Posts by slimboyfat

39

Only baptised JWs will make it?

by ExBethelitenowPIMA in

i think it was a john cedars video or someone else’s where the point was brought up that only baptised jws will be saved?

then one talk about kids of baptised jws hope they will make it but even them don’t know.

most jws probably think that some good people who are not baptised may make it through, but this is not official teaching?.

slimboyfat

I’ve encountered a whole spectrum of views among JWs on this. Some think you need to get baptised to be sure of being saved. This was sometimes used to pressure people young people or Bible studies who were delaying baptism. Others think interested ones will be saved if not yet baptised. Others think that “honest hearted” ones who haven’t heard the good news (such as in China) might be saved by Jehovah.

On the flip side I’ve heard others assume that only JWs will make it, but that only a proportion of JWs will be judged worthy and make it into the new system - maybe a half, two thirds, or one third, depending on the view of their fellow brothers and sisters. One sister used to say “half of us are here to try the other half”, meaning that only around half of JWs will be saved at Armageddon, and the function of the other half who won’t make it is to serve as a test of faith, presumably by their behaviour and antics, for the other faithful half.

In terms of official Watchtower teaching, they are all over the place too. Some Watchtowers imply that baptism is required for salvation. Others say that Jehovah is the judge and it is not for us to say. They have also flip-flopped on the issue of whether unbaptised children of JWs will survive Armageddon, at times implying that they might not, and and other times implying that they would. I don’t think they currently have a firm ruling on the issue in print, but certain talks in recent years have revisited a hardline attitude.

11530

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

by Newly Enlightened in

original reddit post (removed).

slimboyfat

It could be a jurisdictional matter, or it could be something way worse and they told him he was reading the law wrong.

Or worse than that. If anybody in the process caught sight of his livestream, didn’t he confess to actual crimes in Croatian law in that video, because prostitution is illegal in Croatia? Might he not face legal consequences himself?

54

Is AI going to change the world?

by Reasonfirst in

jw
friends

had lunch with a friend, whose a lecturer in the accounting dept.

of one of australia's best universities.

he told me he expects to lose his job at some point in the next 5 years, as the accounting dept, will disappear, as all accounting will be done by ai programs, so why teach it.. if his fears are correct, that means that any profession that involves the mind, may one day face the same future.

slimboyfat

I don’t see how AI won’t develop beyond human intelligence at some point.

AI experts such as Geoffrey Hinton say they have been surprised how fast AI has developed in recent years and expect to see superhuman level intelligence in years rather than decades.

Many who who have studied it for a long time such as Max Tegmark say that humans are not ready for superhuman AI and it will probably lead to extinction. He says he has a new son and wonders how old he will live to be before this happens.

I’ve read quite a bit about this over the past few months and I don’t see much ground for optimism. Every answer you can think of, such as “we can just turn it off”, or “why would AI want to kill us anyway?” unfortunately have good counter arguments.

In conclusion humans may go extinct because of AI within 10 years or so. The only ways I can see to avoid this include:

1) humans voluntarily and unanimously agree worldwide not to develop AI with no exceptions anywhere

2) there is a God who steps in and saves humans from themselves (as he reportedly did in the past at Babel)

3) aliens with ability to control super intelligent AI save us

4) there is a devastating worldwide war before AI reaches super intelligence and human technology is knocked back centuries

5) the majority of experts in AI have are mistaken about how close we are to super intelligence

6) super intelligence turns out unexpectedly to be automatically aligned to human goals and wellbeing

In short I think humans are probably doomed in the short to medium term.

Max Tegmark below tries to put a brave face on it saying that regulation may solve the problem. He has elsewhere acknowledged how hard that will be in practice and the trajectory so far of releasing AI is not encouraging. It needs to succeed everywhere and always. Any instance of super human intelligence surfacing is likely to lead to extinction. People have likened it to handing everyone on the planet a nuclear bomb and then relying on regulation and persuasion so that no one uses them.

https://youtu.be/O9FX6b2ZE7g

11530

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

by Newly Enlightened in

original reddit post (removed).

slimboyfat

Called back like the doctor from Voyager if somebody needs him? Like who? How? He could be waiting a long time.

He had a family who needed a father and a husband, and I suppose, way down the list, online followers who needed someone with a bare minimum of ethics to be a front man for the cause. Instead he booked the girlfriend experience and beamed off to the other side of the planet. The idea that people will be calling on him in their hour of need in future is another of his outlandish fantasies. I like Star Trek and sci-fi too but this guy lives in his own dream world.

11530

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

by Newly Enlightened in

original reddit post (removed).

slimboyfat

Hi Lloyd 👋

Your self pity post on Twitter didn’t get much response huh? 😢

11

John 5:27 and Harners thesis

by Blotty in

conclusion to harners thesis: https://digilander.libero.it/domingo7/h7.jpg.

in 1973 a scholar by the name of philip b harner published an article in the journal of biblical literature that would be "revolutionary" he concluded that anarthorous predicate nouns preceeding the verb were primarily qualitative in nature.. in my view harner was correct, though he didn't agree with the "a god" rendering he also disliked the "god" rendering in john 1:1c providing an alternative which bibles like the net have paraphrased (to my knowledge).

one he didn't cover in his thesis was john 5:27 i would say this "authoratative" why?

slimboyfat

The Jewish Philo of Alexandria did not believe in such a secondary god, and Justin and Origen did not believe either

I guess I’m mildly curious, but not in any doubt that you’ll find a way to contradict the clear statements of Philo, Justin Martyr, and Origen that the Word is a second god inferior to God.

Very appropriately and without any falsehood was this oracular sentence uttered by God, for no mortal thing could have been formed on the similitude of the supreme Father of the universe, but only after the pattern of the second deity, who is the Word of the supreme Being; since it is fitting that the rational soul of man should bear it the type of the divine Word; since in his first Word God is superior to the most rational possible nature. But he who is superior to the Word holds his rank in a better and most singular pre-eminence, and how could the creature possibly exhibit a likeness of him in himself? Philo, Questions and Answers on Genesis II, 62
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book42.html

11530

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

by Newly Enlightened in

original reddit post (removed).

slimboyfat

The whole idea was laughable from the start. I can’t even make sense of what he thought his so-called “case” was all about. He never explained what he was really accusing people of, because there was nothing to it, literally nothing but bluster and bluffs, the pattern of his whole life really, so it seems.

26

Is WT Using ATTENDANTS At The Conventions To Be: "TOY COPS"

by HiddlesWife in

i have heard from a few ppimis and several pimos that the attendants who are stationedly-assigned to the front entrances of the borgvenues (cahs and other arenas) have been checking to see if any persons (members and non-member visitors) have badges.

on the other hand, if these persons don't have one, this is what i was told that these dubs do this: corral around the non-badge-wearing individual and interrogate he/she/them plus questioning them, "why are you here?!".

also, even if that person or persons have an invitation plus showed it to these dubs, these toy cops still do that procedure.

slimboyfat

Why are you going? If you don’t have a badge then I think they insist on giving you one after asking you some questions. I don’t think you’re allowed in these days without a badge.

If they were really serious about inviting people with the invitations then you’d think they might mention the badge requirement somewhere on the invitation. As it is vanishingly few people turn up because of the invitations so it’s not a big issue.

11530

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

by Newly Enlightened in

original reddit post (removed).

slimboyfat

Excellent interview here with older people who left the Witnesses and their experience on the “truth hurts” channel.

Why anyone would waste their time watching the garbage videos LE puts out when there are interesting videos like this to watch is a pure mystery. 🤔

https://youtu.be/CwmofR9LxDQ

11

John 5:27 and Harners thesis

by Blotty in

conclusion to harners thesis: https://digilander.libero.it/domingo7/h7.jpg.

in 1973 a scholar by the name of philip b harner published an article in the journal of biblical literature that would be "revolutionary" he concluded that anarthorous predicate nouns preceeding the verb were primarily qualitative in nature.. in my view harner was correct, though he didn't agree with the "a god" rendering he also disliked the "god" rendering in john 1:1c providing an alternative which bibles like the net have paraphrased (to my knowledge).

one he didn't cover in his thesis was john 5:27 i would say this "authoratative" why?

slimboyfat

Jewish and Hellenistic culture referred to subordinate divine beings as “gods” and it is clear that John was using the word in this sense, the same as Philo, and later Justin Martyr, Origen and others, to refer to a “second god” or “divine being” who is subordinate the one true God.

Any fair reading of the gospel of John as a whole results in the conclusion that Jesus is distinct and subordinate to God.

Jesus said plainly in John 17.3 that the Father is “the only true God”. It is stretching language and logic beyond what it can bear to assert that what Jesus really meant is: “you are the only true God and so am I.” Has anyone who has ever said “you are the only (something)” ever meant to imply that they themselves are that something as well? Nobody reading the gospel of John without any knowledge of Trinitarian dogma would ever reach that conclusion by themselves. It’s complete nonsense.