would you stop buying nike products because you didn’t like their politics?
conversely, would you give business to a company because you liked their political stand on a matter?
would you stop watching an entertainer because you disagree with their political perspectives?
Would you stop buying a product because you didn’t like their politics?
Not politics per se I do avoid some brands becasue of their corporate ideology though.
I won't buy a Sony product, for example, because the jackassery of SME extends into their products.
Examples would include Music CD's that install rootkits and/or low-level drivers on your PC (Yes, Sony actually did this...)
Blu-Ray players that are permanently region locked the day they are made (Region cannot be reset even once..)
you don't need to understand complicated ways to go from 607bce to 1914ce.
you don't have to go back to the late 1700's to understand the founding of jehovah's witnesses on the back of william miller's teachings.
you just need to know that watchtower math and past doctrines along with changes in teachings are all based on lies.
OTWO,
The idea that Russell's teachings were predictive in a way relavant to JW's today may seem trivial to us, but it's very important to them
you don't need to understand complicated ways to go from 607bce to 1914ce.
you don't have to go back to the late 1700's to understand the founding of jehovah's witnesses on the back of william miller's teachings.
you just need to know that watchtower math and past doctrines along with changes in teachings are all based on lies.
When Jesus didn't appear as expected, Russell still believed it (or at least wanted to keep selling pamplets that explained it). He taught that Jesus must have returned invisibly, meaning that Jesus was ruling from Heaven starting in 1874.
Although Russell was intrigued by Dispensationalism, he didn't jump onto the Adventist bandwagon until well after the fact. His first known written pamphlet on the manner of Christ's return was actually not published until the year 1877
Russell, by his own testimony, (Published in ZWT in July of 1906) did not accept Adventist chronology and date setting until he met Nelson Barbour in January of 1876, which again, was after the event had allegedly occured.
It was Barbour, not Wendell who convinced Russell of the dates 1874, 1878, the forty year harvest and 1914 as well as the chronology behind them.
It was Barbour, not Russell who came up with the idea of an invisible Parousia as an explanation of why nothing happened in 1874. (The idea was first suggested to Barbour by B. W. Keith.)
you don't need to understand complicated ways to go from 607bce to 1914ce.
you don't have to go back to the late 1700's to understand the founding of jehovah's witnesses on the back of william miller's teachings.
you just need to know that watchtower math and past doctrines along with changes in teachings are all based on lies.
OTWO
You've got almost every single detail wrong, but the gist of your messege is spot on. The dates have been and still are continually reinvented after the fact.
this statement was answered in a form of a question to a question posed by one of his followers;.
jesus realized that composite slave had to qualify for such an appointment when he came into power of his kingdom promised by jehovah god.
[and they came to life and ruled as kings with the christ+ for 1,000 years].
Only the Scriptures are infallible but understanding the message from God then was like a dim light coming from the darkness,the darkness the bible students came from the false Churches into Jehovah's wonderful bright light of truth.....
I wouldn't exactly call Rutherford's raging Anti-Semitism "bright light," but even were that not the case, your answer is still wide of the point.
It's nonsensical to claim Russell as a spiritual forebearer if you disagree with virtually everything he taught.
this statement was answered in a form of a question to a question posed by one of his followers;.
jesus realized that composite slave had to qualify for such an appointment when he came into power of his kingdom promised by jehovah god.
[and they came to life and ruled as kings with the christ+ for 1,000 years].
I'm struggling to think of anything that Russell taught that Jehovah's Witnesses still accept today.
alex - thank you for your offer to have a conversation about evolution.. i accept the scientific evidence that all life - including humans - evolved from a common ancestor through unguided evolution over millions of years.
this isn't even a controversial position in the scientific community.. the evidence rests on the data from many interconnected fields including paleontology, comparative anatomy, geology and especially genetics.
it is no exaggeration to say that the evidence for your own non-human ancestry is contained in every cell in your body.. it is my experience that jws are generally quite ignorant (not in a pejorative sense) of the scientific case.
From left to right:
1. A. afarensis
2. A. africanus
3. H. habilis
4. H. erectus
5. H. heidelbergensis
6. H. neanderthalensis
7. H. sapiens sapiens
8. H. sapiens
The point (As you can probably guess) was not to claim a dirct evolutionary relationship from one to the next, but to illustrate the fact that when we talk about human evolution, we're not talking about apes.
alex - thank you for your offer to have a conversation about evolution.. i accept the scientific evidence that all life - including humans - evolved from a common ancestor through unguided evolution over millions of years.
this isn't even a controversial position in the scientific community.. the evidence rests on the data from many interconnected fields including paleontology, comparative anatomy, geology and especially genetics.
it is no exaggeration to say that the evidence for your own non-human ancestry is contained in every cell in your body.. it is my experience that jws are generally quite ignorant (not in a pejorative sense) of the scientific case.
I think the game of "Spot the human" is an interesting thought experiment for those on the creation side of the isle.
Most would not consider a creature with the cranial capacity of a chimpanzee to be human, but what happens when we get to half or three quarter the size of modern man?
How would one draw a line? Where would it be drawn?
i admit to not being very well informed about the watchtower's view on blood transfusions.
i have a couple of questions that i hope someone here is able to answer.. i understand that the watchtower now considers it to be okay to receive blood fractions.. my first question is: are all fractions considered to be permissible?
and if not, specifically which fractions are not permissible?.
David who was thirsty exclaimed he longed for water after being pinned down,his warriors heard that and fought to get water to David,but what did he do when they offered it to him?
He refused to drink it. ---Poured it out on the ground.
Why did he do this?
Because his (David's) men could easily have been killed. The water, in this instance, represented their lives, which they risked in obtaining it. David even compares it to drinking their blood.
I'm not sure how this supports the JW position on blood. If anything, it seems to directly contradict it.
David refused to place a higher value on water than human life
Aren't you doing exactly the opposite of what David did when you place a higher value on blood, which (in the context of death) represents life than you place on life itself?
i admit to not being very well informed about the watchtower's view on blood transfusions.
i have a couple of questions that i hope someone here is able to answer.. i understand that the watchtower now considers it to be okay to receive blood fractions.. my first question is: are all fractions considered to be permissible?
and if not, specifically which fractions are not permissible?.
Alex,
Whats the difference to taking a blood transfusion and just drinking blood
The former is a tissue transplant
The latter is an act of cannibalism
That is a substantial distinction, physically, ethically and morally.
...believers are told to abstain from blood
In the context of a dispute over whether Christians should be circumcised and follow the Law, the ruling was to:
"Keep abstaining....from blood"
I'm quoting your own NWT, which in my opinion, is quite accurate here.
The clear connotation is the continuation of an existing prohibition that was already being kept.
And this is not simply my opinion. As I've already pointed out, your own church publications acknowledge that this was in fact, a reference to the eating of blood as forbidden in the Law.
