I wonder if he can hide how many of the subs are free. If not, we will be able to watch as the number of free 'patrons' approaches (and surpasses) the number of paid supporters. Maybe that can be the next guessing game- when will the crossover point be?
TonusOH
JoinedPosts by TonusOH
-
3149
It's been a long 9 years Lloyd Evans / John Cedars (continued)
by Simon inuh oh, looks like the mega thread gave up the ghost, so while i investigate / fix it just continue the discussion here .... it's been a long 9 years lloyd evans / john cedars.
-
-
-
13
You might be a JW if you...
by Ron.W. inthis is a little out of date.
i found it earlier deleting some emails from a good few years ago:.
feel free to add new lines to this old list!.
-
-
TonusOH
If you're a man past his 50s who is obsessed with what teenage girls are wearing, you might be a JW.
-
24
Why Jehovah's Witnesses are WRONG about Christmas
by David_Jay inas you know (and are probably tired of hearing me repeat), i’m jewish.
yes, i was a jehovah’s witness when i was a teenager and into my 20s, but returned to my roots and now celebrate chanukah when the holiday season comes around each year.. so why am i writing about christmas?
well, that’s because i thought i would share something about how jehovah’s witnesses teach against christmas.
-
-
TonusOH
When I was a child, some of the family on my father's side would visit for Christmas and bring gifts. My mother absolutely hated it, she did not want us to have a positive memory of a 'pagan holiday.' She is a hardcore JW from the start, and saw holidays as another way for Satan to work his way into your heart.
Today, I'm not religious, but I do celebrate holidays. Because they're awesome. If god was real, she'd have a shitload of holidays for us to celebrate, I bet.
-
9
Trust Our (Neither Inspired Nor Infallible) Life Saving Direction?
by Ron.W. inwt 2013 11/15 p. 20. at that time, the life-saving direction that we receive from jehovah’s organization may not appear practical from a human standpoint.
all of us must be ready to obey any instructions we may receive, whether these appear sound from a strategic or human standpoint or not.. wt feb 2017.
"the governing body is neither inspired nor infallible.
-
-
TonusOH
Yes, this has always been the approach. Even since Russell's day. Imply (or outright state) that the leadership is guided by holy spirit in order to give weight to what they say. Then, when it is convenient, point out that they are mere men and capable of error.
I wonder if the current group has grasped on to that approach a bit too firmly? They appear to feel as if the latter part will cover for the most drastic and controversial changes. A "get out of responsibility" card that the rank and file must accept whenever it is played.
-
18
What Happened to 2034?
by NotFormer insome years ago the wt started putting it out there that noah took 120 years to build the ark, and since the wt was the new ark, it may allow them up to 2034 (1914 + 120) before armageddon.
it could have been their new 1975 to get excited about, but i don't see any mention of it at all now.
what happened during the two decades since last i observed anything about the wt?.
-
-
TonusOH
I don't see what good it would do them now. They know that even mentioning a specific year will only bring them headaches. The changes they are making can only possibly work if they keep things vague. If they push for a specific year, they are back in the crosshairs. And 2034 would be only a few years after the completion of Ramapo, wouldn't it? That would be a bad time to suddenly lose a large number of people due to yet another failed prophecy.
-
10
How Much of Russell and Rutherford is Left?
by NotFormer inrussell is kind of acknowledged as the founder, but rutherford is the one who really made the wt what it is, or at least laid the foundations for what it came to be, today.
how much would someone from that era recognise in the wt today?
what are the big changes that they would see?.
-
-
TonusOH
I think the only thing left from Russell's time is the year 1914. Not the associated predictions or explanations-- Rutherford took care of those in the years following. Just the year.
They have a ways to go to wipe Rutherford's contributions away, I think. He re-did the structure of the organization and some (much?) of that survives, and things like not observing holidays was his idea, wasn't it?
-
41
2023-10-13-Announcement (Reporting Field Service)
by Atlantis in2023-10-13-announcements (reporting field service).
page 1. https://imgbox.com/96lgsfw4 .
page 2. https://imgbox.com/zynoa02m .
-
-
TonusOH
Teddnzo: It’s seems fat tony leaves and two new GB really shook things up
I get the impression that making him leave and bringing in the new people was the shake up.
-
120
Index of Evidence for Evolution Threads
by cofty inre-posting this for reference.. #1 protein functional redundancy comparing the sequences of amino acids in ubiquitous proteins confirms the relationship between all living things..
#2 dna functional redundancy comparison of the dna that codes for the amino acids of ubiquitous proteins predicts the tree of life with an astonishing degree of accuracy..
#3 ervs endogenous retroviruses that infected our ancestors are found in the same place of the genome of our closest primate cousins..
-
-
TonusOH
I'm less concerned about the obvious trolls than the ones like James Tour and Stephen Meyer. Someone who refuses to engage and just says "this is true and this is not" is easy enough to recognize and dismiss. Someone who can engage in actual high-level science can obfuscate the issues and drag the discussion in any number of directions, so as to avoid the relevant information/data. How far are they setting humanity back, in a day and age when these issues should already be settled?
-
53
Critique of Chemical Evolution
by Vidqun in"molecules don't care about life.
" first part deals with abiogenesis and the state of current research.
second part stephen meyer proposes intelligent design as an explanation of some of the problems.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bss0rxpsbuq.
-
-
TonusOH
Yeah, that's a good example of what I mean. I sounded like that, too, when I was a JW. I didn't realize just how little I knew or understood, I just assumed that I knew as much as the global community of people who had been discovering and researching and experimenting for more than a century. It was easy to poke holes in ideas that I had a vanishingly small understanding of. Today, I am at least somewhat aware of how little I know.
As a result, I don't blindly accept ideas that I can't understand or make sense of. I can recognize that concepts that millions of humans have spent decades unwrapping are more reliable than ideas that billions of people cannot reach a consensus on after thousands of years. So I've taken a small step forward. It's never fun to realize that there is so much we do not know. But once that door has been opened, it's impossible to close again.
-
53
Critique of Chemical Evolution
by Vidqun in"molecules don't care about life.
" first part deals with abiogenesis and the state of current research.
second part stephen meyer proposes intelligent design as an explanation of some of the problems.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bss0rxpsbuq.
-
-
TonusOH
Vidqun: I had hoped we can discuss some of the specifics, go down to molecular level.
You're talking about some fairly involved scientific knowledge and high-level areas of research. The idea that non-experts can weigh in with more than basic levels of understanding isn't realistic. It's why I pointed out how people like Tour and Meyer are treated within the circles of science that specifically deal with the things they want to discuss and critique (areas outside of their own expertise).
They're not taken seriously by the experts in life sciences and evolutionary biology. I cannot speak to the stuff that Tour or Meyer bring up; I don't know anywhere near enough about them. But the people who DO know these things don't even find them worth listening to. Is this because of some vast scientific conspiracy? Or are they pushing ideas that can't be taken seriously by the people who actually know what they are talking about?
Same with evolution. If the actual experts and researchers into the field all come to the same conclusion, I am comfortable to accept that they have it right. Or at least, that they're on to something. What can the non-expert tell me about things that neither of us know much about? And why would I depend on them or myself for understanding about a topic that has been researched (and continues to be researched) as thoroughly as evolution has, for well over a century now?