Because there's more to religion than moral lessons and ancient history
Nearly all religions (Not just the JW's) invoke a claim to authority that doesn't automatically follow from a plain reading of the Bible
i am a historian and the period of english history from henry vii to elizabeth i is my specialist area.. i was talking to an ex-jw about the time when tyndale first translated the bible into english with his intention that everyone from the ploughboy upwards would be able to read and understand the scriptures.
it dawned on us both that this was a significant point in english history.. just having access to the bible in hi their own language allowed the common man to understand what god wanted him to understand.. it was and is, so simple.. why then oh why then do jehovah's witnesses think that they need a fds to explain it to them?
when in the 1600s just having a bible written in english was enough for people to understand the word of god?.
Because there's more to religion than moral lessons and ancient history
Nearly all religions (Not just the JW's) invoke a claim to authority that doesn't automatically follow from a plain reading of the Bible
i was looking at the (mostly) wrong answers to a riddle that's making the rounds on social media and thought it was a good example of how something simple (in this case, grade school math) can be distorted with words.
the riddle goes like this:.
i bought a cow for $800.. i sold it for $1000.
I was looking at the (mostly) wrong answers to a riddle that's making the rounds on social media and thought it was a good example of how something simple (In this case, grade school math) can be distorted with words
The riddle goes like this:
----------
I bought a cow For $800.
I sold it for $1000.
I bought it again for $1100.
I sold it again for $1300
How much did I earn?
----------
Here is a more subtle example of the same thing:
----------
Three people split a lunch tab of $30. Each of them pays $10
On her way back to the table, the server realizes she's overcharged them by $5.
It's not possible to split $5 evenly between three people, so she returns $1 to each of them and keeps $2 for herself
When the manager finds out, she asks:
"Okay. The three customers ended up paying $9 each and you have $2. That's only $29. Where's the extra dollar?"
----------
Following the semantic flow leads to a wrong answer in both cases and there's probably a lesson in there somewhere
i saw jim cameron's avatar sequel last week.. right off the bat re the avatar franchise, i believe that there are two types of viewers.. firstly, there are the fans.
the people who see the pretty visuals and immediately conclude that avatar is the greatest film franchise of all time.. then there are the rest of us - people who can appreciate the world-building and stunning visuals but do not use them to cover over the flaws, more of which later.. the plot - jake sully, neytiri and their children have to leave their idyllic arboreal existence and seek refuge among a green-skinned tribe which lives a semi-aquatic lifestyle.. bad guy quaritch is back ... in avatar form.
that's some great imagination - nice one, jim.. so the humans are back because the earth is dead.
Nice little windfall for Stephen Lang, I guess.
i saw jim cameron's avatar sequel last week.. right off the bat re the avatar franchise, i believe that there are two types of viewers.. firstly, there are the fans.
the people who see the pretty visuals and immediately conclude that avatar is the greatest film franchise of all time.. then there are the rest of us - people who can appreciate the world-building and stunning visuals but do not use them to cover over the flaws, more of which later.. the plot - jake sully, neytiri and their children have to leave their idyllic arboreal existence and seek refuge among a green-skinned tribe which lives a semi-aquatic lifestyle.. bad guy quaritch is back ... in avatar form.
that's some great imagination - nice one, jim.. so the humans are back because the earth is dead.
Bad guy Quaritch is back ... in Avatar form.
Seriously??? Oh, gawd....
I could have sworn he was pierced through the heart and lungs with not one, but two spear-sized arrows that in his words were, "dipped in a neurotoxin" and then left for dead in an atmosphere incompatible with human life on a world teaming with creatures that apparently find human flesh delicious.
Killing a villain that decisively and then resurrecting him for a sequel screams lazy writing
so last night me and hubby got round to watching love actually for the first time .
seemingly everyone says that it's a must see christmas film , people watch it numerous times .
sorry to say l was underwhelmed and won't bother watching it again.
So please don't be put off by me
I'll probably end up seeing it whether I want to or not. (Wife and I take turns picking the movie)
I do enjoy Rom-Coms when they're actually funny.
so last night me and hubby got round to watching love actually for the first time .
seemingly everyone says that it's a must see christmas film , people watch it numerous times .
sorry to say l was underwhelmed and won't bother watching it again.
Haven't seen Love Actually, but thanks for the heads up
In the same vein: A female coworker recommended The Notebook (2004) as a good movie to watch with my wife. We both thought it was insipid.
On the flip side of the coin, we recently watched the movie Delicious. (2021) I was prepared to hate it, but ended up thoroughly enjoying it.
sorry if this has been discussed before but on quora someone asked if rutherford had said that dinosaurs had been taken to venus .
i assume that the questioner had heard it somewhere and wanted to check it out.
i've never come across this before is it true ?
Yes
1940's and 50's era science fiction was full of the idea that Venus was a hospitable, albeit humid place.
Heinlein's Between Planets is a very good example. It's not that the late Robert Heinlein was stupid. He was an aeronautical engineer and like Asimov and Clarke, emphasized scientific accuracy, distinguishing hard science fiction from fantasy.
over the years, i have found it helpful to see the similarites between jw's and mormons to help me understand what happened to me and my family as jw's.
robert bryan discusses this in one of the best presentations i have heard on the topic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wok7e3utzy8&ab_channel=bibleready .
Both groups have a love affair with ancient Judaism for some strange reason. The Mormons believe the Aaronic Priesthood was conferred upon Joseph and Hyrum Smith by the angel Moroni. The JW's regularly attempt to interpret the Law, sometimes in ways that would make a Pharisee cringe. (A good example is their stance on autologous transfusion)
Both groups have a fascination with ancient texts, but paradoxically, are not terribly knowledgeable about them. A Greek expression used by one and only one Bible writer is sprinkled throughout the Book of Mormon, which should set off alarm bells, but doesn't (The only way it could have gotten there is via the AV) There's nothing unusual about meeting an Evangelical Christian who can at least muddle his way through 1 John. It's very, very unusual to meet a JW who can.
Both groups believe they are chosen by God in a special way that sets them apart from other people. Both groups believe they are better people (morally and intellectually) than those in other religions, which (not surprisingly) results in a stunning level of arrogance.
i haven’t seen anything in the news lately and wt position remains the same, so no change.
except, that when there is massive blood loss, my family mds have told me that without a bt there is practically zero chance of pulling through—short of an act of god.
jw know this and have decided beforehand.
AFAIK nothing has changed. The JW position is still based on false analogies, medical misinformation, speculation and grammatical misconstruction.
Therefore AFAIK, the moral dilemma remains unchanged. On one side of the scales, you have very clear commands about the sanctity of the gift of life and the severe penalty for unjustly depriving another human of that gift and on the other side of the scales, you have questionable (human) reasoning on what commands against eating blood might have meant in the context of modern medicine.
(And as a side note, the Jewish side of me got a chuckle at a principle very clearly embraced by Jesus of the Bible being written off as "Jewish")
occult un forces seek to hijack religion for globalism.
https://thenewamerican.com/occult-un-forces-seek-to-hijack-religion-for-globalism/it does not look like religions dominate un but the other way around.
journalist alex newman gives a totally different picture about the real state of affairs.
"I'm a faithful follower of Brother John Birch
And I belong to the Antioch Baptist Church
And I ain't even got a garage, you can call home and ask my wife!"
--With apologies to the late Charlie Daniels