the law of diminishing returns states: the law of diminishing returns is an economic principle stating that as investment in a particular area increases, the rate of profit from that investment, after a certain point, cannot continue to increase if other variables remain at a constant.
as investment continues past that point, the return diminishes progressively.. from 1900 through the 1980s, the more witnesses that got baptized and pioneered, the more bible studies that could be had and the more additional witnesses that could join and then congregations would get bigger and they would divide and form in other areas.
but in the 1990s the law of diminishing returns kicked in, particularly in the bigger cities.
How many interested people became disinterested after a couple of hours of research?
People like you might do a couple hours research, but most people can't be bothered to spend 10 minutes googling and then assess the credibility of what they are reading. IMO, most people still assess the 'truthiness' of something by how they feel. Religion will be around forever.
video documentary and academic article on the divine name:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljpgxsyiqtc&ab_channel=johnwyatthttps://www.academia.edu/14029315/the_name_of_god_y_eh_ow_ah_which_is_pronounced_as_it_is_written_i_eh_ou_ah_simplified_edition?email_work_card=title this does not prove gods name was present in the nt, however some points do lead us to that conclusion simply by process of elimination.
The pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton according to Gérard Gertoux (jehovahs-witness.com)
I find it funny to say there is a conspiracy to hide the Tetragrammaton then prove this by showing it boldly displayed on countless churches. The topic is much larger than I'm willing to invest in on this post. Suffice it to say the name Yahweh is one of many names of the god in the OT. Many translations use the name. Some of the more famous translations, following the lead of the people who own the book, translate the name into all capital letters as GOD or LORD out of respect. If you have an issue with that, fine, but it's not a conspiracy to hide the name so as to worship Jesus. The WT planted that idea.
folks: this topic might seem a little "out there in left field.
" but it might be something to think about, or perhaps it's something that you have wondered about in the past.
i know that i sometimes wondered about it, , even when i was "in" the jw organization.
Ok, I shot too much from the hip on that last post. The 1 Cor Pauline discussion has been a topic I rehashed some years ago. I repeated a position I held but now question.
In short Paul seems to be arguing about different types of flesh: man, bird, fish, and finally the ultimate type of flesh is an incorruptible type that Christians get to go to heaven with. The lines about 'sown natural raised spiritual' have been most often interpreted to mean 'spirit' but it doesn't really flow from the argument. The word can simply mean of divine or heavenly nature. Similarly, the "flesh and blood cannot enter heaven" may have had a nuanced meaning, merely insisting the usual corruptible human form cannot go. If this is correct, Paul seems to be saying they will have incorruptible glorious but yet physical bodies after a yet future resurrection.
However at Philippians 1:21 For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain. 22 But if I live on in the flesh, this will mean fruit from my labor; yet what I shall choose I 4cannot tell. 23 5For I am hard-pressed between the two, having a ldesire to depart and be with Christ, which is mfar better. 24 Nevertheless to remain in the flesh is more needful for you.
He seems to be rather forcefully suggesting if he was to die he would depart and be with Christ separated from his flesh.
Maybe this all illustrates the confusion.
folks: this topic might seem a little "out there in left field.
" but it might be something to think about, or perhaps it's something that you have wondered about in the past.
i know that i sometimes wondered about it, , even when i was "in" the jw organization.
Early "Jewish" belief in the OT had no problem assuming God and other heavenly beings had physical bodies. They had abilities beyond ours, but they had tangible bodies. Later years this seemed unsophisticated and was denied, but never clarified. Irenaeus for example still insisted the corporeal nature of God as of essential theological importance, image of God, son in image of Father etc.
Regarding human destiny, the Jewish faith evolved over time from having a vague, rather hopeless concept of 'shades', (basically the essence of the person) having a quasi-existence in sheol to a more tangible Persian concept of resurrection of the body, a renewed original body. It was even thought by some the original clothes would be restored. (Humorously the Talmud declares that the bodies of those not buried in Israel will have to tunnel their way there). The Greek influences introduced a more refined immortal soul concept and with it more complex competing conceptions. Some branches of Judaism believed in reincarnation. (Mark 8:27,28 cf. Matt 16:13,14 Matt alters the meaning) The resulting melting pot of ideas produced a variety of beliefs among the Jews of the first century with no consensus felt needed.
Are souls reunited with the body at a future resurrection? is the body subsequently taken to heaven/hell? can the soul be split among different bodies to complete the cleansing process? Is life after death as a spirit form an exchange of bodies or merely a freeing of the soul?
This last question of whether the soul is the body or it requires a body to inhabit, has produced thousands of pages of inquiry. Simply said most writers, including Paul are just not absolutely clear.
Paul seems to be, IMO, straddling theological concepts. He believes a body is necessary, assumedly for sensory perception, and imagines a transformation of one body into another Christlike one. Then it will be reunited/exchanged with a physical body in the resurrection of the just. Others held that the physical body must be discarded and replaced with one made from heavenly materials and that is the final form.
Even more fundamental is the question of what "soul stuff" is made of. Again there is no clear answer. Is the soul itself made up of heavenly material or earthly? Is it immaterial, made of nothing but yet somehow self contained?
Bottom line is there was no limit to the creativity of fertile minds of theologians. When someone like Paul was pressured by Corinthians to explain it, he offered what he saw as logical. We are still trying to figure out what he meant.
video documentary and academic article on the divine name:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljpgxsyiqtc&ab_channel=johnwyatthttps://www.academia.edu/14029315/the_name_of_god_y_eh_ow_ah_which_is_pronounced_as_it_is_written_i_eh_ou_ah_simplified_edition?email_work_card=title this does not prove gods name was present in the nt, however some points do lead us to that conclusion simply by process of elimination.
The film was a backdoor WT production. Everyone involved was a JW. It's full of inaccuracies, misdirection and omissions. Comments like that at 8:50 give away the production agenda. "unbiblical worship of Jesus".
Simply said, there is no conspiracy to conceal the tetragramaton.
Interestingly the video identifies the 'Yah' in the Amunhotep III inscription as "Jehovah". Setting aside the leap in pronunciation, the inscription is describing a people and region south of the land of Cannan. This is one of the many lines of evidence supporting the Kennite Hypothesis that posits Yahweh as being worshipped in Edom/Moab as the storm deity there before his cult being imported north to Israel/Judah.
why do you think many jws are hostile and rude?
or is that just my imagination?.
mark jones writes: the vast majority of jehovah’s witnesses are nice people.
Having doubts and wanting to air them isn't the same as being willing to be insulted and berated. There are many paths toward exiting, some are more meandering. It might be constructive to keep believing JWs posting and let them hear opposing views presented calmly.
here are some things i never really believed the jw taught...i just didn't really examine it closely.
i shelved it, so to speak, thinking no one is perfect and they know more than me...if i ever thought about it at all.. i never believed that only jws would be spared at armageddon.
i never believed the where in james, you went to the elders to confess being spiritually sick-always thought that referred to a real illness.
You used the term 'group think'. That is really the crux of the matter. It's about group identity, tribal loyalty. People do not become or remain JWs or Mormons or Baptists because of doctrine. Doctrine is merely the means of differentiation. I liken it to a language. Language is how we perceive the world and communicate
. But, even though doctrine is a large part of the identity, the group and its promise of 'specialness' is the appeal. This why the line about "nowhere else to go" is so powerful. The group is the safe place, the only place to be. It's only when the group identity no longer fits, does a person accept that there are options.
This why "stumbling" is such a prominent means of membership loss. My views about gravity and round earth are not threatened by my neighbor being a jerk. But my perception of group specialness can be shattered by a member treating me poorly or doing something shocking.
On the other hand, if my individual values change or I grow intellectually incompatible with the group, I'm forced to choose to either hide my true self or become alienated from the group. Unfortunately, even when a person leaves the group, the doctrinal patterns often remain. Like your first language, even after learning a new one, it may linger as the inner voice.
why do you think many jws are hostile and rude?
or is that just my imagination?.
mark jones writes: the vast majority of jehovah’s witnesses are nice people.
Vanderhoven...It was my impression this site was supposed to be a welcoming place of acceptance and interchange of ideas. There is a risk of this place descending into a circle jerk, especially if we make JWs feel unwelcome.
why do you think many jws are hostile and rude?
or is that just my imagination?.
mark jones writes: the vast majority of jehovah’s witnesses are nice people.
Fisherman, while frustratingly blinkered, has never been rude to me.
why do you think many jws are hostile and rude?
or is that just my imagination?.
mark jones writes: the vast majority of jehovah’s witnesses are nice people.
Whatever we say about them was true of us. It may still be.
