in a discussion about the best flavour of ice cream everybody's opinion is equally valid.. in a discussion about the shape of the earth or the origin of species everybody's opinion is equally irrelevant.
only objective facts and evidence matter.. confusing these two categories is a common feature of conversations in this forum.
people deserve respect, errors do not..
I can respect it is your opinion that there is a clear distinction between opinions and facts. However some of the leading thinkers of the last century have tended to argue otherwise, such as Quine: "no statement is immune to revision".
You can't say that you allow evidence to shape your views, and yet also say that no evidence will ever make you disbelieve a certain fact. You can't have it both ways.
in an effort to reduce the number of posts, this year i will try to add links to this post.
now, on with the leaks & releases!
first up.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nzvwhflss4.
If shunning is sanctioned on mere hearsay without a committee, doesn't that just give a green light to gossip and bullying? What's the point of protesting innocence?
i used to be a member of this site, but jumped off a good number of years ago (08?).
i don't have access to my old email, so i'm using a new account.. anyway, i was baptized jw in late 90's.
da'd mid 2000s.. when i left there were three meets a week plus field service.
Decline, from gentle to precipitous, with distinct indications of panic emanating from the top.
in the discussion about race i adopted a position i am not entirely comfortable with.
i think there is a sense in which it is useful to distinguish categories of description that can be fruitfully defended (apples and bananas) and those that cannot (caucasian or other racial descriptions for example).
but there is a more fundamental sense in which i believe that everything is socially constructed, every single line you can think of.
http://www.forum18.org/archive.php?article_id=2181.
24 may 2016. russia: jehovah's witnesses face possible liquidation.
by victoria arnold, forum 18. if prosecutors proceed with their threat to liquidate the jehovah's witness headquarters near st petersburg, thousands of local congregations across russia could also face prohibition of their activities and individuals could be vulnerable to criminal charges for expressing their beliefs, forum 18 notes.. the jehovah's witnesses' principal body in russia is under threat of dissolution as an "extremist" organisation after the deadline in an official warning from the general prosecutor's office expired on 10 may, forum 18 notes.
i know, how do i find this stuff, right?
the article is long, so just do a ctrl-f then type in your name... also jehovahs-witness.com mentioned in this article.
"theocratic warfare" is a contentious theological doctrine of the jehovah's witness (jw) movement in christianity.. .
I missed this reference to a classic thread of mine!
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/91203/theocratic-warfare-apostate-strategy?page=1
i love books; i always have.
they are my life and my livelihood.
and many jehovah's witnesses, when they leave the religion, they think to themselves, "i'd like to read a book".
now available on jw.org the rc 2016 releases (all downloadable movies, no books)for a certainty god made him lord and christhttps://www.jw.org/finder?locale=en&pub=lrc&prefer=lang&srcid=sharehope for what we do not seehttps://www.jw.org/finder?locale=en&pub=dns&prefer=lang&srcid=shareoh jehovah...i trust in youhttps://www.jw.org/finder?locale=en&pub=tiy&prefer=lang&srcid=share
i love books; i always have.
they are my life and my livelihood.
and many jehovah's witnesses, when they leave the religion, they think to themselves, "i'd like to read a book".
homophobia (m-w.com):.
: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.
can someone tell me, specifically, was homophobic about the new "anti-gay" wt video.
It's not a democracy no, but you miss the point.
Societal and even governmental pressure may come to bear on JWs and other religious groups to stop victimising gay people. You have said JWs won't change despite such pressure because it would destroy the organisation. My point is: that is only true if a majority of JWs still oppose accepting gay people. If that is no longer true, and a majority support gay people, there would no longer any reason to supposer the change will destroy the organisation. In fact at some point the pressure to change may exceed the pressure not to change. What they choose to do at that point will be intersting, if we get there.
