Posts by Journeyman

77

Biden running in 2024 🤣

by LoveUniHateExams in

i've filed this under news and world events, although i could've posted it under entertainment, lol.

apparently, joe biden will be seeking re-election for another term in the white house.. this, despite a recent poll showing that 70% of people don't want him to run again.. biden just has to be the worst president i've seen.

his gaffes, over-relience on a prompter, and, more than any other president, his refusal to answer journalists' questions, all go to make him top of the list in terms of bad presidents.. it will certainly provide entertainment, if nothing else..

Journeyman

because it is a civil case not a criminal one - why should a sexual assault case be a civil case, not a criminal one? <---- this is the key question.

Any American more familiar with national and state law might know better, but I understand it's because:

the statute of limitations prevents a criminal rape trial in this instance because too long has passed since the alleged crime (it supposedly happened around 1995-96), but
recent changes to NY state's law mean that victims of historic abuse can now pursue their supposed attacker for recognition of the offence and for compensation (this is the same law change which is allowing many alleged exJW victims to now sue the org years later)

Wikipedia on the case says:

On November 4, 2019, writer E. Jean Carroll filed a lawsuit against Trump, accusing him of defamation by claiming she lied about him raping her in 1995 or 1996. Carroll had first publicly disclosed the alleged sexual assault by Trump in June and said Trump's reaction had directly harmed her career and reputation. Carroll said she was filing this lawsuit on behalf of each woman who has faced harassment, assault, or belittlement. Trump stated that her allegation was a promotion strategy for her book titled What Do We Need Men For? A Modest Proposal, where she discloses details about the alleged assault. The White House Press Secretary responded to the lawsuit claiming it was "frivolous" and that the story was fake, "just like the author".
[...]
Carroll filed a second lawsuit against Trump in November 2022 that renewed her claim of defamation due to additional statements Trump made and expanded her claim to battery under the Adult Survivors Act, a New York law that allows sexual-assault victims to file civil suits beyond expired statutes of limitations.

6

ECHR rules against Jehovah's Witnesses: forbidding field service notes was not an act against religious freedom

by Festus in

it only took 23 years but on 9th of may 2023 echr came to conclusion that forbidding the "namelists" was not an action against religious freedom.

echr's judgments are binding in all eu states.. jehovah's witnesses v. finland (coe.int).

the news made headlines in finland as well.. finland did not violate jehovah's witnesses freedom of religion, european court rules | news | yle uutiset.

Journeyman

GDPR has only been around for a few years, but other data protection legislation in various countries has been around since the late 1990s, for example, here in the UK we had the Data Protection Act 1998.

Apparently, Finland had the Personal Data Act since 1999 (prior to GDPR), and presumably it was under this that their Data Protection Ombudsman first ruled the JWs should not be collecting door-to-door info without the knowledge and consent of the householder.

Point 5 of The Facts section in the latest ruling says: "In October 2000 the Data Protection Ombudsman (tietosuojavaltuutettu, dataombudsmannen – “the Ombudsman”) issued an opinion (89Û/45/97) about the applicant community’s data collection practices indicating, inter alia, that personal data could be collected in the course of door-to-door preaching by individual Jehovah’s Witnesses only with the consent of data subjects."

So yes, it seems the org's lawyers have dragged this on for 23 years!

In Europe at least, those S8 house-to-house records are well and truly dead. If there are any EU countries where branches have not yet withdrawn them and stopped the congregations taking their own records, they will presumably have to do that now.

11530

It's been a long 9 years Lloyd Evans / John Cedars

by Newly Enlightened in

original reddit post (removed).

Journeyman

I doubt any students will be impressed with SlobLloyd. "Look at that old creep; he looks like he has spunk on his head!"

I'm sure that's true, but I'm equally certain it wouldn't stop him from trying to sidle up to them between sets and chat them up, with his "midlife crisis" hair and his patter about how he is a prominent filmmaker and activist, saving people from the clutches of oppressive religions. Makes me cringe just at the thought of it!

I wonder if he ever takes Tibor along too? What a devastating couple of eligible males they'd make on the dating scene...

Actually, if they ever do go out on the town together, this is probably LE after the umpteenth unsuccessful attempt to pull a young student: https://youtu.be/63rcdLeXiU8?t=59

11530

It's been a long 9 years Lloyd Evans / John Cedars

by Newly Enlightened in

original reddit post (removed).

Journeyman

...on Instagram he announced their permanent move to "Night Club Spunk"
Now that is poetry in motion. Lloyd Evans is now performing at a Night Club that shares a name with a vulgar slang term for semen.
Might as well call it Club Ejaculation.

Very apt for someone unable to control his penis! I wonder if he often arrives there too early?

*ahem* Anyway...

Apparently "Spunk" is affiliated with the National and University Library in Zagreb, which is the national library of Croatia and central library of the University of Zagreb, and so is often frequented by students.

That explains the attraction for LE!

https://www.timeout.com/croatia/nightlife/spunk
https://restaurantguru.com/Spunk-Zagreb
https://www.zagreb.com/live-music/10000/spunk/

25

All UK telephone landlines being phased out.....

by BoogerMan in

.....and replaced with voip by 2025. https://www.pmctelecom.co.uk/blog/are-landline-phones-being-phased-out-in-2025/.

just heard this on a radio station's advert..

Journeyman

Yes, and there are going to be lots of serious consequences for communications (especially for vulnerable people such as the elderly and those with physical or learning disabilities), not to mention availability of connectivity and security of data.

What's amazing is that noone is really talking seriously about this - and by "noone", I mean major news, technology and rights organisations or really... anyone.

But then, if there is some conspiracy to tighten control over the masses and gather all possible data electronically, then that would be what we should expect! Not that I'm saying I believe the whole "conspiracy!" idea, but it is is strangely coincidental, the blanket silence on this matter.

136

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 in

due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

Journeyman

Nothing to do with two classes. There are clearly just two types of "body": physical fleshly (such as those of animals, birds, humans, and so on that Paul mentions), and non-physical spirit.

Spirit beings (or persons as you seem to prefer that word) can take on a physical form and switch between the two (unless prevented from doing so by God) in order to act on earth, as shown by the angels who met Abraham, saved Lot from Sodom, wrestled with Jacob, came down to earth to have sex during Noah's day, and so on - and of course, by Jesus while in human form. But on ascension to heaven, Jesus clearly could not have taken his fleshly body there. (Luke 24:39) He was seen as physical until he disappeared into a cloud (Acts 1:9) - that does not mean his material flesh entered heaven, as other scriptures make it plain that is not possible (nor would it be necessary).

In fact, one could argue that 1 Corinthians 15:50 disproves the "two classes" belief, because Paul clearly said "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God". But that's not what this is about, it's about whether Jesus has a fleshly "incarnate" form in heaven.

This makes it plain Jesus did not take a physical body into heaven. There was no need for Jesus to have a physical body with him in heaven to be able to present the value of his flesh and blood to his Father as at Hebrews 9:12 (he entered "by means of" his blood, not with it).

Christ took the human nature, including the body, the flesh.

That's one of the major reasons why I took issue with the quote from the catechism, not just for the sake of 'bashing'. It's simply not scriptural or logical to talk of being "incarnate" and having "glorified flesh" in heaven.

Also, nothing to do with being Michael or not - forget that for a moment. I have not mentioned that teaching, I'm personally ambivalent about it, and it's not relevant to the discussion of whether Jesus had flesh in heaven or not.
Put simply, the scriptures show
1) Jesus was created as a spirit, non-fleshly person in heaven, by the Father.
2) He was transferred to a fleshly form/body by his Father (into Mary, to grow into a fleshly human being)
3) He temporarily ceased to exist at death (had no flesh or spirit body and was not conscious as the Bible both says and implies is the case at death)
4) He was resurrected in fleshly form by his Father (hence John 2:19* and John 20:17)
3) He surrendered this fleshly human form/body at his ascension to return to his spirit, non-fleshly form/body in the spirit realm (during which he also spoke with imprisoned spirits), taking up his rightful position at the right hand of his father where he was elevated above all other spirits (except his Father, obviously).

*John 2:19
egeiró - awaken, rise up. Jesus said he will awaken or rise up. This is assumed by trinitarians to be "I will do it to myself", but can equally mean simply "I will awake", "I will rise" https://biblehub.com/greek/1453.htm

egeiro:
To arise, to stand from a prone or sleeping position. From this base meaning are several fig. extended meanings: to wake from sleep; to restore from a dead or damaged state: to heal, raise to life; to cause something to exist: raise up (give birth to) a child.

Other verses such as Matthew 9:25 show "got up", "raise up", "he arose" describing the action of getting up.

136

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 in

due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

Journeyman

it's according to his humanity, according to which entered to the divine glory He enjoyed according to his divinity from eternity. Henceforth Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father: "By 'the Father's right hand' we understand the glory and honour of divinity, where he who exists as Son of God before all ages, indeed as God, of one being with the Father, is seated bodily after he became incarnate and his flesh was glorified.

Sorry, but that quote from the Catholic catechism is such convoluted and obscure use of language (the parts in italics especially). I usually find trinitarians are reduced to such obfuscatory language as their conception of the trinity is ultimately not reasonably explicable. "Seated at the right hand of the Father" is such a simple scriptural phrase and illustration of the relationship between the two separate persons of the Father and the Son in the heavens, with one as the 'right hand man' of the other (and therefore slightly lesser in status but acting on his behalf and with his authority), yet it's rendered almost unintelligible by that 'explanation' from the 'wisdom' of the Catholic church. (And incidentally look: no third person seated there with them in the form of the Holy Spirit. Why? Because the Spirit is not a person!)

What do you (and they) understand by "divine" and "divinity"?

According to Wikipedia (not always a reliable source admittedly, but it sums up the broad use of this word well): "Divinity or the divine are things that are either related to, devoted to, or proceeding from a deity. What is or is not divine may be loosely defined"

The "divine" can apply to any godlike being or origin, or it can apply specifically only to the one Almighty Creator.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/divinity
https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/divinity

What do you (and they) understand by "bodily"? A physical human body? Or a spirit body?

What do you (and they) understand by "incarnate"? That usually refers to a physical, material form.

But flesh cannot be "glorified" (assuming by that one means a human body elevated to heaven) and Jesus cannot be seated at the right hand of God "bodily" in a fleshly sense, if that's what is meant - 1 Corinthians 15:44,50. Philippians 3:21

There is a physical, fleshly body, or there is a spirit non-physical body. Only the latter can enter the heavenly realm, as the scriptures make plain. The angels who forsook their places to have sex with humans in Noah's day could not take their fleshly bodies into the heavens, and nor did Jesus.

Or because these text is not about the Holy Spirit, but about the relation of the Father and the Son. If I talk about my father only in a conversation, it means my mother doesn't exist?

But by the theory of the trinity, the three are co-equal, co-eternal and one in essence, nature, power, action, and will, No humans have such a relationship to one another. So why not even a hint of the presence of the third 'person' in this unity of three-in-one? And this is not the only scripture where there are only two persons - not three - linked in the prominent positions and relationship.
Matthew 11:27 - "no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him." (but not the Spirit)
etc, etc...

17

July 2023 Study Article 29: Are You Ready for the GT (part 3)

by blondie in

jw
friends

had to take a break to get my chores caught up; last section: strengthen your love.

this implies that any jw had "real" love or knew what it was outside the wts definition.

many jws just perpetuate the type of love they were show in their congregation.

Journeyman

they now have to learn all over again how to act around other JWs that they dislike.

One pioneer I worked with recently for the first time in person after the pandemic said exactly that.
She said she was struggling to cope with having to deal with some of the more 'challenging' members of the congregation since the return to face-to-face meetings and ministry as those ones are now approaching her directly again.

The interesting thing is she is an 'exemplary' sister who has been very involved in giving her time and effort to other sisters in the past, particularly ones who were... difficult to support (you know the type, often complaining about their various sicknesses, always having trouble with one thing and other - what someone said about them, or what a certain scripture means, etc, etc)

She obviously finally had a break from that during lockdown and has realised during that time that she shouldn't have to put up with all that nonsense. It seems her inner person is crying out not to have to take on all that extra stress again! There must be many in that position across the org.

136

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 in

due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

Journeyman

One might ask, how could Jesus be used by God as his "master worker" in creation, yet not be "greater than the angels"? The point is that the scripture is talking about STATUS and AUTHORITY not work or effort.

To illustrate:

I am a father of several sons. One day, I ask the eldest to join me in constructing a new house for all the family. I provide the materials, and direct his work according to my plans.

However, during this time I do not give him special status or favours - he wears no fancy attire, isn't favoured with better food, more luxurious accommodation, greater wealth or more rights in the household compared to his brothers.

Because he loves me, he is often the first and most vocal to speak in support of me, but I do not conspicuously elevate him above the rest of my children.

However, years later, after he has finished the family house and other activities, he takes on a special mission to travel to a distant land to promote my business. While there, he suffers abuse and in recognition of his work and affection for me I contact the people of that land directly, letting them know I endorse him and he has my full authority to act on my behalf and will inherit my business. However, the people there do not listen and eventually he is deported back to my family's homeland.

As a reward for his considerable efforts and sacrifice, I *then* reward him with extra favour and status in front my family, giving him full inheritance.

Jesus was humbly content to remain just as subject to his Father in the same way as all the (other?) angels UNTIL the point when the Father GAVE him greater authority. This is why Philippians 2:6 says "he did not consider equality with God something to be seized" - he was content, although being a spirit person the same as his Father is, not to try to take equal status with his Father. He was content to stay on the level with the other spirit persons at that time (inferior to, and subject to, the Father), until his Father would elevate him to His right hand in due time.

136

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 in

due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

Journeyman

>>> the whole 1st chapter of the Hebrews completely excludes the possibility that the Son is an angel. 1:2 is a clear statement, absolutely fits to the Nicene Creed.

False. One may choose not to believe it, but Hebrews Ch 1 does not "completely exclude the possibility".

v2 - "But in THESE days (eschatou - or these last, final or latter days) he has spoken to us through his Son."

v3 - "he SAT DOWN (kathizo - to sit, be seated, sit down) at the right hand"

v4 - "Thus he BECAME (genomenos - having become) far greater than the angels..."

v5 - "You are my Son, and TODAY (semeron - this day, now) I have given you the honour that goes with that name."

v 13 - "SIT (kathou - to sit, be seated, sit down) at my right hand"

These are not continuous actions, thus indicating a situation where one originally WASN'T in one state or condition, but subsequently BECOMES or DOES those things. That is particularly relevant in verse 2 which explicitly says Jesus "became" far greater than angels - he at one time was not far greater in rank, but was later elevated to higher status by his Father.

The analogy between the two procreations fails in that while a human is the son of his parents according to the flesh, but a creature of God (because human procreation relies on God's creative power), the Son was begotten by the Father, and as such, does not require a separate act of creation.

Again, this is semantic nonsense. God created - He "begat" a son, a son originated from a direct act of His - therefore it was an act of creation.

To "begat" can mean "to bring into being by the process of procreation", but also more broadly "to bring about", "to cause to be" or "to bring forth". It does not only mean to produce in flesh by sexual reproduction. That is the same error of understanding that many Muslims make regarding Jesus being God's Son.
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/american_english/beget
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/beget
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/beget

In fact, for those who subscribe to the understanding that the Son assisted God in creating "all other things", then the Son was in fact the only "thing" created entirely by God alone, without him directing the Son as his "master worker". (hence the scriptural term "only-begotten", not simply "begotten").

However, the recognition that the Son was created by God does not require belief in the latter (that the Son assisted in all other creation). The two are not mutually exclusive. Although Hebrews 1:2 is explicit that "through the Son he created the universe", which again makes it clear that God directed and guided Jesus in the creative works.

Oh, and guess what else? Again, in all of those verses in Hebrews 1, no mention of a person called "Holy Spirit". It's all about the relationship between TWO persons. Why? Because the Spirit is not a person!