if anyone voices an opinion with which i disagree or even detest, i can either debate it or walk away.. the last thing i want is for someone to be silenced by threats.
however, it appears that some opinions on social media etc.
which contradict the official narrative are being muted.
Well yeah, but the person in your article above claimed to be a "Registered Nurse" when she in fact was not. She then when on to promote her crackpot theories under the guise of a medical professional.
It's actually a pretty good example of the line where free speech ends.
if anyone voices an opinion with which i disagree or even detest, i can either debate it or walk away.. the last thing i want is for someone to be silenced by threats.
however, it appears that some opinions on social media etc.
which contradict the official narrative are being muted.
I don't really know how it works in the UK, but here in the US, information in medical and legal fields does not necessarily fall under the umbrella of free speech.
It's why writers offer disclaimers such as, "Always check with your physician before starting any exercise program" or "This is not legal advice and should not be construed as such" when the subject matter strays into these areas of expertise.
There's a very real risk of liability and it is therefore not censorship if a third party does not want any part of it.
this topic is to focus on status updates & advice (no opinion or politics please).. status.
latest status is that it's serious, probably isn't going to be contained and most large companies are making contingency plans, cancelling large events etc... which i don't think would happen if it was just people being alarmist.
the incubation period means it may have already spread further and infected many more people than are currently known, so expect jumps in the numbers over the coming days and weeks.. tracking.
Latest reports are that 50 percent of people with carona have no symptoms. They say if true this would lower the death rate to .6 percents
I'd like to read about this if you remember where you saw it. In the studies I've read so far, (Diamond Princess, South Korea and recently Iceland) the asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic cases were already included in the overall number.
i recall when it was released ,that's when i was a drone, how excited i felt at the prospect of reading it and formulating ways to sell it at the homes in my area.. i thought, finally a book to explain the last book in the bible and indeed one that the churches seemed to want to leave alone!.
i sold quite a few probably because of my enthusiasm and can still remember clearly the first day when i went knocking on doors with it ,and it's been decades since.. but over time it lost it's shine and my mind started to question the explanations in it due to the scene of other things being changed in the jw beliefs.. do you remember they flogged that book so many times in the book studies even when it was found to have "newer light " eclipsing it!.
who else remembers the printed pages with the official corrections to insert into the book ,so many that the book collapsed to be of no relevance anymore really.....what an embarrassment!.
As official doctrine, the wild allegorical interpretations of Revelation have all had very short shelf lives.
As humor, they pretty much last forever..
sorry, long post :) i'm considering evidence that at least at some point, the gb/watchtower had bad intentions.
i would like to share the following: *** w74 11/15 p. 703 questions from readers ***do lewd practices on the part of a married person toward that one’s own mate constitute a scriptural basis for the offended mate to get a divorce?there are times when lewd practices within the marriage arrangement would provide a basis for a scriptural divorce.. based on this, some jw chose to divorce.
but then:*** w83 3/15 p. 30 honor godly marriage!
I find this really troubling. They played a direct role in families breaking up and honest-hearted individuals committing fornication. They can't just dismiss it in a footnote.
I agree, AA,
However this is far from the only example of that behavior.
Gamma globulin, which is the basis for virtually all post-exposure vaccines was once forbidden.
To put this in real life terms, let's say you step on a nail or some other metallic object. If it's been more than five years since your last tetanus shot, your physician will inject tetanus immune globulin instead of the standard booster. He won't think twice about it and neither will you.
Not only has the JW parent organization never apologized for forbidding this type of treatment, they promote the fiction today that blood based preparations were gradually allowed as they became available, which is not true.
People suffered real, physical harm remaining faithful to JW medical quackery and nobody has ever even acknowledged it, let alone apologized for it.
do you have any evidence that the gb had bad intent?
as opposed to blind faith/cognitive dissonance and honest mistakes.. i'm inclined to think they have the best of intentions and are just wrong (primarily because the bible is wrong), but i'm willing to consider the evidence otherwise..
AA
But what makes you think they know they're wrong? (In regard to transfusion medicine)
JW opposition to transfusion medicine was born out of a misconception of what blood did in the body.
I've briefly documented the original objection here:
https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/188572/jw-science-quote-2-5
Instead of rescinding the doctrine when the original premise collapsed, JW leaders and policy makers have reinvented it several times over the years, as the cost in terms of loss of face and credibility in admitting they were wrong on something of this magnitude would be enormous.
The arguments which have replaced the original premise have all been equally faulty and they know it.
For example, regardless of what anybody thinks of the NWT (It's not very popular here) an organization capable of any sort of translation would have known that invoking the partial predicate "Abstain...from blood" as in independent construction is ungrammatical. (I can elaborate)
Arguments about the sacredness of blood, misuse of blood, etc. cannot be reconciled with official policy, which currently allows a number of preparations and procedures involving blood. There's actually no single part of a transfusion procedure which is not allowed in other contexts.
background info: although i'm an apostate, i don't hate jehovah's witnesses, or the organization itself.
actually i find that many derogatory comments here are extremely biased.
i think most of them are amazing people, and i wish more non-witnesses were like them.
AA
TD We could quote another "book" in the Bible, like the book of life in Philippians 4:3 or the book of the living which is equated with having a righteous standard in Ps 69.28.
I believe JW's teach that those whose lives were vile enough (Adolf Hitler zum Beispiel...) will not be resurrected during the millennium and Psalm 69:28 is invariably invoked in support of that idea. Apparently the thought is that God can blot out the record of a wicked soul or he can preserve the record of a righteous soul for future resurrection.
Phillippians 4:3 is outside the scope of my observation, which was specific to JW views of life on earth.
Since JW's believe the Bible is a single contiguous work with a central theme, yada, yada, yada, everything must integrate with the parenthetical statement at Revelation 20:5, which says that, "The rest of the dead do not come to life until the thousand years were ended."
In JW theology, the "rest of the dead" are those who were not included in the First Resurrection and are therefore resurrected to life on earth. Consequently the Book of LIfe at Revelation 20:12, in the words of JW's themselves is, "...Jehovah’s list that he will make up of those human creatures who meet his requirements during the millennium in order to be approved for life everlasting on earth."
This phenomenon, (JW's being sloppy with their own teachings for the sake of convenience) is not isolated. It's fairly easy to come up with examples.
background info: although i'm an apostate, i don't hate jehovah's witnesses, or the organization itself.
actually i find that many derogatory comments here are extremely biased.
i think most of them are amazing people, and i wish more non-witnesses were like them.
My understand (Which could be wrong) is that Rev 3:5 is specific to the anointed and their heavenly calling while Rev 20:12 is specific to the resurrection to judgement during the millennium.
Both were about resurrection and neither is/was about Armageddon.
background info: although i'm an apostate, i don't hate jehovah's witnesses, or the organization itself.
actually i find that many derogatory comments here are extremely biased.
i think most of them are amazing people, and i wish more non-witnesses were like them.
AA
TD but the book of life is opened at the end of the 1000-year reign. Isn't it explicit in Rev 20?
Yes. Exactly.
Or am I missing something?
JW's sometimes forget this and apply it to survival of Armageddon.
--And not just the rank and file either. I once heard what they call a Circuit Overseer go on for thirty minutes about getting your name in the Book of Life now, so you can survive Armageddon.
background info: although i'm an apostate, i don't hate jehovah's witnesses, or the organization itself.
actually i find that many derogatory comments here are extremely biased.
i think most of them are amazing people, and i wish more non-witnesses were like them.
On the question of scriptural vs. unscriptural teachings, one way to approach it is from the standpoint of things the JW's themselves don't believe to be scriptural.
For example, unless I am very much mistaken, the JW's believe the "Book of Life" of Revelation 20 is not opened until the end of the millennium and this view follows directly from what they consider the "Resurrection of judgement" to be. (i.e. The vast majority of mankind are resurrected during the millennium and judged based on their conduct thereafter.)
However it is not at all uncommon for JW's to insinuate, imply, or even openly state both in speech and in print that having ones name in the "Book of Life" is about survival of Armageddon and that your name is put into this book via organizational affiliation with the JW's.
So an unscriptural teaching (By their own standards) is used for the sake of convenience as a sort of cattle prod vis-à-vis people they consider to be "inactive" or not otherwise doing enough.
