Posts by slimboyfat

68

Where it all went wrong for the WT - JF Rutherford

by LoveUniHateExams in

i was thinking a bit about this the other day.

ct russell, from what i remember about him, kinda seemed like a genuine, nice(ish) guy, although he had a few eccentric but harmless ideas.. during the russell era jws (actually bible students) could still celebrate christmas, worship in other churches if there was no kingdom hall available, and accept blood transfusions.. then after russell died, along came rutherford - a major league a-hole, for sure.. rutherford had plenty of eccentric ideas but at least some of them weren't/aren't harmless.

some have been long forgotten about - jesus depicted without a beard, the plan to rename the names of the week because names such as thursday (thor's day) is pagan, the articles about the 'dangers' of aluminium, etc.. one key contribution of rutherford which does a lot of harm is no blood transfusions, even in life-threatening situations.. another is shunning, something which never occurred under russell, or at least was much milder.. rutherford has a lot to answer for, i reckon ....

slimboyfat

The very first page of the booklet talks about the Brooklyn Tabernacle, the London Tabernacle, and the International Bible Students Association. You don’t need to read beyond the first few sentences to realise it could not have been published in 1881.

You said the “book” (singular) was written in 1881. And “it (singular) shows” the points you outline.

So what book are you claiming was published in 1881? And what other books are you now saying you linked? I don’t see any others on that link.

Additional edit, because I’ve run out of daily posts:

As I understand it he was given the title pastor by the ecclesias individually in a vote. That’s where it came from and claims legitimacy.

You didn’t answer what theological school Peter, James and John attended. Or address the fact that Paul says God specifically chooses to use uneducated people.

There are many complex ways of reading the book of Ecclesiastes. I thinks it’s you who is pushing a simplistic line.

You seem to be avoiding your earlier claim the booklet you cited was published in 1881. I am sorry you appear stubborn as well as uninformed. I can’t justify wasting more time on this.

68

Where it all went wrong for the WT - JF Rutherford

by LoveUniHateExams in

i was thinking a bit about this the other day.

ct russell, from what i remember about him, kinda seemed like a genuine, nice(ish) guy, although he had a few eccentric but harmless ideas.. during the russell era jws (actually bible students) could still celebrate christmas, worship in other churches if there was no kingdom hall available, and accept blood transfusions.. then after russell died, along came rutherford - a major league a-hole, for sure.. rutherford had plenty of eccentric ideas but at least some of them weren't/aren't harmless.

some have been long forgotten about - jesus depicted without a beard, the plan to rename the names of the week because names such as thursday (thor's day) is pagan, the articles about the 'dangers' of aluminium, etc.. one key contribution of rutherford which does a lot of harm is no blood transfusions, even in life-threatening situations.. another is shunning, something which never occurred under russell, or at least was much milder.. rutherford has a lot to answer for, i reckon ....

slimboyfat

Another huge discrepancy in your presentation here, Sea Breeze: you claim this source was published “2 years after Russell started printing the Watchtower”. That would make the year 1881. Yet many of the points you raise occurred years, even decades later, such as Russell’s worldwide tours and his divorce. A moment’s reflection should have caused you to realise this is incongruous. You don’t seem to have applied even the most basic critical thought to what you are saying.

68

Where it all went wrong for the WT - JF Rutherford

by LoveUniHateExams in

i was thinking a bit about this the other day.

ct russell, from what i remember about him, kinda seemed like a genuine, nice(ish) guy, although he had a few eccentric but harmless ideas.. during the russell era jws (actually bible students) could still celebrate christmas, worship in other churches if there was no kingdom hall available, and accept blood transfusions.. then after russell died, along came rutherford - a major league a-hole, for sure.. rutherford had plenty of eccentric ideas but at least some of them weren't/aren't harmless.

some have been long forgotten about - jesus depicted without a beard, the plan to rename the names of the week because names such as thursday (thor's day) is pagan, the articles about the 'dangers' of aluminium, etc.. one key contribution of rutherford which does a lot of harm is no blood transfusions, even in life-threatening situations.. another is shunning, something which never occurred under russell, or at least was much milder.. rutherford has a lot to answer for, i reckon ....

slimboyfat

Hitler too was a good orator. Had huge support. It does not mean he was good.

What a bizarre comment. Russell didn’t just have “support”, he made many friends who had genuine affection for him. He spent his time and energy spreading a message of peace and hope for humanity from the Bible as he understood it, and many other people were moved to help him spread that message. Where exactly does the comparison with Hitler come from? That sounds completely detached from reality.

This is what his contemporaries mostly said in the link I provided.

Have you cited a tract from his opponents and repeated it as if it is unbiased?

68

Where it all went wrong for the WT - JF Rutherford

by LoveUniHateExams in

i was thinking a bit about this the other day.

ct russell, from what i remember about him, kinda seemed like a genuine, nice(ish) guy, although he had a few eccentric but harmless ideas.. during the russell era jws (actually bible students) could still celebrate christmas, worship in other churches if there was no kingdom hall available, and accept blood transfusions.. then after russell died, along came rutherford - a major league a-hole, for sure.. rutherford had plenty of eccentric ideas but at least some of them weren't/aren't harmless.

some have been long forgotten about - jesus depicted without a beard, the plan to rename the names of the week because names such as thursday (thor's day) is pagan, the articles about the 'dangers' of aluminium, etc.. one key contribution of rutherford which does a lot of harm is no blood transfusions, even in life-threatening situations.. another is shunning, something which never occurred under russell, or at least was much milder.. rutherford has a lot to answer for, i reckon ....

slimboyfat

Sounds to me like you’ve carefully crafted your own story about Charles Russell there, Sea Breeze. Opponents said lots of things about Russell, many of them false. Where is your evidence he didn’t tell the truth on stage, for example? What is beyond dispute is that he was well liked by a large number of people. That doesn’t happen by accident, or unless you treat others well, and indeed there are many stories of kindness. If I recall correctly, Maria Russell specifically distanced herself from the claim that Russell had not been faithful, which puts a different complexion on the whole episode. During the divorce Charles Russell was probably guilty (in common with many in that situation) of attempting to limit his financial liability - not his greatest moment. His theological opponents naturally raked over the mud wherever they thought they could. You talk disparagingly about his theological training, but which theological school did the apostle Peter attend, or James or John? Paul said that God chooses to use the uneducated on purpose. This is a mark in Russell’s favour, not against him. The theological point Russell was most famous for in his own lifetime, that you don’t mention specifically, was his opposition to the hellfire teaching. He was known as the “man who turned the hose on hell”. I find it noteworthy that, a century and a half later, many in the mainline churches would now agree with Russell on that point.

11530

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

by Newly Enlightened in

original reddit post (removed).

slimboyfat

Yup, big time

68

Where it all went wrong for the WT - JF Rutherford

by LoveUniHateExams in

i was thinking a bit about this the other day.

ct russell, from what i remember about him, kinda seemed like a genuine, nice(ish) guy, although he had a few eccentric but harmless ideas.. during the russell era jws (actually bible students) could still celebrate christmas, worship in other churches if there was no kingdom hall available, and accept blood transfusions.. then after russell died, along came rutherford - a major league a-hole, for sure.. rutherford had plenty of eccentric ideas but at least some of them weren't/aren't harmless.

some have been long forgotten about - jesus depicted without a beard, the plan to rename the names of the week because names such as thursday (thor's day) is pagan, the articles about the 'dangers' of aluminium, etc.. one key contribution of rutherford which does a lot of harm is no blood transfusions, even in life-threatening situations.. another is shunning, something which never occurred under russell, or at least was much milder.. rutherford has a lot to answer for, i reckon ....

slimboyfat

LUHE I don’t want to be picky 😇 but a few things:

There were no Kingdom Halls in Russell’s time. The first Kingdom Hall was named in Hawaii in the 1930s.

I don’t know that Bible Students attended other churches. Is there a source for that?

Blood transfusions were not widely practiced in Russell’s lifetime. I don’t know that Bible Students ever faced the issue or that Russell addressed it, but I’d be interested in any references.

Rutherford didn’t come up with the idea to rename the calendar, that was Clayton Woodworth, the editor of The Golden Age. Rutherford thought it was a stupid idea and made fun of Woodworth in front of the bethel family.

Also the aluminium thing wasn’t Rutherford’s idea.

Blood transfusions were not banned until 1945, three years after Rutherford died, in the presidency of Nathan Knorr.

Current disfellowshipping practice didn’t start until 1952, again years after Rutherford’s death.

I agree that Russell seems to have been well liked in comparison with Rutherford. When Russell died there was widespread mourning across the country. Many hundreds came to his funeral, eulogies went on for hours, from many different speakers, his ex wife laid a flower on his coffin, and the movement was sent into complete disarray.

When Rutherford died there was a brief announcement and bethelites got back to work. There were three or four at Rutherford’s graveside, not including his wife or son. The organisation immediately sprang into action under the new leadership of Knorr/Franz and, within a few years, they had established a missionary school, restructured meetings and ministry, produced their own translation of the Bible, and presided over unprecedented expansion.

11530

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

by Newly Enlightened in

original reddit post (removed).

slimboyfat

Mormons are interesting. Contrary to what many think, and what the Mormon church would like to project, there are far fewer Mormons than there are JWs. (Fewer than 5 million active members compared with more than 8 million JW publishers) They are also more geographically concentrated in the Americas, and within the Americas in the United States, and within the United States in Utah, Idaho and the southwest. They are also much richer and better educated than JWs. And they have stronger sense of “cultural Mormonism” than JWs. Altogether Mormons and ex Mormons have quite a distinct character compared with JWs and ex JWs. I don’t see what LE has to offer in that arena at all. He is probably under the illusion it’s a bigger “market” than exJWs for him to break into, but that is not the case. Even the largest ex Mormon YouTube channels, such as John Dehlin’s Mormon Stories, are not that large.

11530

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

by Newly Enlightened in

original reddit post (removed).

slimboyfat

The issue was him misrepresenting his interest in Mormonism to the missionaries, but he reframes it as: “if you think reasons for believing the LDS faith should be kept secret and never spoken about publicly unless it’s through the filter of the church, that’s very telling”. Yeah, nice try Lloyd. Nobody said that. They are objecting to you being a slimeball. He is so estranged from the truth that he lies without effort. Plus he claims he has respect and admiration for the missionaries, but didn’t he call them frumpy?

11530

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

by Newly Enlightened in

original reddit post (removed).

slimboyfat

Apparently John Dehlin of the Mormon Stories Podcast (the Cedars of the Mormon world) has got in some trouble for his behaviour too, but nothing as bad as LE, it seems to me.

52

Free Will - Does It or Does It Not Exist?

by truth_b_known in

being born-in and raised as one of jehovah's witnesses i remember a common theme or phrases used by the watchtower in its theory of why things are the way they are -.

jehovah created humans.

jehovah created humans as free moral agents.

slimboyfat

I think it does and I think that the concept of free will, and much else besides, makes better sense in a world constituted by a mental rather than material basis. See Materialism is Baloney by Bernardo Kastrup.