TD

Joined

• started 129 topics
• posted 7,265 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by TD

• 
  37

  Are you open to having a count as to how many ex-JW`s on this site are vaccinated x2 jabs. ?

  by smiddy3 in

  1. watchtower
  2. medical

  i`ll go first ,i have my vaccinated 2 jabs for the elderly.. if i`m not around in the next 3 months you will know why ..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  TD

  I've recently had the booster which is a third if you count them that way.

  On a different note, Hitler hat Deutschland nicht gewaltsam übernommen und während der NS-Zeit gab es viele Waffen auf den Straßen
  
• 
  83

  I understand your separating yourselves from the Org...BUT~

  by Revealed in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  ...why have you left the god and his son?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  TD

  The fact that there was an original man & woman is confirmed by genetics,

  The articles I've seen quoted to that effect have been misrepresented via the conflation of two related, but different ideas. The idea of a possible common ancestor is very different than the idea of an original ancestor and I've never seen a scientific claim for the latter. The time scales involved also tend to become seriously distorted.
• 
  83

  I understand your separating yourselves from the Org...BUT~

  by Revealed in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  ...why have you left the god and his son?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  TD

  don't personally believe acceptance of the flood story is necessary for one to be Christian (Because the moral lesson of a story is no less real when it is clearly allegorical, symbolic or mythological..)

  --No more so than the idea that the antediluvian world was entirely vegetarian

  When people say these stories, as they are told in the Pentateuch, are scientifically impossible, it's not just coffee talk.

  For example, humans have driven enough species to the brink of extinction that we know what it takes to bring them back via captive breeding programs. With higher mammals it takes in the neighborhood of 30 individuals, provided there is enough genetic diversity to start with. Even then, records have to be kept so that the pairings can be carefully selected, deformities have to be weeded out, and the offspring must be immunized because within a few generations they will be so closely related that a disease that kills one could kill them all.

  This is not speculative. There are entire books on the subject based on direct experience.
  

  With humans, this problem is multiplied 10 fold; not only because it is not in our nature to accept that level of control, but because we are less tolerant to inbreeding than any other species. That's why humans all over earth developed such elaborate marriage customs. That's why Native American tribes kidnapped and/or traded for wives from other tribes. That's why Aboriginal peoples divided their tribes into moieties and marriages had to take place across moiety lines. Without these or equivalent customs, indigenous populations simply did not last and again, there are entire books on the subject.

  The idea of an animal population going down to a single breeding pair is ridiculous. The idea of the human population going down to three viable couples is even more ridiculous, especially when the three males were all brothers.
  

  
  
• 
  68

  Help with 1975 please

  by jhine in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i answered a question on quora about jw flip flops .

  i mentioned, amongst other things , the 1975 debacle.

  how witnesses were told that armageddon was coming in the fall of that year.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  TD

  Fisherman
  

  Later it was believed that Eve must have been created some years later after Adam and everyone waited for Eve to be created.

  Yes.

  After 1975 came and went, the time interval between Adam's creation and Eve's creation began to stretch like a rubber band.

  But definitive statements to the contrary had already been put into print in multiple publications. The JW Bible Encyclopedia Aid To Bible Understanding in the article "Eve" had even gone so far as to state that she had given birth to Seth at the age of 130, which was the exact same age that JW's' believed Adam to be at the time. (They actually still do teach that Adam was 130 when Seth was born.) That publication was not replaced in any official capacity until the late '80s.

  So JW's today who say that that it was all just speculation; that people had gone beyond what had actually been printed; had read too much into the publications, yada, yada yada, either were not alive at the time or have developed selective amnesia.
  
• 
  68

  Help with 1975 please

  by jhine in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i answered a question on quora about jw flip flops .

  i mentioned, amongst other things , the 1975 debacle.

  how witnesses were told that armageddon was coming in the fall of that year.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  TD

  It was never said that armageddon would happen in the fall of 1975.

  You're right. They were never that explicit.
  

  The proximity of the end to the fall of '75 was implicit in the reasoning though:

  First: That in order for Jesus to be "Lord of the Sabbath," the millennial reign would need to correspond with the final thousand years of God's sabbath. (cf. Life Everlasting in Freedom of the Sons of God p. 30)
  

  Section: That Eve was created and God's sabbath began less than a year after Adam's creation. JW's seem to be amnesiac on this point, but the claim was put into print on three separate occasions.
  
• 
  22

  Dune (1984) - er, yeah, lol

  by LoveUniHateExams in

  1. social
  2. entertainment

  so, i saw dune (1984) yesterday.

  i knew it wasn't gonna be great, but deary me.

  i'm not gonna lie - this film is not good, in fact it's laughably bad in places.. first, i'd like to know the thought process that went behind choosing david lynch to write/direct.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  TD

  Some, after reading the first novel, have claimed it was just another version of the White Savior theme.

  Makes you wonder what has happened to reading comprehension....
  

  Even if we ignore the fact that House Atreides is an allusion to House Atreus from Greek mythology or that Duke Leto is explicitly described by Herbert as being "olive skinned," Paul Atreides is not a savior, which is a fundamental message of the books. (The idea that he was a savior is a perversion of the plot in the '84 movie adaption....)
  
• 
  22

  Dune (1984) - er, yeah, lol

  by LoveUniHateExams in

  1. social
  2. entertainment

  so, i saw dune (1984) yesterday.

  i knew it wasn't gonna be great, but deary me.

  i'm not gonna lie - this film is not good, in fact it's laughably bad in places.. first, i'd like to know the thought process that went behind choosing david lynch to write/direct.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  TD

  The '84 version was a huge disappointment, especially for fans of the books.

  McLaughlin, Prochnow, Annis & Madsen were okay (IMO) but some of the other characters were horribly miscast.

  (Patrick Stewart is a hugely talented actor, but he was just not a believable Halleck and the idea of him stepping into the arena to avenge the death of his sister was just kinda sad even at the time...)
  

  Awful, but quirky movies (e.g. Barbarella, Rocky Horror, Plan 9 From Outer Space, etc) often attain a cult status over time and the '84 Dune falls into the same niche, but in this case, the special effects were so bad that even aficionados affectionately refer to the worms as, "Turds with teeth."

  Even the cooperation of Frank Herbert himself in the screen adaptation couldn't save it.

  I thoroughly enjoyed the '21 version. From big things, like the casting and visual effects to minor details, like the length of the knives being appropriate for the style of fighting, it was much better. (Again IMO)

  Part II has been officially green-lighted
  
• 
  122

  1995 generation change

  by Gorb in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  now, many years later, i remember the 1995 generation change, very well.. since early youth, hearing my father explaining in field service the 2520 years.

  it was his main theme in the field.. with the change my doubts started.

  with some jw friends we did not trust the organization anymore.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  TD

  Slim,

  TD I think you’re missing the basic point that “other sheep” who die before the great tribulation were never part of the “great crowd”.

  I disagree on both counts.

  The people who were asked to stand up at the D.C. convention in 1935 were told point blank that they were the "great multitude." There was zero equivocation on that point because there didn't need to be.

  Again, from 1935, until 1970 it was thought that these people had already come out of the "great tribulation in the sense "...that the great multitude come out from Satan's organization and take their stand on the side of Jehovah during the period of time that elapses from stopping the World War until the day of Armageddon, that is to say, during the time that the "days should be shortened", and during which time period this gospel of the kingdom is preached." (The Watchtower August 15, 1935 p. 246)

  These people were considered to be the "great multitude" because the prophecy was considered to be already fulfilled.

  In 1970 the "great tribulation" was relocated to an indeterminate point in the future, (cf. The Watchtower January 15 1970 pp. 52, 53) which relegated these people to "prospective members" of the great crowd in the sense that they were "prospective survivors" of Armageddon. (cf. Survival Into A New Earth p. 80)

  In other words, even though Revelation 7:9 "...is describing this crowd after the tribulation, we may apply the term "great crowd" to all with earthly hopes who are rendering Jehovah sacred service now, just before the great tribulation breaks out with the nations' attack on false religion." (The Watchtower April 15 1995 p. 31)

  And again:

  "So someone who wanted to be extremely exacting might restrict the term "great crowd" to persons who have survived the tribulation. But is it necessary to be that restrictive? We do not believe so. Obviously, those who will survive had to have been gathered before "the great tribulation" so that they could qualify for survival. Thus we have applied the term "great crowd" to loyal Christians who at this time serve Jehovah God with the prospect of survival and of their being 'guided to fountains of waters of life' on earth" (The Watchtower August 1 1986 p. 31 Emphasis mine)

  Your statement above does not really fit into either of these two scenarios and with respect Slim, I think you are off the mark on several other counts as well.

  I pointed out to you that Jehovah's Witnesses consider the "other sheep" and "great crowd" to be virtually synonymous during the Christian Era (i.e. "Other sheep" living during the "time of the end" have the prospect of surviving Armageddon) and your response was to repeat back to me what I had already said about the Pre-Christian Era. I understand very well that the latter is a subset of the former but that is wide of the point:

  "Finally, in 1935 the other sheep living during the time of the end of this system of things were recognized as being the great crowd seen in vision by the Apostle John. This was first explained in the aforementioned convention in Washington, D.C. , when Joseph F Rutherford pointed to those with an earthly hope as "the great multitude." (Isaiah's Prophecy II p. 255 emphasis mine)

  The two groups are considered to be identical (or nearly so) in the Christian era inasmuch as the "great crowd" was identified during the "time of the end" which was only supposed to last a generation.

  Statements like the one above positively abound in JW literature and the farther back you go, the more black and white they become until you get into the Rutherford era and then they're bombastic.

  ----

  I pointed out to you that Jehovah's Witnesses explicitly tied the pre-1995 understanding of a "generation" to the above idea via the assertion that even those living in 1935 would live to see the end. I gave you a very explicit quote to that effect, which you dismissed as unfounded. I'm sorry. Neither you nor I get to decide that. What the JW's taught and when they taught it is a matter of history at this point.

  The question now is if the "great crowd" doctrine has been modified to fit the post-1995 understanding of a "generation."

  ----

  I pointed out to you that 1935 is still considered to be the year the "great crowd" was identified and you have responded back (twice) by pointing out that 1935 has been discarded as the end of the heavenly calling. I don't disagree with you, but that is a different issue entirely.

  "Since 1935, Jehovah's Witnesses have thus understood that the great crowd of John's vision is made up of a group of faithful Christians who have the prospect of living forever on earth." (The Watchtower September 2019)

  Jehovah's Witnesses still point to 1935 as a "bright flash of light" and a milestone in their development. The 1935 convention is a matter of history at this point and it would take a huge amount of whitewashing to get rid of it.

  ----

  In your most recent reply, you've pointed out to me that here have always been exceptions to this "rule" and I don't disagree with you. The grandparent I mentioned was one of them.

  The exact same observation can be made with equal force to the pre-1995 understanding of a "generation", but the JW's never claimed that everyone who was alive in 1914 would live to see the end. The claim was that on the whole, that generation would survive. Accidents, illness, and other forms of untimely death have always been allowed as exceptions to the "rule."

  ----

  You have asserted that those who die before the "great tribulation" are not a new category and I would agree with you as long as those people are exceptions to the "rule." Once it becomes the rule -- Once it becomes apparent that an entire generation of JW's attains neither of the two hopes that JW's teach the Bible holds out for Christians, then we do have a new category. To deny it at that point, would be denial of reality.

  ----

  For what it's worth, I don't disagree with your other common sense observations and believe the JW's will eventually have to modify the "great crowd" teaching accordingly.

  If you believe this is happening or has happened, then please give me some references. I've followed this topic pretty closely for years.

  
  
  
• 
  122

  1995 generation change

  by Gorb in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  now, many years later, i remember the 1995 generation change, very well.. since early youth, hearing my father explaining in field service the 2520 years.

  it was his main theme in the field.. with the change my doubts started.

  with some jw friends we did not trust the organization anymore.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  TD

  Hallo, waton,

  sorry, in wt weirdness, Jesus' ransom only applies directly, as a mediator, to the 144 000, not to jws now, the prospective members the great crowd.

  As the mediator of the "new covenant," yes, that is what they teach.

  The "..washing their robes and making them white in the blood of the lamb" motif does tie directly to the Ransom though.

  What the JW's have actually said on this subject doesn't seem to carry a lot of weight anymore, but here is a quote for whatever it's worth:

  "Having suffered to the point of death, Jesus was able to provide the sacrifice needed to help others acquire a righteous standing. To whom does this righteous standing come? First, to his anointed followers. Because they exercise faith in Jesus’ sacrifice, Jehovah declares them righteous with a view to adopting them as sons and making them joint heirs with Jesus. (Romans 5:19; 8:16, 17) Then, “a great crowd” of “other sheep” exercise faith in Jesus’ shed blood and enjoy a righteous standing with a view to being friends of God and survivors of Armageddon.—Revelation 7:9; 16:14, 16; John 10:16; James 2:23, 25." (Isaiah's Prophecy II p. 211)

  
  

  
  
  
• 
  122

  1995 generation change

  by Gorb in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  now, many years later, i remember the 1995 generation change, very well.. since early youth, hearing my father explaining in field service the 2520 years.

  it was his main theme in the field.. with the change my doubts started.

  with some jw friends we did not trust the organization anymore.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  TD

  Slim,

  Like with other conversations I think we might be talking about two different sides of the same coin.

  I actually had a grandparent at that convention in 1935, who passed away in the early 1970's of extreme old age. --Very nearly 100

  So yeah, I understand the doctrine is broken. I understand that things did not work out in real life the way the way they were predicted to on paper.

  So I don't have any argument with your point.

  My observation was that I'm blown away that nothing has significantly changed. The most recent article I could find (September 2019) is "dumbed down" quite a bit, but it still states very clearly that the ingathering of the "great crowd" began in 1935 and that this group has the "prospect" of surviving.

  The teaching still rest squarely on Revelation 7 which does not describe a generic "earthly hope" JW's have taken to equivocating on that point, but that doesn't change what their own Bible says

  Other, more esoteric aspects of the teaching have never been retracted.

  -That the heavenly hope was the only Christian hope from Pentecost until 1935.

  -That the Ransom only directly applies to the 144,000 and the "great crowd"

  I don't share your optimism (?) that the growing number of people who believed their entire lives that they had the prospect of surviving and died of old age is not a problem. Dying of old age is not the hope JW's teach the Bible holds out for Christians.

  Why be a JW at all if that is the case?