I don't know if my original post was clear.
The list of methods and years they were introduced is a direct quote from the new book.
this topic has been discussed before but it is interesting to look at it in the light of the new book god's kingdom rules.. 1903 news paper sermons.
1914 photo drama of creation.
1922 radio.
I don't know if my original post was clear.
The list of methods and years they were introduced is a direct quote from the new book.
i have always had bonkers dreams and i remember a lot of them, even some from my childhood.
i have the common dreams of flying and being chased all the time.
and i used to dream about demons but not for a very long time.. but heres the thing, i often dream that i've been captured and about to be tortured or murdered and the rest of my dream is about me negotiating my freedom and promising all sorts of things if they will only let me go free.
When I was interested in Fritz Perls Gestalt Therapy I used to find his method of analysis useful.
He felt that everything in the dream is YOU. You are the prisoner and the captor.
You might want to create a dialog between the prisoner and the captor.
Captor: "I'm not going to let you go"
Prisoner: "Please... Let.. Me... Go"
This is a classical Top Dog-Underdog scenario.
You need to identify with the power side and figure out what or who you refuse to let go.
Who or what are you clinging to.
Eventually you will realize that you have the power to abandon your captor and take its power back into yourself.
You need to identify your imaginary security tied up with your captor. There is something in your life that you want to free yourself from and at the same time you are afraid of losing your security.
All dreams come down to varieties of this dilemma. You need your enemies for something.
this topic has been discussed before but it is interesting to look at it in the light of the new book god's kingdom rules.. 1903 news paper sermons.
1914 photo drama of creation.
1922 radio.
Sir82:
Right about radio. TV pushed radio out completely by 1955.
Although they have occasionally used TV it was as Blondie mentioned in connection with a convention.
If you were to poll JW's you probably wouldn't find many that have seen a JW TV presentation. Certainly nothing worth of their claimed mission. Especially when you compare it with Pat Robertson's empire.
I suppose the angel in mid heaven could always make the rocks talk as a last resort.
this topic has been discussed before but it is interesting to look at it in the light of the new book god's kingdom rules.. 1903 news paper sermons.
1914 photo drama of creation.
1922 radio.
This topic has been discussed before but it is interesting to look at it in the light of the new book God's Kingdom Rules.
1903 News Paper Sermons
1914 Photo Drama of Creation
1922 Radio
1933 Sound Cars
1936 Placard Work
1954 Motion Pictures
1990 Videos
1997 Internet
2011 Metropolitan Witnessing
What ever happened to TV? TV is still the main source of information for the worlds population.
They skipped over TV. Didn't Jehovah like TV?
Or was he still making up his mind when according to wikipedia:
In 1961, M.G. "Pat" Robertson , son of Virginia United States Senator A. Willis Robertson and an attorney-turned- Southern Baptist minister, purchased the dormant channel 27 license. Under the ownership of Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network , the station returned to the air on October 1 as WYAH-TV , with "YAH" standing for " Yahweh " according to some sources (including Pat Robertson's autobiography, Shout it From the Housetops )
There you have it. Jah's first TV station 1961.
What would the Watchtower look like if they would have broadcast 24-7 around the world with their own satellite or even leased time on a satellite?
Look at how they segue into the internet.
Page 74 of (kr-E) "As the 20th century drew to a close, radio no longer played a primary role in spreading the good news. However another technology emerged that made it possible to reach an audience of unprecedented size"
if the ultimate goal is to reach as many people as possible with the kingdom message, why does the society find it necessary to block any public access to the new dvd?.
could it be because the public will see how vacuous their teachings are?
producing this propaganda is a new low even for them.
All the talk about the JW love affair with technology.
I am just recovering from the 3 day weekend in fantasyland.
I loved the big screen. Gave us a chance to see the "frowning" up close.
I was mesmerised. I couldn't take my eyes off these speakers. There was a complete disconnect between their facial expressions and what they were trying to say.
The incessant jabbing of meaningless emphatic gestures. The absense of descriptive gestures. Give them W's on both.
It also looked like they attended seminars on finger "bullet points".
I filled my iphone with pictures of speakers going through their 5 points holding up the approprite fingers for each point.
I saw a lot of note takers so that must have made them happy. Each time the appropriate fingers went up there was a flurry of writing.
I loved the babies. I enjoyed looking at the cute teenage mothers who married the only oaf available in their northwoods congregation.
I tried to pick out the young people who were attending for their last time. Also saw a lot of old people that were attending for their last time.
robert j ingersoll on the great voltaire:.
"it has been claimed by the christian critics that voltaire was irreverent; that he examined sacred things without solemnity; that he refused to remove his shoes in the presence of the burning bush; that he smiled at the geology of moses, the astronomical ideas of joshua, and that the biography of jonah filled him with laughter.
they say that these stories, these sacred impossibilities, these inspired falsehoods, should be read and studied with a believing mind in humbleness of spirit; that they should be examined prayerfully, asking god at the same time to give us strength to triumph over the conclusions of our reason.
DJS:
I nominate you Farkel2.0
robert j ingersoll on the great voltaire:.
"it has been claimed by the christian critics that voltaire was irreverent; that he examined sacred things without solemnity; that he refused to remove his shoes in the presence of the burning bush; that he smiled at the geology of moses, the astronomical ideas of joshua, and that the biography of jonah filled him with laughter.
they say that these stories, these sacred impossibilities, these inspired falsehoods, should be read and studied with a believing mind in humbleness of spirit; that they should be examined prayerfully, asking god at the same time to give us strength to triumph over the conclusions of our reason.
I take it all back. I looked at some of my old posts and I have done my share of mocking.
Never mind.
However, there is mocking and then there is mocking!
apparently jwd has lost all their moles.. hasn't anyone even been to a convention?.
usually we know in advance..
SIR: Yep. I just found that too. JWD record of insider information continues.
Not too much to get excited about. (Not that I really am excited)
Glad I don't have to read through a couple books.
apparently jwd has lost all their moles.. hasn't anyone even been to a convention?.
usually we know in advance..
Apparently JWD has lost all their moles.
Hasn't anyone even been to a convention?
Usually we know in advance.
robert j ingersoll on the great voltaire:.
"it has been claimed by the christian critics that voltaire was irreverent; that he examined sacred things without solemnity; that he refused to remove his shoes in the presence of the burning bush; that he smiled at the geology of moses, the astronomical ideas of joshua, and that the biography of jonah filled him with laughter.
they say that these stories, these sacred impossibilities, these inspired falsehoods, should be read and studied with a believing mind in humbleness of spirit; that they should be examined prayerfully, asking god at the same time to give us strength to triumph over the conclusions of our reason.
Vidiot:
Let's take a closer look at your "ridiculous" maxim.
If ANYONE says ridiculous things then they deserve to be ridiculed.
What if the person is a child in the company of adults? The child says something that is absurd. Therefore the adults ought to poke fun of him?
What if a person is unsophisticated and says something that is out of synch with their sophisticated associates. The group ought to laugh at them?
What if a person is from another country and gets his wording mixed up so the meaning of their expression is odd. Should someone say "don't you mean (...fill in the blank) Ha Ha Ha.
Ridicule is a gleeful condemnation of an individual. Ridicule is not directed at the words a person says or a particular assertion - it is a cruel mean spirited attack on the person.
Those who engage in ridicule are trying to return evil for evil. Ridicule dehumanizes individuals. It is a prelude to murder, assault, and war.