august 2015 awake .
quote in title taken from article footnote.. anyone have information on who gene hwang and yan-der hsuuw in the article are?.
why do they repeatedly state that apes turned to humans when that's not what evolutionists teach at all?.
The genome of men is more similar to the genome of apes than to the genome of women.
I use that to excuse my sense of humor and behavior on many occasions.
Hi Billy,
Does this not depend on how you count the similarities in base pairs rather than genes and it's really the genes that matter? Plus I thought it was women and female chimps that were closer and even then only on the basis that you accept a 98.7% similarity in base pairs as opposed to 95% that has been proposed in more recent years?
worst day in the last ten years, was the day i hit 0.00 with one and a half years of university to go.
nobody to turn to, nobody to ask for help.
i was 32 and as an ex jw had two family members in contact with me.
so, i was thinking - who of the above still has the most influence on current wts doctrine and dogma?.
rutherford obviously created the smokescreen around 1914/607 but overall his work has been superseded i would suggest.. knorr created the various schools and they or their offspring still live on.
wasn't it during his tenure that all the blood doctrine, types/anti types (now chucked away of course), transplants etc came along?
so, i was thinking - who of the above still has the most influence on current wts doctrine and dogma?.
rutherford obviously created the smokescreen around 1914/607 but overall his work has been superseded i would suggest.. knorr created the various schools and they or their offspring still live on.
wasn't it during his tenure that all the blood doctrine, types/anti types (now chucked away of course), transplants etc came along?
So, I was thinking - who of the above still has the most influence on current WTS doctrine and dogma?
Rutherford obviously created the smokescreen around 1914/607 but overall his work has been superseded I would suggest.
Knorr created the various schools and they or their offspring still live on. Wasn't it during his tenure that all the blood doctrine, types/anti types (now chucked away of course), transplants etc came along? The elder arrangement came in under him as well.
Franz has the reputation for being the self appointed scholar but how much of the doctrine really changed under his command?
Lots has changed but lots hasn't either and the WTS has simply gone quiet on a number of fronts. Whose reign, doctrinal changes and processes has the most ongoing legacy now?
http://www.jw.org/en/publications/jw-convention-releases-2015/.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gc7cyswlvwg.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfmuamqiv4k.
The aim of the Return to Jehovah publication is to capture those that have not really awoken to the TTATT but have faded (or otherwise) simply because of circumstance. I have a family member who was out for 10 years that came back a year or so ago. She had never mentally left, just found the routine too much at a certain point in her life. She never really stopped believing. It is these ones that the WTS want to grab back through a combination of guilt and fear.
They do not care one bit about those that have left because of issues with the doctrine and practices of the religion. They are not interested in addressing serious questions about the glaring holes in prophecy, clear disconnects between Bible stories and the scientific truth, issues around child protection and so on.
This is not some watering down of the attitude towards unrepentant disfellowshipped ones or those who can no longer stomach the disregard for honest hearted questioning. The only way that they hold onto a large proportion of the membership is through social pressure - the fear of exclusion for simply disagreeing. Lose that tool and they lose the game.
your thoghts racially not oily
Unless you were asking about Rachel Riley?! Oh please god let's have a thread about Rachel Riley!!
Please no. I am on another (non JW) forum that has a VERY long and ongoing thread on Rachel Riley and once started cannot be stopped :-)
if we are in the congregation, do you think our comments or questions actually reach elders or others in the congregation?
do our comments on this board affect witnesses to the point of questioning their faith?
I would say there are a handful of sites that, once you start questioning, play a big part in educating and informing one on the other side of the "truth". jwfacts, this site, jwstruggle, 607v587.com, jwsurvey. Youtube is very good as well if you pick your posters. I personally really like apostachick and jwpodcast. I think reddit is good for some but I don't really use it.
For me the other sites are more secular like those debunking {EDIT} creationism (not evolution!), the Flood etc were also pivotal in helping me get over my mental reasoning blocks.
in the past i have read on this forum that the wt have a say in the "bedroom" of couples.
i thought that was a bit overkill at first, but recently i have come to conclusion that this is true.. the control administered by the wt cooperation on ones sex life is not on only intrusive, its damaging.
they control every aspect of ones thought and action, thus leading most down a path that said corporation wants them to tread.. this path is to get married young, and then eternal loyalty the the organisation.. so how can an organisation force you to get married young?.
Hi Brock - you are spot on. If people are getting married to the wrong partners then you have to ask why and the pressure to conform to the WTS view of morals and who might make a good marriage partner are critical factors in this, as your post describes.
The slight irony in this is that you could argue from an objective perspective that the WTS advice on dating actually does carry some sensible advice. Ignoring the views on sexual conduct and the "spiritual qualifications" then much of what is left of what the WTS says could be decent, secular advice such as discouraging rushing into a relationship, doing so at a young age, ignoring the warning signs of a poor relationship, papering over severely bad personality traits, looking only at physical attractiveness, developing good communication patterns etc.
The problem for the WTS is that all of this "good" advice gets swamped by fact that the majority of the young people it is aimed at are hormones on sticks, have no other outlet for their feelings other than pursuing them and do not have other things to focus their attention on such as getting a good education.
I don't think it is breaking news that choosing the right life partner whatever your beliefs is not an exact science. I have no doubt that the circumstances peculiar to Jehovah's Witnesses adds yet more complexity to this. All the issues and factors you mention have as much resonance now as they would have done 20 or 40 years ago. When I look at the marriages I know that have failed then the culture of dating in the WTS has contributed to people getting married that otherwise almost certainly would not have done. Naturally the problems in the physical, emotional and personal aspects of the relationship are all intertwined but going on the numerous breakups I have witnessed over the years, I cannot point at one where more pre-marital sex or what has (or has not) gone on in the bedroom could really be said to be at the heart of matter.
At the end of the day, however, what you posted is absolutely food for thought and I really hope that there are young people who read it and take notice of the massive impact that looking for love inside the constraints of a WT courtship could have.
is now really putting the pressure on j.w.
's to "encourage" their pre-pubescent children to "dedicate" themselves to the org by being baptized!.
not only does the bible dismiss such a false directive, the org's own insight book dismisses the suggestion that such young ones are mentally able to make such a decision!
It's coming out through implication in videos directed at kids as well as accounts of young ones being baptised at 10,11,12 during speeches by GB and senior WTS elders at branch visits and conventions. The last example of this is Mark Sanderson talking about a 9 year old being baptised during the branch visit in Germany.
i see an attitude among some people here which is not very helpful.
i can understand it, but still, it's not constructive or helpful.. if you condemn the society for not changing, but then you also condemn them when they do change in a positive way, what incentive or motive does that provide for the people at the society to ever want to change for the better?.
also, what does that attitude look like to current witnesses who are having doubts?.
Oh and PLEASE read Terry's latest thread. It's brilliant.
