Posts by TonusOH

43

What Does The Organization Really Teach?

by Sea Breeze in

.

TonusOH

I think it's more useful to have some kind of system where we can make more reliable determinations. They won't always be perfect, but there should be ways that we can separate claims. Going by what we want to believe would leave us with an endless list of claims for almost every possible event from the past. And it seems to me that historians are not that scattered in terms of what is considered reliable or not.

I think our personal experience does help, if we take into account how we deal with such claims in our day-to-day lives and in other facets of our lives. How willing are we, normally, to lend credence to claims that have little to no corroboration? Do we approach similar claims differently based only on which ones we favor? We should be able to establish a pretty comprehensive sets of norms that most people can easily agree on.

43

What Does The Organization Really Teach?

by Sea Breeze in

.

TonusOH

I think what you're saying is, just because there's no evidence doesn't mean something did not happen. That's true. But the possible unreliability of contemporary accounts doesn't apply to a situation where there are no contemporary accounts.

In a situation where the only accounts are of undetermined origin, where the original accounts have not been found, where the only copies are literally that- hand-copied accounts that come with the caveats of such a process... it is natural to express doubts, even if those accounts reported normal or mundane happenings.

If these accounts also report on supernatural events, possibly involving actual deities, our skepticism must be ratcheted up. Otherwise, we are left with many, many such claims from people throughout the past that are suddenly possible.

I'm not sure that the gospels would fare as well as, say, Joseph Smith's accounts, if we decided to create a "minimal facts approach" for the latter.

43

What Does The Organization Really Teach?

by Sea Breeze in

.

TonusOH

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?

43

What Does The Organization Really Teach?

by Sea Breeze in

.

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 in

time 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).

43

What Does The Organization Really Teach?

by Sea Breeze in

.

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 in

probably 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 in

all 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 in

all 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 Reiki

So... 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 in

jw
friends

uh 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.