Posts by TD

40

Fired for eating pork........

by closer2fine in

jw
friends

orlando, fla. -- a central florida woman was fired from her job after eating "unclean" meat and violating a reported company policy that pork and pork products are not permissible on company premises, according to local 6 news.

" holfeld asked.

"we do, we can," kweli said.

TD

The idea that if you, "make them agree to it beforehand, it's OK" doesn't usually work when it comes to employment.

In America at least, the only way this could fly is if the employer can prove that eating pork directly affects the employee's job performance.

For example, it is conceivable that the employee in question dealt with customers, perhaps even ate in front of them and that the customers here were predominately Islamic. Offending the clientele would arguably fall under the heading of job performance.

Some employment rules that on the surface, seem ridiculous have stood up on court on this basis.

15

Please help me understand the differences.....

by SwampThing in

jw
friends

i?ve noticed something of a discrepancy and would like some clarification.

as much as it appears that the wts controls the jws through their published, written word, there also appears to be a fair amount of difference in how that word is applied across the various congregations, not to mention in other countries.

some members here say this or that happened in their old congregations, and then others say that it was different where they attended.

TD

Another "gray area" I've noticed among JW's is firearm ownership. In some states of the U.S. (e.g. The entire mid-west, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, etc.) it's fairly common.

Even though the JW parent organization officially says that JW's should never use a firearm for self-defense, there are congregations where that idea is pretty much written off as a maiden aunt's fancy.

23

This generation has by no means passed away.

by AlanB in

just seen on the british news a commemoration of the soldiers who fought in wwi.. the generation has by no means passed away.

there are 23 old british soldiers remaining, although sadly only 4 were able to attend the commemoration at the cenotaph.

the youngest is still only 104.. so there is hope yet that the prophecy may still be fullfilled.. has to be quick though boys !!.

TD

Didnt they say in 1997 that "this generation" only meant the people jesus was talking to, and it was fullfilled in 70 ce.

I have never seen the Witnesses take such a common sense approach to the Bible. That smacks of preterism

23

This generation has by no means passed away.

by AlanB in

just seen on the british news a commemoration of the soldiers who fought in wwi.. the generation has by no means passed away.

there are 23 old british soldiers remaining, although sadly only 4 were able to attend the commemoration at the cenotaph.

the youngest is still only 104.. so there is hope yet that the prophecy may still be fullfilled.. has to be quick though boys !!.

TD

Contempory people surely live about the same time and "Pass away" at about the same time. Now I am not a scholar, I am saying that I could never understand the point they were making.

I think the real "trick" to the new (Post 1995) interpretation is understanding that they redefined not only the term "generation" but the term "pass away" as well.

The term "pass away" used to mean dying (passing away) from old age. After 1995, it meant execution at Armageddon. In true Watchtoweresque fashion, this change was slipped in one month ahead of the November article.

Once they had disconnected "passing away" from the age of the group in question, they were free to redefine generation to mean whoever happened to be alive at the time this event ocurred. 1914 was thus completely cast aside as a temporal anchor point.

Of couse this renders the whole statement a meaningless tautology:

This generation (Those living during the sign who take no note of it) will not pass away (Be destroyed at Armageddon) until all these things (The entire sign including Armageddon) occur.

If that's all Jesus really meant, you have to wonder why he even bothered to say it

23

This generation has by no means passed away.

by AlanB in

just seen on the british news a commemoration of the soldiers who fought in wwi.. the generation has by no means passed away.

there are 23 old british soldiers remaining, although sadly only 4 were able to attend the commemoration at the cenotaph.

the youngest is still only 104.. so there is hope yet that the prophecy may still be fullfilled.. has to be quick though boys !!.

TD

Only in JW land could the Greek double negative which the NWT translates as "By no means" be construed as "Not entirely"

6

Another date set for the end of the world!!!

by Elsewhere in

jw
friends

.

"throughout history countless thousands of people have predicted the end of the world, and they all have one thing in common... they were all wrong" .

http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/y2k/bible_ca.htm.

TD

The author seems to have fallen for one piece of JW revisionism:

Charles Russell, after being exposed to the teachings of William Miller, founded his own organization - the Jehovah's Witnesses. In 1914 Russell predicted the return of Jesus Christ.

JW's today like to tell themselves that CT Russell predicted Christ's return, but the reality is he made no such prediction. He decided after the fact that Christ had already returned invisibly in 1874 and therefore did not look forward to it as future event. Even after his death, the JW's did not decide Christ had returned in 1914 until the early 1930's.

35

Anyone know of a Doctor, Lawyer or other "Professional" who is JW?

by wordlywife in

jw
friends

i was just wondering.

since college was (still is?

) discouraged, have any of you known persons of higher education to be in the organization, either by completing it while in or became jw afterwards?

TD

One of my best friends is Witness veternarian. Why he stays, I don't know as he thinks much of what they print is insane

24

Comments You Will Not Hear at the August 1, 2004 WT Study

by blondie in

comments you will not hear at the august 1, 2004 wt study (june 15, 2004 issue)

review comments will be in black and parentheses ()

wt quotes

TD

Good Job Blondie!

Reading through your review made me wonder (again) about the apparent inability of Jehovah's Witnesses to distinguish the relationship between tangible reality and abstract symbol.

For example, unless I have misunderstood Witness doctrine completely, they don't really believe that atonement is made with Christ's literal blood.

In fact, their literature explicitly states that Christ did not take his literal blood into the "most holy" of the heavenly temple to present to the Father. Their literature explicitly states that Christ instead presented the "value" of his perfect human life to the Father. (I'm sure you know of references) This is how atonement was actually made and all Biblical references to atonement with Christ's blood are on this basis, understood as being metaphorical.

Therefore Witness writers are being either stupid or disingenuous (or maybe a little of both) when they appeal to scriptures where "blood" is being used as a metaphor in an attempt to deny its physical use. All metaphors must first have their basis in reality before they can even exist. That reality simply can't be denied after the fact as Witness writers are attempting to do.

It's not hard to imagine this as a grotesque parody:

Doctor: "This procedure will likely require the administration of plasma"

Witness Patient: "My religious beliefs forbid the acceptance of plasma"

Doctor: "They do? Why?"

Witness Patient: "I believe that God reserved blood for one very special use, which was realized when Christ poured out his blood in our behalf."

Doctor: "You must be a Jehovah's Witness. I'll respect your wishes of course and I'm not questioning the sincerity of your beliefs, I'm just curious. --What do you suppose Christ was doing with his blood before it was poured out? Doesn't human corporeality by its very nature require that our hearts pump blood through our bodies to sustain our lives?"

Witness Patient: "Yes, I suppose so."

Doctor: "And wouldn't this be equally true of Jesus, if he existed as you believe, as a physical human?"

Witness Patient: "Yes."

Doctor: "And wouldn't you agree that Christ's blood was used in this fashion for some 30 odd years before his sacrifice?"

Witness Patient: "Yes."

Doctor: "And if God did not approve of this use of blood, wouldn't it rob the "pouring out of Christs blood" of all meaning?"

Witness Patient: "What do you mean?"

Doctor: "Well, isn't the symbolism of "shed blood" ultimately predicated upon the fact that the fundamental use of blood ceases and the creature dies when the blood is shed?

Witness Patient: "Yes."

Doctor: "And if this were not true, there would be no sacrifice?

Witness Patient: "Yes."

Doctor: "Then God would not and could not reserve blood for the special use you mention if he did not first approve of having it circulate through our bodies to sustain our lives, could He?

Witness Patient: "Yes....that makes sense....I guess........"

Doctor: "I'm just asking......I'll respect your wishes.....even if I can't understand them......"

61

Charles Russell, Alleged Child Abuser

by Farkel in

in the thread about whether charles russell was gay or not, a topic was brought up that i believe deserves a new thread.

as card-carrying apostates we all need to be careful about our information.

even one mistake, whether intentional or not, gives dubs the chance to jump up and say, "see those apostates lied about that thing.

TD

Hey Farkel,

Barbara Anderson has given us an even more precise age with her research on the subject..... She has discovered through her own primary research that Rose Ball was born in 1869. That would make her 25 years of age when the "incident" occurred.

It also makes Rose Ball the same age as Da Judge

49

Does any one know what C T Russell died from??

by frankiespeakin in

jw
friends

i know the wt has said why knorr and rutherford died but not russell.

this omission seems somewhat strange, being that he was so prominant his followers would naturally be curious as to the cause of death of their beloved leader.

here is a clip from 1916 12/1/1916 wt concerning his death no mention of what caused it.. http://www.ctrussell.us/.

TD

I don't know any delicate way to say this, so I'll just blurt it out.

At the time, "Cystitis" was a catch-all term that encompassed all manner of urinary tract ailments. This would have included everything from common bladder infections to gonorrhoea.

This has led some people to speculate, perhaps unfairly, that a fatal case of cystitis was likely something more serious than an idiopathic bladder infection.