TD

Joined

• started 129 topics
• posted 7,274 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by TD

• 
  7

  YOU KNOW, thank you

  by no1special in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  hey, i owe yk a hearty thank-you.. you know those essays you posted about the financial system crashing?

  well, went to one of the sites cited, and found out gold was priced at the cost of production (about 6 months ago around $260 / oz).

  invested in a south african gold mining company several months ago.. i've made a hefty profit so far (gold is now over $300 / oz), and i just cashed a chunk of it in.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  TD

  ....and how many ounces would two pounds of gold be, YK?
• 
  4

  illegal medicine

  by garybuss in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  this is an area that needs to be watched.

  the watch tower corporation at the agent level gives this type of medical advice.. .

  trial starts on charge of illegal medicine .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  TD

  Hi,

  I think any conceivable connection would lie in the fact that the CCJW/WTBS has not seen fit to treat the blood issue as purely religious and have both through their own church publications and (especially) through the mouths of HLC members offered specific comment on the medical propriety of various procedures, sometimes as they pertain to individual cases.

  I’m not a lawyer, so I have no idea to what extent they would be shielded by the religious protection afforded by most countries. However I do know that the average “joe” needs to be extremely careful when writing on a medical topic.

  Even if all you are doing is writing a fluffy article about the latest diet or exercise program in a trendy health magazine, a disclaimer informing the audience to “always consult with your physician before starting any __________ program” (fill in the blank) is a necessity.
• 
  3

  "naos" temple courtyard

  by Georgia in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  rec'd wt yesterday.. question from reader regarding.

  "naos" temple courtyard.. they are reversing their position about.

  other sheep being out in the court of the gentiles,.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  TD

  Let me try to explain,

  The problem basically goes back to questions that arose at Bethel in the late 70’s concerning the accuracy of the Great Crown doctrine. Briefly, in the vision, John “sees” the great crowd standing “in the temple” and “before the throne” (Rev 7:15)

  Problem is, this is an identical terminology used to describe beings and things that the Witnesses definitely believe to be in heaven, or to be symbolic of heavenly things. For example, the “seven spirits”, “seven lamps”, the “glassy sea-like crystal”, the “twenty-four elders”, the “four living creatures”, the “golden altar”, and the “144,000” are likewise seen “before the throne.”

  The situation is similar with a second phrase used in describing both the great crowd --- ”in his temple” The word John used for temple is naos which literally means “Divine habitation” and was often used in connection the actual temple sanctuary –the Holy and Most Holy. The word is consistently used in Revelation to symbolize heaven.

  The Witnesses therefore have somewhat of an interpretive problem given the fact that both the great crowd and 144,000 are “in the temple” and “before the throne”

  The most obvious solution was to generalize the two terms. The August 15, 1980 issue of The Watchtower for example argued (rather dishonestly) that the word naos could also be used to describe the entire temple complex including the outer (earthly) courtyards and therefore would not necessarily denote a heavenly location.

  The Witness view shifted slightly in 1998 when they discarded Herod’s temple as the model for John’s vision (W98 2/1)

  The recent May 1, 2002 issue of The Watchtower further adjusts their view by acknowledging that the word naos is usually more specific than the related word hieron This is done as part of a five point argument that John’s temple vision does not correspond to Herod’s temple with its Court of Gentiles, which is where Witness teaching formerly located the great crowd.

  I personally don’t quite understand this argument as it seems to damage their position as much as support it.

  Clear as mud?
• 
  16

  WTS "New Light" on Great Crowd

  by Amazing in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i posted this 28 minutes after someone beat me to it.

  i missed stevie1's post because when i looked it was in the "belief's and doctrine" section.

  sorry for the goof.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  TD

  Hi Amazing,

  Maybe I just need to go back and have another cup of coffee, but I'm having trouble with reason #5. I understand why (from their point of view) it may make any supposed parallel with Herod’s temple inappropriate, but I don't see how it ultimately supports the “great crowd” doctrine itself. Reason #5 actually seems to be a direct about-face from what was said on the subject in 1980.

  Does it make any sense to you?

  Tom
• 
  8

  You Know--very poor answers...

  by stocwach in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  since you probably planned ahead of time not to return to the first thread i started, i am reprinting here for your convenience :.

  why do you jw's consistently only answer some questions (answers i might add that severely sidestep the issues, or bring something totally irrelevant into the picture), though not others?

  do you really think we will just forget about the ones that you conveniently choose not to answer, hoping that we will not notice because of all your rhetoric and jibberish that you include in your answers to other questions?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  TD

  The Governing Body simply made a decision, that besides abstaining from the main components of blood, that anything beyond that is up to each one's conscience. Apostates, though, for the most part, are opposed to any and all abstainence from blood, or any imposition imposed by the Society for that matter.

  
  Hogwash yourself, Robert! A number of us “apostates” have the utmost respect for the sanctity of life and blood and are scrupulous in a contextual observance of the Decree.

  Your problem here is that like most JW’s, your understanding of not only your own native tongue, but the language of the Bible itself (which you claim to know so well) is so poor that you are willing to accept the mindless invocation of an intransitive phrase as a stand-alone construction in the absence of a prior context.

  You and I have been over this once or twice before. You didn’t get it then and I don’t expect you to get it now. However for the benefit of those who may read this thread and wonder what I’m talking about, I’ll explain:

  Intransitive verbs (like abstain) can neither take a direct object nor transfer action from subject to object. You can for example, abstain from tearing paper, or from writing on paper, or from wasting paper, but the idea of an abstinence from the object -- paper itself is meaningless. Even though we often casually think and speak in terms of abstaining from objects, “blood” CANNOT be made to be the direct object of the verb “abstain.”

  It is for this reason that in English at least, we rarely use an “abstain from” construction outside of situations where the intended audience will easily be able to make the connection and supply the unspoken verb. To illustrate, consider the following two simple examples:

  “Her obstetrician said, “Pregnant women should abstain from alcohol.””

  “His dermatologist said, “Persons with sensitive skin should abstain from alcohol.””

  Note that despite the fact that the phrase, “abstain from alcohol” appears in both sentences, it does not negate the same action in each instance. We would understand the first example to mean “Abstain from drinking beverages containing alcohol”, and we would understand the second to mean “Abstain from the topical application of alcohol.” The women’s abstinence from alcohol is completely unconnected with and to the man’s abstinence from alcohol.
  The reason for this is simple: We DO NOT “abstain” from objects, we “abstain” from finite acts done in connection with objects. When the finite act is not spoken the audience must make an interpolation based upon the context. This can be seen in the fact that in the two examples above, our only source for the verbs “drink” and “apply” is the context itself.

  Although English is not the language that the book of Acts was originally written in, the problem is essentially the same. The phrase in question here is apechesthai....to haimatos The verb apechesthai is the infinitive form of the present middle indicative apechomai and as such, does not express a complete thought. An additional verb or verb phrase is required to make the transition between subject and object. Accordingly, the phrase to haimatos is not the direct object here, nor is it intended to be treated as such since it is declined in the ablative case. The grammar of the Decree therefore by its very nature leaves the predicate incomplete, but in the context of a discussion on whether Gentile converts to Christianity must be circumcised and follow the Law, this is hardly a problem.

  The immediate audience would clearly have understood “blood” to be a reference to the eating of blood as forbidden in the Law, and as far as we are concerned therefore, the question becomes one of whether the eating of blood is morally equivalent to the transfusion of blood. This fact does not by itself invalidate the JW blood doctrine, but it does make any Divine condemnation of transfusion medicine implicit rather than explicit.

  The idea of an abstinence directly from the object --an integral part of our bodies no less, is a common attempt by the unscrupulous and ignorant to avoid this hurdle and sidestep the necessity of establishing equivalency.
• 
  34

  How Big is Your Hard Drive?

  by teenyuck in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  this is serious...i know many of you are serious computer intells...i am a comp user who knows how to set it up and run programs..that is about it.... i am looking to buy a new comp...soon...i have a 400 mhz, pentium ii...it locks up, gets fatal errors and simply will not do many things that newer comps can...it is 4 years old.

  my question...what type of computer size is best?

  80 gig hard drive, 512 ddr sdram, 1.8 speed?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  TD

  Wow Amazing! Where can I get an 800 mhz bus? I’m suffering from “bus” envy here.

  I put together a system from the ground up a couple of weeks ago. --Swore to my wife that after this, I would be OK for at least a year

  AMD Athlon XP 1900+ on top of an SIS chipset. FSB speed is 266 mhz, (for PC2100 DDR) SDRAM clock is 133 mhz, (No surprise there) PCI bus speed is 33 mhz, AGP bus speed is twice that (Duh!) USB bus is something like 52 mhz, but nothing on the whole damn system except the CPU itself meets or exceeds the 800 mhz mark.
• 
  39

  Bush administration and the press

  by Seeker in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  op-ed piece in the times: http://partners.nytimes.com/2002/03/02/opinion/02rich.html.

  an excerpt:.

  "the president's sentiments were no doubt sincere, as is his muscular pursuit of the killers.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  TD

  Seeker,

  I was going to add a couple of comments, but I see you have already replied.

  At any rate, it was inaccurate for me to say without qualification that WTO opposition is a conservative cause. Globalization is opposed by a mixed bag. Conservatives fear that globalization will result in the U.S. one day surrendering its sovereignty to a world government that will not respect and uphold the freedoms Americans currently enjoy. With those on the far, far right (the Pat Buchanan isolationist crowd) this fear seems to approach the level of paranoia. As I’m sure you’re aware, on the other side of the political spectrum globalization is opposed just as violently by labor unions and environmental groups as well.

  …..to me this is a new trend, and one that is only recently manifesting itself in the media. What I am saying should become more apparent in the future. But look at how Nixon's lies were exposed, and compare it to Bush's lies today. Both conservative presidents, but one is getting a free ride now.

  Do you remember during Bill Clinton’s first term when he officiated at the release of a captive eagle back into the wild? –how in search of the best camera angle, his handlers had him release the bird over an Osprey nesting ground where it didn’t even last for thirty seconds? The look on his face as the feathers slowly settled to the ground was priceless, yet the mainstream media for the most part spared him this embarrassment. Ditto for the time Al Gore, self-proclaimed expert on the environment got lost on a forty-minute nature trail. It was easy at the time to label this as “liberal bias,” (As arch-conservative Rush Limbaugh did) but perhaps it was just simply respect for the office of President and nothing more sinister.

  As you point out, time will tell.
• 
  39

  Bush administration and the press

  by Seeker in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  op-ed piece in the times: http://partners.nytimes.com/2002/03/02/opinion/02rich.html.

  an excerpt:.

  "the president's sentiments were no doubt sincere, as is his muscular pursuit of the killers.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  TD

  Hi Seeker

  Thanks for your reply

  It’s good of you to elaborate on why corporate ownership of virtually every major media outlet would tend, at least on paper, to stifle the presentation of liberal viewpoints. As I indicated before, I find the scenario plausible in terms of cause versus effect.

  You’ve also cited two specific examples of this "corporate first" mentality. I don’t want to sound pedantic because as far as I’m concerned, this is just a “patio conversation” with a friend. In all honesty though, I don’t particularly find these examples compelling and here’s why.

  While it’s true that initially the real issue behind the Seattle riots was trivialized through lack of coverage, it's also equally true that in so doing the blame for the mayhem which ensued was planted squarely upon a conservative cause. (WTO opposition) What type of media bias was this an example of? Were groups such as the Ruckus Society, the Rainforest Action Network, The Ecology Center, The Wildlands Project and the Sierra Club being trivialized or protected? Frankly it seems that a case could be made either way.

  You also mention the recent failure on the part of the mainstream media to follow up on the information presented in the New Yorker and denounce President Bush for being untruthful with the American public in regard to the evidence (or lack thereof) linking Bin Laden to the September 11th attacks. However a failure on the part of the media to denounce the failings of a sitting President does not directly equate to the espousal of either a liberal or conservative viewpoint unless and until it could be shown that liberal and conservative Presidents receive disparate treatment. As such, this example strikes me as only one half of the bare minimum of proof that is required.

  I do agree with you on the difficulty of reaching any consensus on exactly what a “moderate” or “centrist” viewpoint really is. It’s quite true that one man’s liberal is very often another man’s conservative. It was for this reason that I made a point of listing issues that tend to polarize liberals and conservatives into distinct, opposing sides. This is not to say then even here, there is no room for moderation, but generally speaking, one either believes that the framers of the U.S. constitution intended to guarantee the right of the citizenry to keep and bear arms (and all that this implies) or one does not. One either believes that women have a constitutional right to be the final arbiter when it comes to reproductive issues directly affecting their own bodies (and all that this implies) or one does not. One either believes that the combined income of married couples should be taxed at a higher rate than the individual incomes of couples simply living together or one does not.

  What I would think would be far more damning would be clear, documentable examples where individuals like Peter Jennings, Dan Rather, Paula Zahn, Diane Sawyer, Bryant Gumbel, Helen Thomas, Terry Moran, Pierre Thomas, Gillian Findlay, Brit Hume, Aaron Brown, Carole Simpson, Jack Cafferty, Morton Kondracke, Candy Crowley, Judy Woodruff, Eleanor Clift, Lester Holt, Charles Gibson, etc., etc. have come down squarely in on the conservative side of these or any other issue where liberals and conservatives are often in sharp disagreement.

  Tom
• 
  39

  Bush administration and the press

  by Seeker in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  op-ed piece in the times: http://partners.nytimes.com/2002/03/02/opinion/02rich.html.

  an excerpt:.

  "the president's sentiments were no doubt sincere, as is his muscular pursuit of the killers.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  TD

  I honestly don’t want to try and hijack you thread, Seeker, but I can’t help but be intrigued by some of your statements both on this thread and elsewhere.

  “The “so-called” Liberal Media are owned by large conservative corporations that dictate control over biased news reporting in major newspapers and on major television networks. The media are conservative just like their owners and sponsors. You're getting the "News" the way that they want you to see it.”

  I’m not quoting you --I read this in the Utne Reader several years ago. My problem with this and similar statements, is that although they present a plausible cause and effect scenario, they invariably seem to fall short when it comes to actually presenting any hard data. Frankly, the “effect” does not seem to “runneth over.”

  When it comes to social and political reporting at least, on almost any of the traditional liberal/conservative bones of contention, be it abortion, gun control, education, social programs, environmental issues, trade and taxation it is not hard to find hundreds of examples (which I’ll be happy to provide if need be) of the denigration of conservative policy and the promotion of ideas associated with the left.

  Now I’m not a fan of the Bush family by any stretch, I understand the fact that even a pseudo-democracy cannot exist for long without a free press and I’m appalled at the direction this country seems to have started drifting when it comes to civil rights. Furthermore, I like you and don’t want it to sound like I’m challenging you to a "pissing match." Yet at the same time, my ‘satiable curiosity’ is getting the better of me. I would love to see something beyond generalities to show that in this instance the effect does in fact follow the cause.

  Tom
• 
  11

  lds.org or watchtower.org - where's the truth?

  by fodeja in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://www.watchtower.org .

  http://www.lds.org/.

  most people here will know the first website, but probably not the second one.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  TD

  I grew up in an extremely Mormon area and have spent countlesshours both in friendly discussion and outright debate with Mormon classmates and workmates. There are certainly a number of legitimate comparisons that can be drawn between the LDS church and JW’s

  These include, but are not limited to:

  An aging and all too fallible leadership that wants to be respected as God's channel to mankind and heartily resents any serious questioning of that status.

  A substantial amount of baggage from the past that is embarrassing but can't be dumped all at once because the process of repudiating old doctrines will undermine the faith of current believers and the credibility of previous church figures.

  An "official" church history that can easily be refuted from the church’s past publications.

  An "official" ancient history that is soundly refuted by modern archeology.

  The same mindless invocation of "the light getting brighter" even when the new light directly contradicts what was once held as older light.

  This is not to say that Mormons, like JW's are not usually decent human beings. They are. The similarities are largely the product of their respective organizations.

  Tom