Posts by slimboyfat

8

Sarah Kellen - Victim or Vixen?

by Sea Breeze in

sarah kellen has been described as jeffery epstein's 'lieutenant' for allegedly sourcing and booking girls for 'massages'.. kellen’s [jehovah's witness] parents said they knew almost nothing about what their daughter’s duties involved because they became estranged from her at around the time she took the job with epstein when she was aged 18 or 19.. the split with her family came after kellen was thrown out of the church for allegedly leading an “immoral” lifestyle:.

sarah’s parents told the daily mail they love her and would welcome her back as long as she rejoins the church and shows them she’s committed to the faith.. so, is she a victim or a sly fox?.

.

slimboyfat

Apparently it was the modus operandi of Epstein, as with other serial abusers, to implicate his victims in the further abuse of subsequent victims, as a method of ensuring they kept silent for fear of implicating themselves. This results in a complicated ethical situation to untangle, although she probably started out as a victim. In any reasonable interpretation of what happened I don’t think the descriptions “vixen” or “sly fox” are helpful or appropriate.

Besides which, I don’t know why attention is not focussed the wealthy and powerful people who spent lots of time with Epstein at his various horror houses. They entered into the situation, not as minors, but as adults of their own free choice. In fact I suspect I do know why they are not being investigated. Quite depressing world we live in.

53

Watchtower vs Islam: Why the deafening silence?

by raymond frantz in

why has the watchtower failed spectacularly to evangelize to the muslims?

considering the recent influx of muslim people in european countries you would think that some attempt from the religion that touts the are preaching the good news of the kingdom in all the inhabited earth would have been made.instead the only meaningful attempt dates back to 1953 ,almost 70 years ago!!!!

book " man's search for god.what do you think?

slimboyfat

All the images are patterns real photos, perhaps also a nod to Muslim avoidance of artistic depictions of nature. No painted animals or fruits as you usually get in Watchtowrr literature for example.

No wait, there is, so forget that. 😇

53

Watchtower vs Islam: Why the deafening silence?

by raymond frantz in

why has the watchtower failed spectacularly to evangelize to the muslims?

considering the recent influx of muslim people in european countries you would think that some attempt from the religion that touts the are preaching the good news of the kingdom in all the inhabited earth would have been made.instead the only meaningful attempt dates back to 1953 ,almost 70 years ago!!!!

book " man's search for god.what do you think?

slimboyfat

As suggested in the Good Reads review, this brochure Real Faith - Your Key to a Happy Life appears to be an update in 2010, but if Muslims are the intended target audience then the hints appear so vague to me as to be barely perceptible.

https://www.jw.org/en/library/books/real-faith/what-is-real-faith/

Many of the people in the photos look variously Asian, it tends to use “holy scriptures” in place of Bible, emphasises that Jesus was a “prophet”, emphasises the oneness of God, mentions that Moses got the Ten Commandments from angels, touches on the theme of violence. I guess it’s a very gentle attempt to target literature these days. I wonder if there are equivalents for Jews and Hindus.

53

Watchtower vs Islam: Why the deafening silence?

by raymond frantz in

why has the watchtower failed spectacularly to evangelize to the muslims?

considering the recent influx of muslim people in european countries you would think that some attempt from the religion that touts the are preaching the good news of the kingdom in all the inhabited earth would have been made.instead the only meaningful attempt dates back to 1953 ,almost 70 years ago!!!!

book " man's search for god.what do you think?

slimboyfat

I think this was the latest brochure aimed at Muslims, from 1998.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18663390-the-guidance-of-god-our-way-to-paradise

There have been various booklets, brochures and tracts aimed Muslims, Jews and Hindus over the years. I think they’ve generally abandoned that approach for all religions. You don’t see articles aimed at Catholics these days either, whereas they used to be very common.

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

Annihilationism is the belief that the soul is mortal rather than disobedient creatures being tormented for eternity in hell. Charles Russell was an annihilationist.

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

As I understand it he was given the name pastor by the ecclesias 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

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.