Yep. That concept --that witnesses should not take one another to court and handle matters in-house-- gives con men and scammers a distinct advantage. They are able to carry out their schemes with a reduced risk of being reported, until/unless it is established that they are not JWs.
TonusOH
JoinedPosts by TonusOH
-
20
Spiritual Paradise? Jehovah's Witness cons JW seniors out of life savings.
by Balaamsass2 in3/28/2024 central california coast.
found guilty of $1.2 million scam targeting seniors.
ex-insurance agent brett e. lovett convicted of fraud, elder abuse, grand theft, and money laundering".
-
-
-
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
It does follow that if Jesus said no one would know the day and hour, and if his presence began invisibly, that he was not intending for his followers to know. Or... he told them to always be ready and that they wouldn't know the day or hour, but also left coded instructions throughout the Bible to guide people to the actual day and time, because he sure is a sneaky li'l feller!
-
11
If you don't GERRIT you remain in the LOSCH of Watchtower
by Longlivetherenegades inif you don't gerrit you remain in the losch of lies and manipulations of the new world society of jehovah’s witnesses .
today only one organization is exclaiming about this real peril.
this is the new world society of jehovah’s witnesses.
-
-
TonusOH
It's good to see him admit that they're just another religion.
-
-
-
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.
-
-
-
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.
-
-
-
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?
-
-
-
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?