a friend from the other end of the country just 'phoned and told me that a couple of days ago two elders knocked on his door.
he has been out for four or more years.. they told him it was c.o's visit, and the governing body have asked them to call on those whom they no longer see at the k.hall.. i guess this is an easier "field" than knocking on doors that never open, or where they are told "not interested".. my friend bill though, was not such an easy call.
apparently he managed to get in about 1914 being rubbish, the bible not being the word of god, because we cannot trust it, 1919 being rubbish as to the choosing of the fds and several other telling points.. i liked particularly that he said to them they were rather hypocritical asking householders to examine their faith, when jw's were simply not allowed to !.
I suspect the GB see it as a win-win for the society.
Every salesman knows that your existing customer base are the first ones to go to with new products. So by going back on inactive ones they may just strike a cord and get them reactivated.
On the other hand, it may also force the inactive one into expressing views that mean they can take more formal action thus isolating those that perhaps are inactive but perhaps having a negative (in their eyes) influence on family and friends.
see the article here:.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/04/18/the_wellcome_trust_is_funding_research_to_make_human_blood_from_stem_cells.html.
blood could become much less scarce if a british research group succeeds in bringing a version made from stem cells to human trials, and eventually to market.
I can see your point NoApologies and I would agree there is no simmering rebellion about blood in the ranks. What there is however is an institutional inability to just drop certain doctrines. The irony is that they can change things like the generations over and over again, modify the F&DS etc. yet cannot bring themselves to bring some sense to the table on blood, birthdays and so on.
I do think that the hubris and pride in the upper echelons of the organisation prevents them moving unless reality forces an issue. I am still of the opinion that the potential legal risks also play a part in the reluctuance to simply drop the blood restriction but can see an argument on why there could be alternative views on the impact of this on their intransigence.
see the article here:.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/04/18/the_wellcome_trust_is_funding_research_to_make_human_blood_from_stem_cells.html.
blood could become much less scarce if a british research group succeeds in bringing a version made from stem cells to human trials, and eventually to market.
Hi talesin,
I certainly accept your first hand experience of this. Vidiot's link is also interesting reading. I guess the one thing we can agree on is that the society will continue to allow as many things as possible on a conscience basis without ever officially stopping the no blood rule.
tied-in... the talk is given live in one place and relayed to screens in other locations.
It used to be just audio. Now it's just like the telly with pictures and everything.
tied-in... the talk is given live in one place and relayed to screens in other locations.
It used to be just audio. Now it's just like the telly with pictures and everything.
tied-in... the talk is given live in one place and relayed to screens in other locations.
It used to be just audio. Now it's just like the telly with pictures and everything.
see the article here:.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/04/18/the_wellcome_trust_is_funding_research_to_make_human_blood_from_stem_cells.html.
blood could become much less scarce if a british research group succeeds in bringing a version made from stem cells to human trials, and eventually to market.
They did it with organ transplants, and no lawsuits that I know of. The blood issue has been a thorn in the side of the WTBTS for a long time. It's the only thing that many people know about the b'Org. I think they will jump at the chance to make this a conscience issue.
I wasn't really around to know first hand but what I have gleaned on the suggests that organ transplants were a much less contentious issue. Anyone with more first hand experience please feel free to correct me, but less people were directly affected than with blood. There was not a perception in society that not accepting an organ transplant was crazy, in fact a reasonable proportion of society would likely have felt they would not have wanted someone else's organs in them.
The other factor is that the intervening years have seen a vast increase in civil litigation. Society is far more litigious, settlement figures far higher and lawyers more willing to take on claims on a no win no fee basis than it was 20, 30 let alone 40 years ago. The increase in the numbers of Witnesses with the associated increase in the numbers of lives ruined by taking a stand the blodd issue and the numbers of embittered ex-Witnesses only raises the stakes far beyond the risks the society had 40+ years ago.
Imagine a group action against the society....
It's far easier to let technology make the whole thing a conscience matter and in 10 years time it won't even be an issue.
as many may be aware.
i don't like the man.
but i have chosen to review the first chapter of his book.. chapter 1... only a theory?.
If by a "geography denier" Kate means someone who subscribes to the flat-earth view point then Dawkins has addressed them as well...
No, we are here talking about the fact of evolution itself, a fact that is proved utterly beyond reasonable doubt. To claim equal time for creation science in biology classes is about as sensible as to claim equal time for the flat-earth theory in astronomy classes. Or, as someone has pointed out, you might as well claim equal time in sex education classes for the stork theory. It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).
If that gives you offence, I'm sorry. You are probably not stupid, insane or wicked; and ignorance is no crime in a country with strong local traditions of interference in the freedom of biology educators to teach the central theorem of their subject.
Also, one of the few highlights for JWs, the drama has been reduced to a mere video.. Not that they were any good anyways but they seem to have gone the route of the live orchestra and piano player. More sterile, more uniform, more soulless. How long before the entire program is all videoed in? More control this way..
I can see this happening IF they do away with hiring venues for large conventions and simply use the assembly halls and large hall complexes for smaller but essentially pre-recorded regional assemblies. I can't see them doing away with 1 day of the CA for nothing...
Well, the prediction in here was right, the dramas are now pre recorded video!
It seeems like most all of it is video. surpIZE surPRIZE surPRIZE
Bear in mind this is referring to the stage and programme at the Excel in London (and possibly/probably other venues across the UK). This is a secondary indoor venue which will take feeds from the main event at Twickenham. The VIPs will be live and in the flesh in West London only to be beamed as if by magic to the enthralled throngs in East London.
It will be interesting to see if the dramas are video at Twickenham however....
OK, perhaps not that interesting...
