I'm afraid it's too long of a drive for me.
But I hope you have a safe and fun trip.
I'm afraid it's too long of a drive for me.
But I hope you have a safe and fun trip.
sea breeze: @nicolau,i stated my case rather succiently, which you failed to address.
if you have a better solution to the problem of evil than what jesus offers, then why don't you present that in a new topic?.
pathetic diversion.
I think we are able to understand the concepts of omni-traits, to coin a term. But we need to define what this means for any specific individual. The Bible only vaguely describes Yahweh's traits; the descriptions of god as all-knowing or all-powerful are later interpretations and come across as conveniences. And attributing such traits to Yahweh creates problems that I think cannot be resolved, which is when we turn to the incomprehensibility of god as a way to deal with them.
However... until we get to one of those difficult issues, we seem to have no problem at all comprehending god. We have a clear basis for judging his character and actions as long as they fit into an acceptable moral framework. When his actions fall into a gray area, we decide that he is inscrutable. That we cannot fathom his ways. That he exists on a higher moral and ethical plane, and thus our judgments do not apply.
If god is inscrutable, then we do him a disservice by trying to explain his actions. This leaves us in the uncomfortable position of realizing that god can do or be anything, because our notions of good/right/moral/etc do not apply to him. When combined with the actions he takes (according to the Bible), the picture we get is a concerning one. His quick temper and willingness to solve problems by killing should make the believer very nervous.
https://youtu.be/kvdqtookscu?si=fuqhj44cokmdzkt7.
one of the greatest issues facing the organization today is couples that sacrificed family life or businesses opportunity in order to preach the many dates the watchtower set in the .
past only to be betrayed in recent years as the watchtower is moving away from date setting.
I think that 1975 taught the GB that setting a hard date was a very bad idea. Even in the runup to 1975, they often tried to hedge their bets by claiming that they weren't making any such prediction. I guess that they understood that they would need to point to those claims if things did not happen as expected.
I think that they switched to pointing at 'signs.' Like 1986, when the UN proclaimed that year to be the year of peace and security. For the WTS, that was a clear reference to Paul's letter stating that the cry of peace and security would be the catalyst for the end. But, like any other signs that they pointed to, nothing happened. If there were more natural disasters than usual, they would remark about it. If there was political upheaval, they would point it out.
Sign after sign after sign that we were at the very end... and nothing would happen. I don't even recall noticing the 1995 change, but by then the doubts had accumulated enough that I was beginning to fade even though I didn't want it or even realize it.
have some time thinking about my recent and less recent personal history because of the summer holiday.. the 90's crossed my mind.
the years i became pimo.
a friend, a room mate during the 1993 moscow international convention, went to university.
It's a lot easier to accept the wackiness when you are convinced the WTS has the truth. And even moreso if you are raised a JW, which means you only know their interpretation (and have been conditioned to reject any other interpretation). Because JWs are forbidden to question the GB's interpretation, it can be tough to entertain any doubts. And even when you have doubts, you worry that maybe it's you.
But the further you get from the mindset that they cannot be wrong, the easier it is to spot the odd statements and teachings. And some of the things they say are outrageous enough that even a loyal JW feels a bit uncomfortable when they read it. That was where the doubts began for me-- one or two statements in the magazines that I tried to accept, but they nagged me.
if you do a search on the wt website and type in "oral sex", you will get 69 results.
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/s/r1/lp-e?q=oral+sex&p=par&r=occ&st=a .
why does the wt.
If you do a search on the WT website and type in "oral sex", you will get 69 results.
Nice!
i'm trying to find out how many jw there were globally in 1924, 1925, 1926, 1927 and 1928. the watchtower of 1926 says that there were 25,000 in attendance at the magdeburg convention for the public address, but the same watchtower say that one the last day of the convention there were 15,000 present, so i assume at least 10,000 were interested persons - non jw.
the watchtower 1955 says: "for this year of 1927 the number in attendance at the spring memorial internationally was 88,544, yet of these only some 18,602 were active as house-to-house kingdom announcers".
these statistics would seem to imply that the majority of jw in 1926 were at the magdeburg convention.
It is already morphing. The recent changes may be relatively minor, but they are designed to keep people in (or, in the case of the recent updates on shunning, to avoid potential sanction). And they will continue to change, since they have their expensive campus project. I would not be surprised to see significant changes in the next 5-10 years, as they try to keep people in and keep the dollars flowing.
Perhaps a change in attitude towards higher education?
sea breeze: @nicolau,i stated my case rather succiently, which you failed to address.
if you have a better solution to the problem of evil than what jesus offers, then why don't you present that in a new topic?.
pathetic diversion.
I agree with the idea that the only way to deal with the problem of evil is to either judge those who commit evil acts, or to limit their ability to commit evil acts. A secular society can only do these things to an imperfect degree.
An all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful deity, on the other hand, could easily have created a human society populated by intelligent beings who could not commit evil acts, or even entertain evil thoughts. What is the downside of this scenario?
The only possible outcome of allowing evil is that people suffer, both in the moment and for an eternity afterwards. What is the benefit of allowing people to think evil thoughts and do evil things?
i'm trying to find out how many jw there were globally in 1924, 1925, 1926, 1927 and 1928. the watchtower of 1926 says that there were 25,000 in attendance at the magdeburg convention for the public address, but the same watchtower say that one the last day of the convention there were 15,000 present, so i assume at least 10,000 were interested persons - non jw.
the watchtower 1955 says: "for this year of 1927 the number in attendance at the spring memorial internationally was 88,544, yet of these only some 18,602 were active as house-to-house kingdom announcers".
these statistics would seem to imply that the majority of jw in 1926 were at the magdeburg convention.
Now, now... the society would say that there were always JWs. They just didn't know it at the time.
i would suggest:.
the short answer is yes.. the longer answer is a qualified yes, with some caveats.
the short answer is yes because jehovah’s witnesses teach that jesus is michael the archangel, their leader, eldest and most powerful, and have taught this since the very beginning of the religion.
JWs will claim that it is possible to know Christ and have a personal relationship with him. They may have trouble demonstrating how it works, because they prioritize Jehovah and place Jesus in a secondary position. In a sense, JWs see Jesus as Jehovah's secretary; they want a personal relationship with Jehovah, and they go through Jesus in order to do this (example: their prayers end with "in Jesus's name, amen.").
did i misinterpret something or read something wrong?.
did the gb say recently that they are to be dead or pulled out of earthly existence before the great tribulation?.
if so, can someone point me to jw literature or a thread on this topic?.
NotFormer: Who is that?
That is Stephen Lett, a member of the governing body. His face is so animated when he is on camera that the only comparison that comes to mind is Jim Carrey. But Carrey is being a clown on purpose.