Posts by slimboyfat

11530

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

by Newly Enlightened in

original reddit post (removed).

slimboyfat

It strikes me that (as far as I know) he never talks to any of his guests about the so-called ‘defamation campaign’ and events that have brought his business down over the past year. If he was genuinely the victim of an ‘injustice’ wouldn’t he talk about it with people in livestreams and so on? Of course he would. He’d be all over it like a rash.

The fact that he never talks about it with people on his channel indicates that he is fully aware that no reasonable person would agree with his version of events. He tried it out with Andrew Gold and failed miserably and now he’s learned his lesson. He probably could get a few of his crazier followers to come on his channel and agree with his version of events but they are so crazy they might end up saying such mental stuff that would undermine him even more.

Come to think on it, the one person he did chat with about it on his channel was Tibor. That’s telling in itself because Tibor’s job literally depends on him agreeing with LE’s version of events. But outside of people whose job depends on agreeing with LE on the so-called ‘defamation campaign’ he knows there’s nobody, so he avoids talking about the subject. This makes me suspect he knows he’s in the wrong. A person who genuinely thought they were in the right and being victimised probably couldn’t stop themselves from talking about it. His strategic silence speaks volumes.

11530

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

by Newly Enlightened in

original reddit post (removed).

slimboyfat

Small clip I saw he was blathering on how he doesn’t like to cover this topic because of the harrowing stories. I can think of another reason he doesn’t like to cover the topic.

If his guests don’t know his backstory I think they were there under false pretences. If they do know, that’s their bad choice to make I suppose.

11530

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

by Newly Enlightened in

original reddit post (removed).

slimboyfat

Any body clicking briefly on his vids for any reason remember you can avail yourself of the dislike button 👎

I quickly buzzed through the video and he got a few donations including 27.99 dollars from Canada and 9.99 dollars for his “efforts”. Probably some others I missed. The donations appear in his livestream comments, but they are different than the later video comments. The donations we know about are the ones he chooses to highlight during the video, which may or may not be all of the donations he got during the livestream. Slim pickings compared to the glory days anyway.

33

"How Long Would Jesus' Reign Be?"

by BoogerMan in

simple enough question for a jw to answer, because the org has told them for over 100 years that, .

a) jesus would reign for 1000 years, and.

b) that his reign began in 1914 when he became king.

slimboyfat

BoogerMan I think you’re correct if you’re saying that the teaching about Jesus beginning his reign in 1914 but the 1000 years not starting in 1914 is confusing. At least I found it confusing as a JW.

Nevertheless that is what they teach. So to press the point that if they did teach the 1000 years started in 1914 then the clock would be running on that time seems beside the point - because they don’t teach that.

16

Did Jesus say the God of the OT is not the same God as mine??

by Diogenesister in

bart erhman states, in this you tube short presumably taken from the video series he has been doing with megan lewis*, that jesus said the god of the ot, the god of jeremiah, is not the (same)god as jesus.

bart continues "jeremiah's god killed (the children) - jesus said let the children come to me.

jesus' god said turn the other cheek" - the ot god was war-like etc (paraphrasing bart here a bit).. it's always been the thing that stopped my fully embracing the bible after leaving watchtower.

slimboyfat

Yes I read Carrier’s book on Bayesian probability and history. I can’t say I was convinced. It all begins with making guesses. That’s fine, he claims, because the method works whatever starting point, but is my guess really as good as yours? His bigger book “On the Historicity of Jesus” doesn’t seem to have impressed many scholars. There’s one Australian scholar who gave it a good review. I found it a very dry read cut into small parts on diverse topics with slow and confusing progression.

I liked his more recent book “Jesus from Outer Space” where he argues that the first Christians believed Jesus was the archangel Michael - remind you of anyone? But again, it don’t think it’s likely to become widely cited by scholars.

I just looked it up and it’s cited by four scholars, including Christopher Hansen who wrote an article in response to mythicism. The abstract sounds like it will be an interesting read:

In recent years a number of scholars (such as Richard Carrier and Robert Price) have published arguments in favour of a new model of the origination of Christianity from a mythological Jesus. Part of their argumentation has been to make the case for the concept of a pre-Christian Jesus who was worshiped, or a part of Judaism before Christianity ever arose. This article seeks to provide a new analysis of this topic, since there has been almost no academic literature published in response to the pre-Christian Jesus thesis in several decades. This article largely concludes that the concept, while interesting, is not convincing and would require far more substantial evidence to be considered a better alternative to historicist conceptions of early Christianity's development.

Hansen, C. M. (2022). Re-examining the Pre-Christian Jesus. Journal of Early Christian History, 12(2), 17-40

16

Did Jesus say the God of the OT is not the same God as mine??

by Diogenesister in

bart erhman states, in this you tube short presumably taken from the video series he has been doing with megan lewis*, that jesus said the god of the ot, the god of jeremiah, is not the (same)god as jesus.

bart continues "jeremiah's god killed (the children) - jesus said let the children come to me.

jesus' god said turn the other cheek" - the ot god was war-like etc (paraphrasing bart here a bit).. it's always been the thing that stopped my fully embracing the bible after leaving watchtower.

slimboyfat

The best book by Bart Ehrman is probably one of the least read: The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. It’s in part what won him his reputation as a scholar. I don’t think his books since then have been as careful or comprehensive. I’ve read his book about Jesus as a millenarian prophet, his popular book on textual criticism “Misquoting Jesus”, Lost Christianities, his book refuting mythicism, and his book about how Jesus came to be viewed as God. They are of variable quality. The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture is worth reading.

11530

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

by Newly Enlightened in

original reddit post (removed).

slimboyfat

Croatian shopping malls too, for some reason.

Charities that don’t give him publicity he thinks he deserves …

33

"How Long Would Jesus' Reign Be?"

by BoogerMan in

simple enough question for a jw to answer, because the org has told them for over 100 years that, .

a) jesus would reign for 1000 years, and.

b) that his reign began in 1914 when he became king.

slimboyfat

Yes I used to wonder this too, but as vienne says it’s not actually Watchtower teaching that the 1000 years began in 1914. The millennium is said to begin whenever Armageddon takes place and we enter the new system. This is a bit confusing because they say God’s kingdom began to rule in 1914. At the same time, remember that 1975 was anticipated to be the end of 6000 years since man’s creation, and the beginning of the millennium. When it didn’t happen in 1975 then it was pushed further into the future.

The bottom line is that no matter how much time passes since 1914 it is still not eating into the 1000 reign, according to Watchtower teaching. So that’s one time related problem they don’t have to worry about.

It does however become increasingly incredible to view 1914 - present as a “generation”, plus the devil was cast down following 1914 “knowing that he has a short period of time”. That “short period” is now well over 100 years and counting,

11530

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

by Newly Enlightened in

original reddit post (removed).

slimboyfat

My impression is he’s a good guy too, although I find some of his titles and takes a bit cringe because they tend to overstate the case in the way that YouTube videos probably have to in order to get attention. Plus the videos are far too long. They need to get to the point. There’s another YouTuber I follow who summarises his main point at the start of the video in under a minute and then lets his audience decide whether they want to watch the whole 20 minutes or so. That’s an excellent approach and probably why he’s got millions of subscribers. 👍

55

"Independent" Scotland joke!

by BoogerMan in

humza yousaf, scotland's first minister, said: "scotland, i'm afraid, is suffering because we are not independent.

" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-66012834.

try telling that to scotland's tourists and many island communities: the ferry services are dying month by month, and the two new overdue & over-budget ferries justify a serious legal/criminal enquiry.. any bunch of incompetents who can't provide a small country with a ferry service and a legally binding contract to build 2 new boats - having controlled scotland since 2007 - has no credibility in claiming they could run a country!.

slimboyfat

Journeyman you are entitled to your opinion that Scotland shouldn’t be independent. But if you are arguing that Scotland has no right to choose independence then I don’t think there is any basis for discussion here. Even the most extreme unionists at Holyrood or Westminster have argued against independence but have accepted that Scotland has the right to choose independence if it wishes. Because they have generally understood and recognised that the idea that the union is not voluntary is fatal to the concept of union.

None of your whataboutery over the EU works. Scotland is under 10% of the population of UK. Whereas the UK was more than 10% of the population of the EU. If you are saying that England has control over Scotland in a way that Europe didn’t have control over Scotland then you are turning Scotland into a colony or a captive state.

The closest analogy to Scotland leaving the union of course is Ireland leaving the union in 1921. Hardly anybody now argues that Ireland had no right to independence or that Westminster didn’t handle it atrociously. And where is the movement in the Republic of Ireland to rejoin the UK? There isn’t one. Or if there is it’s so tiny it doesn’t have any representation at any level of politics in the Republic of Ireland. Because Ireland is now more prosperous and outward looking than the UK. The idea that Scotland would be the first country in world history to “regret” independence is pure unionist fantasy. Countries such as Ireland that declare independence don’t look back.

The union of the crowns took place in 1603 and the 2014 referendum didn’t propose to end that union. It was the voluntary political union of the Scottish state with the English state in 1707 that will be dissolved on independence.