seen in the 03/2018 watchtower study :.
"during the 2017 service year, more than 284,000 “rightly disposed” individuals symbolized their dedication to jehovah by water baptism.".
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-study-march-2018/baptism-requirement-for-christians/.
Yes it is somewhat surprising, this increase in baptisms.
The all time peak for baptisms was around 380,000 in 1996, or thereabouts. (From memory)
It will be very interesting to see the congregation total, in view of "consolidations", if it is published.
acts 2:9. old text:.
acts 2:10. old text:.
acts 2:11. old text:.
Thank you very much Mean Mr Mustard!
Initial comments: first of all I think it's interesting that there are not many changes. I can't quantify it, but I think there were more changes around the first few printings of the NWT in the 1950s and 60s, including some striking ones. (John 1:1 "Originally the Word was with God...") Maybe this indicates a degree of care and decisiveness with the 2013 revision.
Second comment: what on earth went on in Matt 5:18? It's almost as if someone with a sense of humour in 2013 decided mischievously to remove a phrase from the very verse of the Bible that says no jot or tittle can be removed.
Bibles sometimes get nicknames because of such mistakes, most famously the "wicked Bible", or "adulterous Bible", which instructed rather than proscribed adultery: "thou shalt commit adultery".
Maybe the 2013 NWT could be named the "heaven passing" Bible, because of the missing "smallest letter". Or a catchier title I can't come up with.
at one time scientists believed that living things and non-living things were made of different material, accounting for the unique properties of living things.
this idea is called vitalism and is no longer popular.
what does remain popular (in fact is still the dominant view) is a similar idea that things that experience the world (humans, frogs, mice) are different from things that don't experience the world (potatoes, rocks, snowflakes).
That rock I see outside in my backyard isn't going to get up and move on its own. Never. Ever.
No doubt true. But also not something a panpsychist would expect or believe either.
does anyone know of any diagrams online that show the current hierarchical structure of the watchtower compared to the previous hierarchical structures of the past.
i know they have complicated it on purpose to try to protect themselves legally from lawsuits.
i would like to try to understand their current structure compared with the past.
Remember the famous WT visual showing the level of comfy chair depending on position in the organisation? On the cedars page (you may need to paste it in):
http://jwsurvey.org/cedars-blog/are-jehovahs-witnesses-a-hierarchical-religion-and-does-it-matter
http://www.christies.com/features/the-last-da-vinci-salvator-mundi-8598-3.aspx.
an ethereal rendering of jesus, savior of the world, in whose left hand rests a crystal orb.
in what painterly manner did leonardo "repent" while producing this work?.
Very intersting. I didn't know there were so few da Vinci paintings extant.
http://www.christies.com/features/the-last-da-vinci-salvator-mundi-8598-3.aspx.
an ethereal rendering of jesus, savior of the world, in whose left hand rests a crystal orb.
in what painterly manner did leonardo "repent" while producing this work?.
Looks slightly feminine to me. Like Conchita! But I know nothing about history of art, it's probably normal. Have the eyes faded or do they look vacant? Is this the whole picture or an abstract? What prompts your interest in it?
at one time scientists believed that living things and non-living things were made of different material, accounting for the unique properties of living things.
this idea is called vitalism and is no longer popular.
what does remain popular (in fact is still the dominant view) is a similar idea that things that experience the world (humans, frogs, mice) are different from things that don't experience the world (potatoes, rocks, snowflakes).
I think it’s possible for humans not to feel hungry (with medical conditions that interfere with digestion and/or appetite) but doesn’t mean the person isn’t conscious.
at one time scientists believed that living things and non-living things were made of different material, accounting for the unique properties of living things.
this idea is called vitalism and is no longer popular.
what does remain popular (in fact is still the dominant view) is a similar idea that things that experience the world (humans, frogs, mice) are different from things that don't experience the world (potatoes, rocks, snowflakes).
Is awareness synonymous with consciousness? I’d say it’s like green and turquoise: similar but not identical.
Even if they were lexically identical it’s not the point. Strawson says matter may be minimally aware rather than conscious. Or have a “mental” quality, or some other formulation.
Is an ant conscious, or aware in the same way as a dog? Many would probably say there is a significant difference. Whether you want to describe that difference as between consciousness and awareness, or some other linguistic distinction, the underlying point seems clear enough.
at one time scientists believed that living things and non-living things were made of different material, accounting for the unique properties of living things.
this idea is called vitalism and is no longer popular.
what does remain popular (in fact is still the dominant view) is a similar idea that things that experience the world (humans, frogs, mice) are different from things that don't experience the world (potatoes, rocks, snowflakes).
We can only be sure that living things have consciousness? How can we be sure they have consciousness? Or that nothing else has awareness?
Consciouness necessitates hunger and feeding? Maybe, I don’t know. How can you prove that?
Like I said above, it seems panpsychists like Strawson make a distinction between. consciounesss and awareness. Beetles, flies, and plants may not be conscious, but have different kinds of awareness. Then crystals and atoms different kinds still, who knows?
at one time scientists believed that living things and non-living things were made of different material, accounting for the unique properties of living things.
this idea is called vitalism and is no longer popular.
what does remain popular (in fact is still the dominant view) is a similar idea that things that experience the world (humans, frogs, mice) are different from things that don't experience the world (potatoes, rocks, snowflakes).
I'm not sure the same can be said of crystals or rocks.
I’m not sure either. But the idea is not ridiculous. Is it part of a spectrum, or is there a clear cut off point? Some would place the cut off before trees, or before insects, or some other creatures, for that matter.
The fact is that the only thing we can be absolutely certain about is that we exist. In that sense the experiential precedes the physical. We can be surer that we exist as thinking beings than we can be about the existence of the external world.
The existence of the external world, and its nature as either experiential in character or without awarensss, are matters for speculation.
Plus there’s something a bit troubling about the coherency of materialism taken to its reductionist extreme. Have you ever read Daniel Dennett on consciousness? He argues that consciousness is purely a physical process and consciousness is a sort of illusion. But if we are suffering from an illusion that we exist, then who is suffering the illusion? If we want to talk about nonsensical philosophical positions that would be a better example.
