I think the org wants to stop printing the public magazines altogether so as to drastically cut costs. The reduction in size of the magazines by half, and changing from a bi-monthly to a monthly magazine, speaks to their desire to cut printing costs drastically. However the org can't be seen as taking such a drastic step of stopping the printing of lifesaving spiritual food at this time, so deep in the "time of the end" - not without a very compelling reason. This is where the promotion of JW.org comes in. I suspect that this promotion is all about getting the public to go to jw.org instead of accepting the magazines. The org hopes that with the site widely promoted, the printed magazines will naturally become obsolete (why clutter your home with paper when you get the same info. online?). Then one day the org will inform all JWs by a letter that the promotion of the site has been so successful that most people now prefer to download the magazines and read the articles from jw.org and as a result there is no longer a need to print the large volume of magazines as before. They'll probably still continue printing them for a few more years but maybe a much smaller volume for distribution in areas where internet access is not widely available. The focus of the house-to-house jw will shift to placing cheap tracts geared at encouraging people to start a bible study, and actually doing bible studies.
Island Man
JoinedPosts by Island Man
-
20
JW.org to be regarded as fulfillment of the signs of the last days.
by jwfacts ini struggled as a jw to accept that the good news of the kingdom was ever going to be preached in all the inhabited world by jws, as there were many parts of the world with few to no jws.
there are not enough to cover the 3 billion plus people in asia to allow everyone to get a chance to hear the message.
it also was offensive to me that jehovah would kill those billions that had never had a chance to accept the watchtower message.
-
-
-
31
the insanity of Sam herds talks at the convention
by purrpurr ini've picked up two that stood out to me but i'm sure others will have noticed more:.
he gave an illustration about fearing god and he said it is like a wife who has spent all day preparing the evening meal for her husband and she hears him come home and perhaps she is trembling a bit out of fear that he might not like the meal she has cooked for him....!!!!!!!!????.
the other was about verbal abuse and how it should not be used but rather than site the effect it has or the forms it can take he said that we shouldn't call each other " dumb dumb" or "knuckle head" .
-
-
Island Man
"he said that we shouldn't call each other " dumb dumb" or "knuckle head" . now maybe its a culture thing but I've never heard anyone called that???!!"
Sounds like Sam is an avid watcher of The Flintstones. LOL
-
27
I Offer You This Choice
by simon17 insuppose the following choice were offered you, and you had to choose one or the other.
which would you pick (and perhaps why):.
1) you can continue living your life as it is, die when you might, and that's that.. 2) you can instead agree to die in 1 year in exchange for this: you will be granted access to the entire past and future history of intelligent life in the universe.
-
-
Island Man
I would take 1.
The second option will bring great frustration. How frustrating it will be to gain all that knowledge and have to bottle it up inside, being unable to share it with anyone else. And having just 1 year to live would mean you don't have enough time to really benefit from that knowledge. What use would all that knowledge be if you can't share it with anyone else. If you want to die feeling frustrated by having tons of valuable information that you can't share, then choose 2.
-
104
How to Avoid the Faithless Spirit of most here-
by DocHouse in1- pray to god (whomever you may imagine him to be) asking for understanding.
2- study the background about the bible (from non-religious sources) to see where it came from.
3- discard (or at least set aside) chuyrch claims and dogma.. 4- read it, looking up archaeological/historical sources about the places and peoples referred to.
-
-
Island Man
"Whataya expect from a sci-fi writer?"
Hey! Who better to recognize that the bible is a book of fiction than a sci-fi writer?
How about your FIRST one?
Stucky, you have to give SOME kind of references to claims such as " How about the fact that the god of the bible is one of the most self centered, vicious, murderous, despot in all history".
Please, if capable, give a specific example.
How about the example of God prolonging the deliverance of the Israelites from Egyptian slavery just so he can glorify his own name? He brought plague after plague on the Egyptians afflicting the guilty together with the innocent. He killed the first born child of all the Egyptians! He hardened pharoah's heart so that he would not let the Israelites go, just so that he'd have a reason to continue plagueing the Egyptians. Was all of that suffering really necessary? No! He did just so he can magnify his own name! He cause much death and suffering just so he can magnify himself! If that isn't being self-centered then I don't know what is!
And we have an example of such self-centeredness also being done also by his Son. Remember the story of Lazarus? From the moment Jesus heard of Lazarus sickness he could have healed him without even going to him. But instead he allowed Lazarus to suffer in his illness and die? Why? "For the glory of God, in order that the Son of God may be glorified through it." - John 11:4. So he allowed 2 days to pass to make sure that Lazarus dies, so that he would have to resurrection him to bring glory to himself and his father. Again, we have here an example of Jesus and his father putting their own glory ahead of human suffering. True, Lazarus was raised up, but the whole manner in which it was done makes the self-centered, glory-seeking nature of God very evident.
As for vicious and murderous, there are many examples in the OT.
-
61
I know there is NO GOD
by jam inisis, plain and simple.
if there is a god there is no way he.
would allow this to occur (beheading of james foley).
-
-
Island Man
" But the real obstacle is not religion but extremism"
But religion IS extremism! Religion is an inherently extreme behavior.
Believing in supernatural entities without evidence, and letting such beliefs dictate the way you live, IS extremism!
Closing your eyes and speaking to an imaginary person IS extremism!
Thinking that your fellow human will be tormented forever in a mythical hellfire or face a brutal death at a future armageddon, simply because he does not share your beliefs or your sexual persuasion, IS extremism!
Giving up your chance of a happy marriage to the person you truly love just because they happen to be of another religion, IS extremism!
Religion is formal, institutionalized make-believe and superstition.
Adults playing make-believe and having imaginary friends IS extremism!
-
26
Pioneering: How the GB shamelessly capitalizes on members' worldly desire for prominence.
by Island Man inthe bible likens the preaching work to a sacrifice of praise - praise to god.
pioneering is also a sacrifice that involves praise.
it's the sacrifice of a specified number of hours that wins you the praise of men.. when you really analyze the psychology of pioneering it is apparent that the praise of men or prominence before men is at the heart of it.
-
-
Island Man
krejames, it's not my intention to suggest that all pioneers are seeking the title, prominence and perks that go along with pioneering. The point I'm making is that the system of pioneering as devised by the organization is geered toward capitalizing on such motives. The organization has clearly designed the pioneer system in such a way as to pander to the desire for prominence and elite status. I don't doubt that there are sincere pioneers. I jus doubt the the org. designed pioneering to attract humble people who are content to serve God to their best without receiving the adulation of others. The pioneer system, as designed by the org, is inherently unspiritual. That's all am saying.
-
2
blood transfusion
by asante Frederick inthe explanation of lev.
17:14-16, acts 15:20,28,29 i want detailed explanations.
i tried to explain but he could not understood.
-
-
Island Man
(Leviticus 17:11, 12) . . .For the soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have put it upon the altar for YOU to make atonement for YOUR souls, because it is the blood that makes atonement by the soul [in it]. 12 That is why I have said to the sons of Israel: “No soul of YOU must eat blood and no alien resident who is residing as an alien in YOUR midst should eat blood.”
(Leviticus 17:14-16) . . .For the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood by the soul in it. Consequently I said to the sons of Israel: “YOU must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh, because the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood. Anyone eating it will be cut off.” 15 As for any soul that eats a body [already] dead or something torn by a wild beast, whether a native or an alien resident, he must in that case wash his garments and bathe in water and be unclean until the evening; and he must be clean. 16 But if he will not wash them and will not bathe his flesh, he must then answer for his error.’”
According to the bible. God views blood as being the seat of life itself. Blood is viewed as being the spiritual symbol or emblem of life. The wages of sin is death. So how can a sinner escape paying for his sin with his own life? He pays with another life - the life of the sacrificial victim. Hence the practice of animal sacrifice under the law. And given that blood is the seat of life, the value of such lives offered in sacrifice were presented using the blood as the medium of exchange. So under the law blood served as a sort of currency for presenting the value of the life sacrificed.
Because blood was valued as representing life and used on the altar as the means of exchanging the life of the sacrifice in place of the life of the sinner, the value or sanctity of blood has to be preserved. If a person eats blood of a slaughtered animal, then he has shown lack of respect for the value of life. He has essentially nullified the sacrificial value of blood by treating blood as nothing more than common food. He has esteemed as being of ordinary value, the only means by which his sins can be atoned for. That being the case, there can be no sacrifice for sins in his case. So he is to be put to death.
However, following the law against eating blood was not meant to result in hardship or death of an innocent man who finds himself weak in the wilderness without food, and who happens upon a dead animal that had not been properly bled. Under such circumstances the starving man could eat the dead animal to stay alive. At the same time, even in this scenario respect for the sanctity of blood is shown by the man being considered unclean for this action, and having to wash his garments and bathe in water.
(Acts 15:20, 21) . . .but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. 21 For from ancient times Moses has had in city after city those who preach him, because he is read aloud in the synagogues on every sabbath.”
(Acts 15:28, 29) . . .For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to YOU, except these necessary things, 29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If YOU carefully keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper. Good health to YOU!”
With the ingathering of gentiles into the congregation, the issue of law observance came to the fore. Some Jewish christians insisted that gentiles had to observe all the law to be saved. The decision was ultimately reached that observance of the law was not necessary. However, christians had to observe certain necessary guidelines which were also part of the law. These were guidelines that worshipers of God were required to follow even before the mosaic law was given. They were to avoid fornication, idolatry and eating blood.
It is of interest to note, however, what Acts 15:21 says. This verse seems to suggest that the reason for christians being asked to refrain from eating blood (after the law covenant banning blood has been done away with) is due to the noterity of this OT law within the Jewish community and hence the great likelihood of offending and stumbling Jews. It could be argued that this is the real reason why christians were told to abstain from blood rather than it still being a binding requirement of christians from God's standpoint. In other words, the prohibition on blood could be intended more as a prohibition on stumbling Jews than a prohibition on eating blood itself, given that the law was done away with.
1 Corinthians 8 and 1 Corinthians 10:23-33 lends credence to this view. How so. Notice that Acts 15:20, 29 also forbids things sacrificed to idols. However at 1 Corinthians 10:23-33 Paul indicates that a christian can, in good conscience, eat food that was previously offered to idols. A christian buying meat did not have to inquire if it was previously offered to idol so as to avoid polluting himself. Whether it was offered to an idol or not was irrelevant. The fact is he was eating it without any idolatrous intentions. What was important was how his actions would affect the conscience of others who knew the food was previously offered to idols. So what 1 Corinthians says on the subject of eating things sacrficed to idols (a practice also prohibited alongside the eating of blood at Acts 15:20, 29), lends credence to the view that the prohibition on things sacrificed to idols and blood has more to do with stumbling Jewish christiand familiar with these OT Laws rather than these practices being inherently unlawful for christians who are no longer under the law.
If this is the case, then the prohibition on blood transfusions would be very foolish for not even Jews consider blood transfusions as falling under the OT law against the eating of blood. Accepting life-saving blood transfusions are simply not a matter that many people today can be stumbled by. On the contrary, it is the refusal of such treatment with the result of death, that serves to stumple people away from christianity, causing them to view it as a fanatical cult.
But even if we assume that the prohibition on blood still stands and it is not merely a matter of not stumbling weaker consciences, the prohibition on blood still does not apply to blood transfusions. Why so? Remember that the prohibition on blood was specifically with regard to eating it. That eating blood shows lack of respect for its sanctity as representing life and a means for buying back the life of the sinner on the altar. The prohibition obviously does not mean that worshipers cannot make use of the blood flowing in their veins. In fact this latter use of blood is its primary, natural, God-ordained use. Logically, this use does not come under the prohibition. This use does not violate the sanctity of blood. Arguably, it is because of this very life-sustaining use in the veins that blood was designated as representing life. Therefore it would be the height of foolishness to suggest that the use of blood in the circulatory system violates its sanctity. How then can a blood transfusion be deemed as violating the sanctity of blood? How can it be when we're putting blood to use in the veins in harmony with its God-ordained purpose? What is more the life of the donor is not taken.
The use of blood in the veins is not eating blood. Blood that is eaten is digested and absorbed as food nutrients - it is treated as food. Transfused blood functions as it was created by God to function. It performs its God-ordained natural and dignified function of sustaining life. It is used in the body as an organ - not as food. To equate a blood transfusion with eating blood is tantamount to equating a liver transplant with eating liver. If your doctor advised you to stop eating liver, would you conclude from that that you're not to accept a liver transplant?
-
16
Today's Watchtower study. Good example of "talk is cheap."
by stillin inall about love.
how to do it.
why jw's are the experts at it.. gag.
-
-
Island Man
If we were to retell the story of the neighborly Samaritan with modern day application to JWs it would go something like this:
“A certain Catholic tourist was going down from Vatican city to Rome and fell among robbers, who both stripped him and inflicted blows, and went off, leaving him half-dead. Now, by coincidence, a certain pioneer was going down over that road, but, when he saw him, he went by on the opposite side, for he thought the man was drunk or high on drugs - why else would a "worldly" person be lying in the street? Likewise, an Elder also, when he got down to the place and saw him, went by on the opposite side.
But another JW, a member of the disaster relief committee, was also traveling the road and came upon him and, at seeing him, he saw a golden opportunity. So he approached him and, making it a point to identify himself as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, he handed him a tract and told him about jw.org. He told him that God's kingdom will solve all mankind's problems such as victimization by criminals such as the man just experienced.
"Please! Can you take me to the hospital?" the man pleaded in agony. The JW asked him: "Do you have traveller's insurance?" The man mumbled: "yes." At this the JW said: "Ok, let me take you to my car. Hmm..hmm...many who have benefited from the loving assistance provided by Jehovah's Witnesses in time of disaster, have chosen to show their gratitude by donating their insurance money to the organization. You are a grateful person, aren't you sir?"
Then, after reaching into his trunk and removing an old sheet which he spread over his backseat to ensure the man's blood does not soil his car, he put him in his car and brought him to the hospital. And the next day the JW came back to the hospital to remind the man that his (the JW's) actions prove that JWs are true christians who show genuine love for neighbor. Then he added: "Many sincere individuals who have experienced this love in time of disaster have been moved by gratitude to donate their insurance money to the organization. I am sure you're very grateful for the help you received, aren't you sir?"
-
21
According to JWs' application of Acts 15:29, shouldn't they also be refusing medical examinations by gynecologists?
by Island Man inwatchtower uses the following twisted logic to equate receiving a blood transfusion, with feeding on blood:.
feeding is sometimes done by injecting nutrients intravenously.. blood transfusions are carried out by injecting blood intravenously.. therefore the intravenous injecting of blood can be equated with feeding intravenously.. hence, true christians refuse blood transfusions in order to obey the biblical command to "abstain from blood".. now notice how the same kind of twisted logic leads to the equating of an invasive examination by a gynecologist, with sexual intercourse:.
sexual intercourse is often done by inserting the penis into the vagina.. certain invasive examinations by a gynecologist is done by inserting an instrument into the vagina.. therefore such invasive gynecological examinations can be equated with sexual intercourse.. hence, true christians refuse such gynecological examinations that are performed by someone to whom they're not married, in order to obey the biblical command to "abstain from fornication".. it's the same kind of twisted reasoning, isn't it?
-
-
Island Man
he was the butt of too many jokes. He joined the air force and is now a tailgunner
LOL
-
21
According to JWs' application of Acts 15:29, shouldn't they also be refusing medical examinations by gynecologists?
by Island Man inwatchtower uses the following twisted logic to equate receiving a blood transfusion, with feeding on blood:.
feeding is sometimes done by injecting nutrients intravenously.. blood transfusions are carried out by injecting blood intravenously.. therefore the intravenous injecting of blood can be equated with feeding intravenously.. hence, true christians refuse blood transfusions in order to obey the biblical command to "abstain from blood".. now notice how the same kind of twisted logic leads to the equating of an invasive examination by a gynecologist, with sexual intercourse:.
sexual intercourse is often done by inserting the penis into the vagina.. certain invasive examinations by a gynecologist is done by inserting an instrument into the vagina.. therefore such invasive gynecological examinations can be equated with sexual intercourse.. hence, true christians refuse such gynecological examinations that are performed by someone to whom they're not married, in order to obey the biblical command to "abstain from fornication".. it's the same kind of twisted reasoning, isn't it?
-
-
Island Man
ADCMS, aren't you forgetting Dr. Sod Omee? I hear he's good too. But don't let his name confuse you with another doctor, a urologist, who does digital prostate exams - his name is Fingayu Sodommi.