I think LE sees that the channel is in decline and he doesn’t have the motivation to carry on producing content with no mates to help him fill the hours of content necessary. So what does he do? He’s lost interest in JWs but he still has over 400 people sending him money every month. He’s not going to turn down free money, ever. So he perfunctorily keeps the channel going with the minimum amount of effort to keep it ticking over. He has half a notion that expanding the channel to include other topics will broaden his appeal but he probably suspects that will be a failure too. So he’ll just ride the ship all the way down until he finally runs out of patrons, or until there are so few patrons that it’s not even worth the effort to keep up the pretence any longer. The suckers are the patrons who jump ship last.
slimboyfat
JoinedPosts by slimboyfat
-
11530
It's been a long 9 years Lloyd Evans / John Cedars
by Newly Enlightened inoriginal reddit post (removed).
-
-
-
11530
It's been a long 9 years Lloyd Evans / John Cedars
by Newly Enlightened inoriginal reddit post (removed).
-
-
slimboyfat
His interviews are unwatchable. He gets interesting people on the channel then proceeds to talk most of the time himself. Jim Penton was a case in point. Wasted opportunity and waste of viewers’ time.
Well, used to get interesting people on his channel. Not so much any more, for obvious reasons.
-
42
ANTI-DEPRESSANT medication for the last 60 years now proved to be based on poorly supported false theory
by Terry in"the chemical imbalance theory of depression is still put forward by professionals, and the serotonin theory, in particular, has formed the basis of a considerable research effort over the last few decades.
the general public widely believes that depression has been convincingly demonstrated to be the result of serotonin or other chemical abnormalities, and this belief shapes how people understand their moods, leading to a pessimistic outlook on the outcome of depression and negative expectancies about the possibility of self-regulation of mood""read: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m92v7hb0njm2mnvnu6nv0kpnkzloe-_k4crh_wphpti/edit?usp=sharing.
-
-
slimboyfat
We live in a capitalist society. Drug companies exist to make a profit not to make people well. Unfortunately the two objectives are rarely the same. If there is a choice between a treatment that will cure a condition and a treatment that will maintain a condition for years or even decades then the current profit driven model will choose the maintenance therapy every single time. This is not a malfunction of the system, this is the system operating exactly as designed. In fact if a company chose to prioritise anything other than profit then they would be criminally responsible to their shareholders. Just think what a complete disaster it would have been for pharmaceutical companies, after spending billions of pounds on vaccines, to discover that the condition could be treated effectively with cheap drugs. We don’t know what the truth is because we are not scientists and I don’t pretend to know the answers. But the drug companies own the media that cover the health stories and they fund the politicians who make the decisions about funding involving billions of dollars. We are at a disadvantage because we are not scientists and we don’t have all the information they have at their disposal. But we can recognise the situation we are in and the powerful interests involved in securing certain outcomes and making sure certain perspectives prevail.
Personally I think the way forward for individuals is to look to community collaboration using sites such as “stuff that works” which aggregates the health experiences of thousands and millions of people to try to work out from the grass roots which treatments are effective and which are not effective. I believe the drug companies and governments could do the same thing more effectively, in particular harnessing the powers of the latest artificial intelligence, but it is not in their financial interest to do so.
-
7
Anti-Russell material
by vienne ini'm still trying to locate material for uncle b's research project.
i need scans of any anti-russell booklets, books, articles published between 1886 and 1904. can you help me?.
-
-
slimboyfat
I was only joking, sorry 😞
-
11530
It's been a long 9 years Lloyd Evans / John Cedars
by Newly Enlightened inoriginal reddit post (removed).
-
-
slimboyfat
I’ve met some baseball Mormons !
Thanks for the short video summary - saves plenty of time!
-
7
Anti-Russell material
by vienne ini'm still trying to locate material for uncle b's research project.
i need scans of any anti-russell booklets, books, articles published between 1886 and 1904. can you help me?.
-
-
slimboyfat
I have some contemporary letters Maria Russell wrote arguing CT Russell was not in fact the faithful slave possibly implying she was that slave. These were not published though.
-
11530
It's been a long 9 years Lloyd Evans / John Cedars
by Newly Enlightened inoriginal reddit post (removed).
-
-
slimboyfat
No it’s not Louise Goode’s voice, don’t know who it is though.
-
11530
It's been a long 9 years Lloyd Evans / John Cedars
by Newly Enlightened inoriginal reddit post (removed).
-
-
slimboyfat
I see his patron number is drifting downward again. I definitely think there was an artificial bump up a couple of weeks ago, but gravity keeps catching up with him.
-
263
What Name Does the New Testament Emphasize - Jehovah or Jesus?
by Vanderhoven7 init seems to me scripturally speaking, that jehovah's witnesses are emphasizing the wrong name.. it should be jesus, not jehovah.
who is the way, the truth and the life?
(john 14:6).
-
-
slimboyfat
Conspiracy theory? That seems to be the go to, discrediting label these days, doesn’t it?
The divine name was removed from the LXX by Christians in the first couple of centuries CE - the pattern of its use and subsequent removal shows this. There are no New Testament manuscripts from the earliest period when the divine name was intact in the LXX. Since we know the divine name was removed from the LXX in that very period, it makes sense that the same process took place in the New Testament by the same people responsible for transmitting both texts. On top of that we have many verses in the New Testament that simply make much better sense on the assumption that the divine name was in the original. Plus there are all the variants conspicuously around ambiguous instances of “Lord”. Use of the divine name in the early New Testament is the most reasonable inference from the available evidence. So, if we must speak about “conspiracy”, then the conspiracy is among the scholars who have ignored or downplayed these facts for decades. In fact Lord Gaston describes the “discovery” as being “strangely neglected”.
He further described the implications of the removal of the divine name from the New Testament this way:
“G. Howard points out that in none of the now considerable LXX texts from the first century is kyrios used for the tetragrammaton, which is written in Hebrew letters. He concludes that the use of kyrios was begun by Christian scribes in the second century, who applied it also to New Testament texts. This means that Old Testament citations in the New Testament manuscripts originally contained the tetragrammaton. It will be seen that this makes a considerable difference in the interpretation of many texts.” Paul and the Torah, pp. 117, 118.
Let’s be clear, the reason why Trinitarians want to avoid the evidence for the divine name in the New Testament is because it undermines their theology. Because when the divine name is restored to the text then the distinction between Jesus and Jehovah becomes even clearer than it already is. The removal of the divine name went hand in hand with the elevation of Jesus to supreme deity, and the Trinity teaching. That’s why many will continue to ignore, downplay, or mischaracterise they evidence at all costs.
How can Jesus possibly be “emphasised” more than Jehovah? His very name means “Jehovah is salvation”. So every occurrence of the name Jesus points to Jehovah as the source of salvation. It’s literally as daft as saying “Jehovah is salvation” is emphasised more than “Jehovah”. The early Christians knew what Jesus’ name meant and they knew it’s implications in pointing to Jehovah as the source of salvation. (See Matt 1:21) -
263
What Name Does the New Testament Emphasize - Jehovah or Jesus?
by Vanderhoven7 init seems to me scripturally speaking, that jehovah's witnesses are emphasizing the wrong name.. it should be jesus, not jehovah.
who is the way, the truth and the life?
(john 14:6).
-
-
slimboyfat
The early copies of the LXX do is the divine name. Unfortunately we do not have copies of the New Testament that are as early as those LXX manuscripts. If we did then we would know for sure whether the early New Testament used the divine name. In the absence of NT copies the safest assumption is that the same practice of using the divine name was followed in the New Testament as in the LXX.
Those who insist that the NT manuscripts must be followed despite the fact that they date from a later period should bear in mind that those manuscripts don’t use “Lord” in full either, they all use abbreviations for Lord: KC. Those forms arose sometimes between the composition and the earliest manuscripts we have. So whatever way you look at it, none of event the earliest New Testament manuscripts preserve the original presentation of the divine name in those documents, they all contain a later modification.
This is the book where Lloyd Gaston agrees with George Howard that the New Testament contained the divine name and uses it in his translation of Paul’s letters.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Paul-Torah-Lloyd-Gaston/dp/1597525383/