If you think of it this way if say the smallest know particle was like a ball which was still what is the smallest amount it can move and not be stationary?You can not then divide that amount otherwise it is not the smallest movement.So the object must transfer from one point to the other without being ever inbetween.
  Of course in the quatum world things are not like balls but they do occupy points in space when measured and do travel to other points.
  It seems to me that if the object themselves are granular then so is its motion.