Posts by TonusOH

38

Have JW `s ever faced the topic of Jesus having inherited Adamic sin ?

by smiddy3 in

according to the bible all humans male and female have inherited sin because of adam and eve`s disobedience to god .. god may have impregnated mary with a life force , however it was still sinful mary who gave birth to jesus after nine months in her body who is /was supposedly without sin ?.

mary must have passed on some of her sinful state to jesus having been in her womb for the past nine months , surely.

and there is nothing in the bible / scripture to say otherwise ?.

TonusOH

According to the Bible, God created Adam from dust and dirt. Which means that he would have created the genetic material and added it to the figure that he had formed. Which is to say that God can simply add all of the necessary genetic material to anyone (and even, in Adam's case, anything).

There is nothing that would prevent God from doing the same with Jesus. The concern that this would somehow invalidate the lineage does not take into account that God miraculously inseminating a woman already invalidated the lineage, in the technical sense. But if the lineage was just a way of identifying the Messiah, then it works no matter how his DNA was structured.

Unless we think that the same God who breathed the universe and all of its complexity into existence was somehow baffled over how to handle inherited sin when he transferred a part of himself into a human form.

4

No Small Change.

by Lost in the fog in

https://fundraising.co.uk/2022/08/24/charity-commission-data-shows-mass-merger-of-over-1000-jehovahs-witness-congregations/.

TonusOH

So, that's why they went through with consolidating control of the KHs:

records show that Kingdom Hall Trust’s (KHT) income has risen significantly. In 2019, it was £6.66mn, jumping to £104.41mn in 2020, before reaching £133.23mn for the financial year ending 31 August 2021.

There was a lot of money sitting out there, just out of reach. Not anymore!

21

question for those who either aux pioneered pioneered

by enoughisenough in

how many of you would have spent the hours "pioneering" if it weren't for the pats on the back and being looked up to as someone special in the congregation?

i will admit that back in late 1970's i attempted to aux pioneer during a campaign because it was promoted and seemed the right thing to do,but i didn't get the hours and it was stressful trying to...and i didn't feel like a cheerful giver.

i never attempted it again.

TonusOH

I think that's interesting, Stephane. So often, the preaching work felt automated. We had a script, we made a sales pitch to the person who opened the door, and we hoped to leave a pamphlet, a magazine or perhaps even a book. I don't think many of us thought of having an engaging conversation at the door. Granted, for me this was in tall apartment buildings in the projects. But we rarely tried to engage in simple conversation with people on the street, for example. I guess that is what happens when we're taught to stay separate from anyone who wasn't one of us.

Would it have been better to spend an hour speaking to two or three people, or quickly hopping from door-to-door to leave some magazines? From a perspective of making the community better, the first option seems like the right one. But from a reporting perspective, a 'good' witness would leave magazines and books and maybe generate a return visit or two. So the rapid-fire assembly line approach was what we did. God wanted mercy, not sacrifices. I think Jehovah would have preferred that we reach people one at a time, instead of wondering how our service report would look at the end of each month.

11530

It's been a long 9 years Lloyd Evans / John Cedars

by Newly Enlightened in

original reddit post (removed).

TonusOH

I think he knows he's not at any risk. All he has done is what amounts to filing a complaint that some people said defamatory things. I am betting that he doesn't mention any of the true things said about him, since that would be risky for reasons you pointed out (he is on video admitting to crimes). He is probably accusing them of making allegations of CSA. He knows that the court will not pursue the case, since it is outside of their jurisdiction. They will throw it out, and he will say the justice system failed him (he has already griped about how slow his lawyers and the court have been in dealing with the case).

Once that happens, he will have around two years where he can threaten to file a civil suit before he actually has to do so. He will either file another sham suit, or he will make some excuse about why it makes no sense to do so, even though he promised Kim he would never stop pursuing it. He can only put the inevitable off for so long.

24

Becoming a JW

by Mum in

jw
friends

i rarely post here, but i often check in.

i used to post on h2o as well.

i think i once posted some of this on h2o, but there are many new ones who have joined since then.. i first encountered jw's at the age of 9. it wasn't in the door-to-door work, however.

TonusOH

I don't think Russell taught that 1874 would be the end, but that it was when Christ ascended to the throne (ie, his 'presence' instead of his 'coming'). This was not an original idea- the Millerites had dealt with the disappointment of failed end-times predictions in 1843 and 1844 by making the same claim, that they had 'expected the wrong thing at the right time.' But he did make clear that he expected 1914 to be the end of Armageddon, not the beginning of the end times.

Rutherford predicted the end in -if I am not mistaken- 1918, 1920, 1925, and 1941. The WTS hinted strongly at a possible end in the early 50s, and seemed to have learned their lesson until Franz's end-of-world itch got so bad that he could not help but scratch it, and thus 1975 became the next expected date of the end. From then on, they have preferred to tell us, over and over, that the end is closer than we expect. Or really really close. Or super duper close. And so on.

43

Watchtower looses Norwegian Appeal

by Diogenesister in

watchtower has just lost its appeal in the norwegian courts over the withdrawal of the funding it receives from the government as an officially recognised religion.

the initial decision will now stand due to what the court termed 'exclusionary practices' which includes the witnesses barbaric practice of shunning minors, even by family members in their own homes.

the ministry of children and families have decided they are now no longer eligible for the state grant of 16 million norwegian kroner given to officially recognised religions.. the following is a statement has been issued, i have summarised if it isn't readable: .

TonusOH

They would say that the money given them by the Norwegian government was an act of God on the WTS's behalf. Then they would say that this adverse judgment is Satan acting against God's people, because he is the god of this system of things.

There is always an explanation for any outcome, that shows that they are God's chosen.

173

Is the tide turning against covid vaccines?

by slimboyfat in

have you seen this video about the covid vaccines?

have you got any views on the information?

i find it worrying at least.

TonusOH

It wasn’t about saving time so how can that be called a “shortcut”?

They took the easy path instead of doing more research or scrapping the rollout and finding another medication. The latter would have cost them time and money. So it was about saving time.

In order to determine whether it is in their financial interests to promote dangerous drugs you can’t just deduct the fines in this one instance.

If the overall cost was higher than the revenue, it would not be in their interests to make a decision that would also lead to damage to their reputation and more regulation for their industry. This seems sensible to me.

By definition, we cannot know how many times they got away with it. We must judge them on the times when they were caught and assess the risks and ultimate costs. We know that companies make bad decisions because we do occasionally catch them, and that is why there is more regulation and more scrutiny. This is to be expected.

As for recognizing that health officials have gotten it wrong, we know that in the same way-- discoveries and research show us where they got it wrong and we can determine how trustworthy they are or aren't. And we can shine that same light on any claim about the efficacy -or lack thereof- of vaccines. Again, I don't see this as an either-or situation. Recognizing that one person is promoting biased or incomplete information to make things look one way doesn't mean I have to accept that the alternative must be that the opposite is true.

173

Is the tide turning against covid vaccines?

by slimboyfat in

have you seen this video about the covid vaccines?

have you got any views on the information?

i find it worrying at least.

TonusOH

I agree that criminal charges are called for in such situations, and I am not excusing their actions. The term shortcut may seem insufficient or inapplicable to you, but that is what they did. They made a decision designed to save time and money, regardless of cost- that is a shortcut. It cost lives, it tarnished their reputation, it cost them vast amounts of money and was one of the reasons they had to reduce their workforce by more than 10% in 2005.

A logical approach to the issue would tell me that it was not worth it, even allowing for the fact that the people who made the decisions that killed thousands of people did not pay an appropriate personal cost.

173

Is the tide turning against covid vaccines?

by slimboyfat in

have you seen this video about the covid vaccines?

have you got any views on the information?

i find it worrying at least.

TonusOH

A shortcut, in this context, is a deliberate decision taken in the interests of making money. Which didn't work as Merck had hoped, a reminder that taking shortcuts can cost money instead.

8

A Great Life After Leaving

by Lost in the fog in

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/hull-east-yorkshire-news/shunned-jehovahs-witnesses-life-now-7613921.

TonusOH

Good for you and yours, Smiddy!

I think that's one thing I recognized after a while. For all of the planning we do and for all of our expectations, we only ever live in the present. That actually makes it important to plan, of course. But I try to spend as little time as possible thinking about the time I wasted, since it's gone and done. I am happy with my life today and working to make it better, and I can do that. So while I can't get back the 40-ish years I spent in, I can live it up in the remaining 40. Or so I hope.