I'm wondering how consequential they are to the people who supposedly witnessed them, that they were so easily put off from speaking of them or recording them for decades, if at all. More than that, I'm thinking that, if we are admitting that these things were poorly attested to, if at all, isn't it more likely that they were made up?
TonusOH
JoinedPosts by TonusOH
-
-
-
-
-
-
TonusOH
So... people saw these amazing things, reported it, were brushed off, and everyone just shut up about it for the next 30-40 years before someone thought to write about it? That explanation doesn't sound a bit suspicious and self-serving to you?
-
35
Lloyd Evans Patreoff May 2024
by DerekMoors intime for this month's patreoff!
the fat one's numbers seem to be leveling off a bit, but we all know someone with his gravitational pull can't keep up momentum for long.. i made up another chart and used 356 for april because that's where he was on the 2nd.
also, this time last year was when he put out his "things are bad and i don't just mean what i look like naked" video and got a +187 bump.
-
-
TonusOH
I'm going to go with 341. At some point, even the diehards will have to ask themselves what they are doing by sending money to a guy who has stopped trying and --to coin a phrase-- is just collecting a paycheck (you know, like doctors do).
-
-
-
TonusOH
Thanks for that link, Touchofgrey. It confirms what should already be clear- Habermas engages in dishonest sleight-of-hand with his "minimal facts approach."
-
153
When JW.org drops 607BCE...
by Nathan Natas inprobably everyone else thought of this long ago, but i, being an "independent thunker" thunk of it just a coupla weeks ago.. we all know that since the year zero (on the fredfranzian calendar) the wtb&ts has defied archaeology and insisted that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, even though the physical evidence shows that 587 bce is a more likely date.
in fact, the book "the gentile times reconsidered: have jehovah's witnesses been wrong all along about 607 bce?
" by carl olof jonsson and rud persson made this conversation public.. it is a difference of 20 years.
-
-
TonusOH
ThomasMore: Either date makes the “ generation” too old to be valid.
Unless they overlap.
But that makes me wonder: does the WTS mention the overlapping generations as often as they did the original "this generation"? I recall hearing the "1914 generation" explained frequently prior to my fade, which began shortly after 1995. Do they ever emphasize the overlapping group, to show that time is running out yet again?
-
30
How many different "rules" do Jehovah's Witnesses have to obey? Can you count them?
by Balaamsass2 inall the big changes for jws since this last fall brought me back to this site, and got me and the wife talking.
just how many things were we not allowed to do growing up as jehovah's witnesses?
we were so used to all the rules, customs, and traditions, that we became used to them.. one site i found claims there are 141 unique rules!!
-
-
TonusOH
slimboyfat: whether baptism counts if your toe sticks out
I recall a convention where they were trying to baptise someone and were having the most difficult time because the person's feet would kick up and break the surface when they were being submerged. After two or three attempts, they got it done by having another brother help the person stay submerged. It was so weird. It's a symbolic act. Was Jehovah really worried that the feet had poked out of the water? "Nope, I saw some toes. Clearly, you are not interested in dedicating your life to me..."
-
30
How many different "rules" do Jehovah's Witnesses have to obey? Can you count them?
by Balaamsass2 inall the big changes for jws since this last fall brought me back to this site, and got me and the wife talking.
just how many things were we not allowed to do growing up as jehovah's witnesses?
we were so used to all the rules, customs, and traditions, that we became used to them.. one site i found claims there are 141 unique rules!!
-
-
TonusOH
127. Speaking in tongues
128. Laying on of hands
129. Energy healing such as ReikiSo... just like everyone else?
I like the list in general, but it looks like they added some stuff just to pad the length.
-
3062
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.
-
-
TonusOH
The good news is that he thinks that dragging it out works in his favor. So he will continue to do so. Granted, I don't think there is any scenario that works out for him:
He can let it run its course (and it gets dismissed). He can gripe about the lack of justice and how the courts let him down, and then just try to let it fade into the background and be forgotten. Just like the WTS does, lol. He'll have to deal with being mocked for giving up on his promise to hunt Kim down for the next 40 years. Even better, he might look for other ways to "legally" get satisfaction and start down a road of one hilarious misstep after another. I mean, he's had plenty of practice the last couple of years!
OR...
He can drag it out and mention it as little as possible, then try to use it for fundraising ("the lawsuit keeps dragging through the Croatian courts, and I'd like for you patrons to pay for my endless crusade for justice. You don't want Kim to win, do you? DO YOU???"). But there are only so many times you can go back to that well, even with a hardcore JW-style audience to grift from. And, gee... what if they find out you've been preventing its progress in order to milk the situation for sympathy and donations?
Also, I want to thank him for handling things so badly by being an arrogant prick. If he wasn't in such a hurry to bury Kim, he might have made her life a much, much more miserable experience than he managed. Here's to Lloyd Evans being such a vindictive and hateful person that his actions ended up hurting the person who deserved it most: himself.
-
153
When JW.org drops 607BCE...
by Nathan Natas inprobably everyone else thought of this long ago, but i, being an "independent thunker" thunk of it just a coupla weeks ago.. we all know that since the year zero (on the fredfranzian calendar) the wtb&ts has defied archaeology and insisted that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, even though the physical evidence shows that 587 bce is a more likely date.
in fact, the book "the gentile times reconsidered: have jehovah's witnesses been wrong all along about 607 bce?
" by carl olof jonsson and rud persson made this conversation public.. it is a difference of 20 years.
-
-
TonusOH
scholar: My challenge on this forum is for any such opponent or critic to show such proof that 607 BCE is not the date for the Fall of Jerusalem by means of at least one line of evidence.
Isn't it the consensus of historians (the people who would know this stuff) that the actual date is either 587BC or 586BC? This seems to be what even you have said. If the people who actually know this stuff have a date different than the 607BC that the WTS uses, wouldn't that be the strongest evidence against your claim? Is this even an issue amongst historians?
Mind you, I understand why you are willing to die on this hill. But your approach is predicated on everyone else being wrong and the WTS being right. The same WTS that admits its fallibility after decades of being wrong about stuff. "Bible chronology" is the domain of con-men and charlatans. Why would anyone need to disprove a made-up timeline?
-
86
Prediction: no more changes for a long while
by slimboyfat ini’ve noticed a pattern where things don’t go the way i expect them to go and/or whenever i realise there is a trend and, i mentally adjust for the idea that the trend will continue, the trend stops in its tracks.
so on that basis, and given many people, including myself, and active jws, have been asking ‘what changes will the governing body make next?’ perhaps the (disappointing) answer is: ‘nothing much for a while to come’.
maybe they’ve made the changes they want for now, and will wait a while and see how it’s received.
-
-
TonusOH
You do get some elders who let the position get to their heads. The congregation where I went, they woud not have allowed a brother to do anything if he had a noticeable beard. Even if it was just "I forgot to shave," some other brother would have handled microphones or read the magazine for the study or given a prayer, etc.
I cringe at some of these stories, and I recall hearing similar ones when I was in. We had a few snobby elders in our congregation, but they toed the line when it came to taking their job seriously. The snobby guys were mostly a problem behind the scenes, which made their progress even slower, which just made them more of a pain in the neck.