How many books have the GB men read on the Earth's own Geological evolution ? = 0
How many books have the GB men read on Astrophysics ? = 0"
How do you know that?
so at around the 46 min mark - the are talking to this guy from ukraine who was a zoologist.. he talks about how he was a staunch evolutionist (who wasn't able to prove evolution to himself, by the way).
then when he studied nature through the lens of evolution - he found that nature contradicted evolution.. his big point came when he said - "imagine emptying a box of letter blocks on a table, and the encyclopedia britannica appears, or could a computer program come by chance.
so who could dna come by chance.".
How many books have the GB men read on the Earth's own Geological evolution ? = 0
How many books have the GB men read on Astrophysics ? = 0"
How do you know that?
a thought occurred that there is a danger in thinking we know everything, or have it all figured out in life.
especially when it comes to matters of doctrine or faith.. witnesses (or at least the society as a whole) are so self-confident, so proud to be the only ones who know "the truth" about everything to do with the universe, the earth, our past and our future, that pride kicks in.
and pride is dangerous...(.and before a fall).
1977-1992 milton henschel, 1992-1997 lloyd barry, in 2000 malefant and wallen.
although it is titled as "britain branch report" it's not much of a report.
it only goes for just over 6 minutes and half of it is some 'wild talk' about romeo and juliette, i say wild talk because it has nothing to do with the british branch and if there was any point to it, it's lost on me.. anyway, about the only thing said that is of any importance was this (at the 2.20 mark) -.
"the governing body, very kindly, have given us permission to continue construction once we have reviewed the scope of the building so we hope to be underway very soon".
"half of it is some 'wild talk' about Romeo and Juliette"
Half of it? It lasted from 04:45 to 05:50, one minute and five seconds, and that is not half of six minutes in my calculations?
jehovah’s witnesses are taught to lie but to then lie about lying.
first off, let’s define what it means to tell a lie.
i prefer the definition offered by aristotle way back in 4th century b.c.e.
i do not know if this misquote has been discussed here already.. new catholic encyclopedia says this about jw:.
"judge" rutherford introduced important changes in the witnesses' creed and transformed the congregational structure of the sect as it was under "pastor" russell into a rigid theocracy.
the third leader, "brother" nathan h. knorr, gradually replaced the offensive convert-making tactics of the rutherford era by suave manners that have gained the witnesses their current reputation as one of the best-behaved groups in the world.
"It is comparatively biased for an encyclopedia. "
All encyclopaedian articles are written by persons, and so reflect what the author wants to state. You find the strangest opinions on various religious and political groups in encyclopaedias.
during the wt study yesterday i had a confused look on my face the whole meeting.
more of a, wtf, face.
one paragraph says, "therefore,the number of partakers does not accurately indicate the number of anointed ones left on earth.".
so i attended a fairly large jw gathering last night with my active, elder husband.
it was a good-by party for a former special pioneer couple who have been demoted to reg pios and have now moved to a larger city to find work.
anyway, there was music and skits.
So it is weird that they proclaim that they wait for the Kingdom and thus show they are die-hard JWs.
And it is equally weird that they loosen it up and sing "Imagine" and show they can do other things as well.
Either way it is weird.
Man, am I happy I am not married to you - you must be really hard to satisfy.
can someone help me understand how the wt came up with the overlapping generation theory?
i just don't understand it even though i read the information several times.
it's bewildering.
i know this has been discussed before, but i think some of these wacky (but thought-provoking) comments deserve their own thread.. paragraph 6 says: modestly, anointed ones acknowledge that they do not necessarily have more holy spirit than those with an earthly hope.
they do not claim to have special knowledge or revelations; neither do they try to prove that they are in some way superior.
somebody needs to send this memo to the gb.