when the arc made their recommendations to the society last year i genuinely thought we'd see some real changes.
oh sure, i expected a lot of feet dragging, double talk, and general nonsense - but at the end of the day i was certain the society would do what they legally had to and then run around claiming:.
) these new policies and procedures aren't really new we've always done them.
Isn't there still time for them to comply? I didn't think it was the end of the process.
If they were facing the situation in the United States and the GB were compelled to attend the response may be different.
Will something force them to change in the end? If not government action then ultimately discontent from within expressing itself in declining membership and donations?
.
.
just a bit of fun..
Might be a typo for dark but probably not.
The regular dictionary says it means damp and cold which doesn't fit.
But the urban dictionary says it means potent or powerful, as in drugs. That's probably the meaning.
I like Ike the cliff one. Would make good postcards.
hi all.. this is a reasonable question and would love to know what you think is having the biggest impact on watchtower.
there is a plethora of websites talking negatively of watchtower.
there are the never ending court cases regarding child abuse allegations.
The fact that they seem to be in decline. Totally demoralising for a religion predicated on growth and endtime prophecies.
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
On the subject of "what we need in order to believe", I think Karen Armstrong's perspective on this is interesting. From my reading, she argues that the common notion that religious actions follow beliefs is the wrong way round. She says that in order to believe a religion we first need to practise the religion. You don't become convinced about a religion by reading or studying or debating. The only way "in" to a religion is practice. If you practise a religion, often you will find your faith growing before too long.
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
God can't lie but he can "send out delusions". 2 Thes 2:11
In the case of lying, God probably uses the Nixon defence: it isn't lying when God does it.
Or maybe God is constrained by certain things. Maybe the world he creates is the best possible one. Why not? He's still almighty in relation to us.
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
Do materialists really believe in "natural evil", or what do you mean by it? If there is no God or purpose behind things, isn't it a case of "natural indifference" rather than evil? If there is no God, what is the use of a concept such as "natural evil"?
two elders who visited my friend last week encouraged her not to pursue higher studies.
it seems they are dishing out the same old stuff: “the end is imminent, and this is the time to do more in the service; hence don’t waste your resources on higher studies.”.
i wonder whether there was some official communiqué (something that is sent out recently like letter to the elders, or kingdom ministry article …).
People who get an education tend to leave JWs. That's the basis of the "don't do higher education" instruction.
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
I don't think it is JW theology proper that is the problem. A good Bible case can be made for many of their distinguishing theological claims: Jesus as a created being; soul sleep; importance of God's name; God's self-limited foreknowledge; endurance for salvation; paradise earth and so on. To me the problem lies in their authoritarian structure; lack of engagement with modern science, scholarship, culture, and ethics; punishment of free thought and the like.
these are the books that led to my awakening:.
the art of thinking clearly - rolf dobelli.
how to defend the christian faith: advice from an evolutionist - john w.loftus.
Good and Bad Religion - Peter Vardy
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
You are very clearly changing the goal posts.
Your first post claimed the Bible should supply useful information not available to people at the time.
Failing to give any good reason why God should meet this standard you have set, instead you talk about the Bible being written by ignorant goat herders. (Familiar new atheist trope)
If you are not willing to back up your original assertion that the Bible should contain useful information not known at the time. Where is the justification for the new assertion that God could not inspire a book that conforms to a contemporary conception of the world?
You have asserted God would not do that. What is your evidence?
