Yes, I believe that a lot of Witness doctrine has its roots in Seventh-Day Adventism. I think that a lot of very early Witnesses [when they were still known as "Bible Students] were influenced by Adventist thinking. It all goes back to the mid and late nineteenth century.
Rapunzel
JoinedPosts by Rapunzel
-
11
Is the JW religion slowly turning into 7th Day Adventist?
by White Dove ina friend of mine says they seem to be.
her sister sent a memorial invitation and said, "will you be going to the memorial of christ's death?
" she said that the use of "christ" was strange.
-
-
-
28
Funniest Meeting Memories
by YoungAmerican inthere are always so many bad memories related here i thought it might be nice to change it up a bit.
what are some of your funniestmemories of the meetings, or even field service?
things that happened things said?
-
-
Rapunzel
Young American - Perhaps it is my lack of humor [and please excuse me if this is the case], but I really fail to see how an elderly woman's accidently humiliating herself could be construed as "hilarious." In my opinion, the snickering and giggles on the part of the "youths" in the congregation was an example of what the Germans call schadenfreude, or "malicious glee." The word refers to enjoyment at the expense of another's suffering or pain.
In my opinion, the witness who helped the elderly woman and escorted her back to the bathroom was the one who showed a modicum of human decency, compassion and honor. What if that elderly woman had been related to you, your grandmother or great-grandmother, perhaps? Would you have found it equally amusing if she had been one of your family members? What if she was suffering form Alzheimer's disease or some other mental impairment? Would you have found a wheelchair-bound person or a blind person equally amusing?
You call yourself "young american," but you won't be young forever. I just hope that you never find yourself in a situation similar to the "hilarious" one that you describe. May you never, as an eldely person, find yourself in a position where others get their enjoyment at the expense of your humiliation and pain. I'm no particular "fan" of the Bible, but, in my opinion, it does contain some words of wisdom. I particularly appreciate its admonishments to show respect for one's elders.
-
168
Athiest or Agnostic?
by real one inhow can one be considered an athiest?
athiest means you believe god does not exist.
agnostic means you don't know if god really exist.
-
-
Rapunzel
The term agnostic is derived from the Greek prefix, a [meaning "lacking" or "without"] and gnosis [meaning "knowledge']. So, an agnostic is anyone lacking knowledge [about the existence or non-existence of God]. If a person accepts Kant's definition of knowledge as a subjectively and objectively sufficient degree of assent, then everyone - whether theist or non-theist - is indeed an agnostic. As Kant could arguably be considered the greatest "modern" [post-Renaissance] philosopher of the Western world, I would tend to grant his ideas some legitimacy.
-
168
Athiest or Agnostic?
by real one inhow can one be considered an athiest?
athiest means you believe god does not exist.
agnostic means you don't know if god really exist.
-
-
Rapunzel
In his Critique of Pure Reason, Immanuel Kant distinguished between three different degrees of belief and consent -
1.) opinion, which admits that it is both subjectively and objectively insufficient
2.) faith [or conviction], which is subjectively sufficient, but not objectively sufficient
3.) knowledge, which is both subjectively and objectively sufficient.
On the question of God's existence, both believers and non-believers alike will fall into either category number one or number two. That is to say that their position or stance will range from an opinion to a strongly held conviction concerning the existence or the non-existence of God. However, no lucid, sane, rational person can claim to have knowledge - a subjectively and objectively sufficient credence - about the existence or non-existence of God. This is becuase it is impossible to have objectively sufficient credence in regard to the existence, or the non-existence, of God. The key word here is objective. People have a right to their subjectively and objectively insufficient opinions. Moreover, they have the right to profess subjectively sufficient, but objectively insufficient, convictions or "faith." However, a caveat should be extended when people start to proclaim a subjectively and objectively sufficient knowledge [as defined by Kant] of God.
Many believers in the "Almighty" will glady claim that they don't believe in Zeus, or Athena, or Isis, etc. Well, to them I offer the following definition of the word atheist - An atheist is simply someone who believes in one god less than you believe in.
-
9
Professor wins Templeton prize for maths link to God
by BurnTheShips infascinating!
i highlighted a couple of parts i agree with:.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3540989.ece.
-
-
Rapunzel
The Templeton Prize is to the Nobel Prize what The Onion is to serious journalism. When I read that the person in question "specialises in mathematics and metaphysics," I really thought that the article was an exerpt from TheOnion. To say that someone specialises in mathematics and metaphysics is like saying that someone specialises in astronomy and astrology.
A big problem is with the term metaphysics itself. Its meaning is far from clear; or rather, people use the word to refer to highly divergent concepts. The word metaphysics goes back to Aristotle who wrote books on many subjects. The terrm literally refers to the books of Aristotle after those on physics. In these books [the books that Aristotle wrote after he considered the subject of physics], Aristotle deals with the concept of Being or Existence. As such, the word metaphysics is essentially the same as the word ontology. In his books following the ones on physics, Aristotle grapples with ontology, the "science" of being.
A problem occurs for the reason that, in popular usage, the word metaphysics/metaphysical is often confused with the word supernatural. It'sprecisely at this point that many problems occur. People use the word "God" when they encounter an insurmountable obstacle in comprehension. No one - no science - can define God. And while no one can disprove the existence of God, neither can anyone prove it. "God" is simply a name that people give to the unknown. Science deals with phenomena that are known [if at least relatively so] or knowable.
-
34
Remember the term: Heavy petting.
by odie67 ini guess that would include tongue kissing, touching etc....the things two people do when they dig each other.
heavy petting was a huge no no!.
i remember sitting in front of three elders as a teenager spilling my guts about how i kissed this boy.
-
-
Rapunzel
I googled it. It was defined as "caressing; affectionate play; or foreplay without contact with genitals." It's strange how it's a lot more fun doing it than defining it.I'm not sure how long the term has been in usage. I just know that it is most definitely not a term that the Witnesses concocted.
-
16
The Watchtower poistion on Earthquakes, help please!
by alexb123 ini have been researching the wt's position on earthquakes and i am a little confused.
it appear that the wt is now not saying that earthquakes have become more common since 1914. for example on the wt site it is stated that
earthquakes.
-
-
Rapunzel
Yes, I can. The current position of the Watchtower society on earthquakes is somewhat shaky. Get it? Somewhat shaky!! In the words of Kiekegaard, it's enough to induce fear and trembling!! Ha Ha. I bet that pun is enough to send people rocking in the aisles!!! But as for those who don't believe, I wonder if the organization's arguments are enough to sway opinion.
-
5
Another flip flop to note.
by hamsterbait inin his talk "peace - can it last?
" nh knorr said that the league of nations would emerge after the war as the united nations.. it was fulfilment of the revelation, that the beast "was but is not, yet is about to ascend out of the abyss.
yet the earlier interpretation was that the beast came into existence when the court of international justice was founded at the hague in 1903 (?06?)..
-
-
Rapunzel
You may want to consult a three-volume study of the book of Revelations by an author named Aune. Since the writer of Revelations was writing, what was essentially, a political attack targeted at the Roman Empire, I would suppose that the passage in question somehow can be associated with Rome. What's certain is that the writer of Revelations had Rome as his "target." The author of Revelations was a an apocalypticist; he wrote in the apocalyptic genre of literature. Of course, at that time, much of the "known" world was under Roman control. The Jews living in that time, in that part of the world, were - for the most part - unwillingly subjected to Roman domination.
-
3
The New Road
by winnower in.
check out this super highway.. it goes direct from canada to mexico, via the midwest usa.. what's this about foreign interests obtaining 99 year leases on usa toll roads???.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=das7xzvgkhi.
-
-
Rapunzel
troll
-
135
CONFIRMED Book Study amalgamated with the TMS and SM
by yesidid in.
old timers on the board may remember that i was the first to mention the november 06 blood insert in the km.. http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/121104/1.ashx.
the same very, very reliable source has confirmed that the book study will be amalgamated with the tms and sm.. this same source recently had a long and private conversation with a gb member.
-
-
Rapunzel
I would like to know why do you think that the Governing Body is "tweaking" the scheduling of meetings? They have been shortening here, combining there. Why are they altering the meetings' schedule, do you think? What could their ulterior motives be? What are the real resons behind the "reasons"?