by TimothyT 100 Replies latest watchtower bible
I usually left the KH and committed fornication with the first man willing to hold my hand during a prayer. I mean--that's HOT.
You were able to wait until after you'd left the KH? I could barely keep my hands off Just Ron, and I'd often have to pull him into the supply closet for a quickie after the opening prayer.
You are essentially balking at what is the custom here in North America
lol...what century are you in, Eggy?
So no rule requiring parents to shun their children. If so why am I being shunned by my parents? I'm NOT disfellowshipped, nor have I sinned against god. Just decided the religion wasn't for me. Never spoke against the religion, I actually used to defend it.
There was an article stating NOT to have transplants, it was likened to cannibalism. New Light on that subject since.
Vaccinations was evil, do NOT get your child vaccinated. New Light on that subject too.
What do you mean no rules on blood transfusions. Errr... That's what the religion is known for. Why the blood cards we all HAD to have, baptized or not? As I am medically trained blood transfusions and blood fractions are the exact same thing. No wonder they want their members uneducated.
Many years ago there was a wt article and talk about beards. Beards were banned, everyone who had one had to shave them off immediately. Some brothers who did have beards did complain, but like good little foot soldiers obeyed. No beards is a rule, not a choice.
There was a talk about a sister who had the audacity to wear a pants suit to a meeting,she was publicly reproved. The only time ever I saw a sister wear pants to a meeting in 26 years. She suffered public humiliation in the cong for daring to wear pants.
I remember having to sit through another talk, stating married couples, those dating are NOT to hold hands during prayer at the meetings. Apparently it was stumbling others. So yes another man made rule.
I feel sick just remembering this bullshit.
A talk that was given finally "stumbled" me, never went back after that meeting. He said that none of us are good enough, not doing enough, really why are we here at the meeting if we are not devoting every inch of ours lives to the ORGANISATION. No mention of devotion to Jehovah. Yes in that moment I did think, what the hell am I doing here? And that was before the talk had even finished. It was like I had my eyes open for the first time. That was the last meeting I ever attended. Wonder how many others have left over a talk that "stumbles" them?
BEWARE! He is a propaganda minion!
All mentioned above by 'egg' is LIES!
A sister was late (from her job) and though it would be better to come to the meeting in pants instead of loosing the meeting. The elders kept her at the back of the KH, strictly counseled her, and she was forced to leave immediately after the prayer.
And how often do we who have a tendency to leave our hair grow a few cms longer are reminded by elders, Bethel members to have a hair cut?
Regarding preaching I agree that it is somewhat of a rule for Christians BUT the GB Pharisees IMPOSE THEIR OWN RULE WHEN THEY FORCE JWS TO GO FROM HOUSE TO HOUSE AND SHUN THE INTERNET.
Either a beard or the priviledge of being an elder. In the congo you are 'FREE' to choose one of the two-but never both!
Now let me laugh with the example with the shoes! No shoes in my house either. What does this sanitary precaution have to do with the GB Pharisaic rules?
NOLAW
If one does not wish to cut their beard, whether it be a man or a woman, there is no requirement that he must do so.
Eggnog hasn't quite perfected the art of purple-prose Watchtower mimicry. In the meantime his compactly insightless prose provides unintended laughs. Now I'm not from the Appalachians', but in my neck of the woods, a woman who sports a beard would not be safe at any hall let alone a kingdom hall. She'd be lured into a freak-show carnival and put in a revolving cage:
"Where's Sister Beard?"
"We have no idea. The last we heard she was held in an iron cage on a freight train bound for the next town."
"That's so sad. Another Sister refuses to shave and falls into slavery to worldly lusts."
While brothers and sisters from the local kingdom hall lamented the sad new occupation held by Sister Beard, she was quoted as saying to a confidante:
"At last I'm freed from meetings in the kingdom hall. Oh the relief at not having to keep shaving the facial stubble. Give me the freak show over the kingdom hall anyday!"
"but in my opinion only, such a child isn't teaching me and cannot teach me, ok? Maybe one day he or she will, and if it's a "she," she will be unmarried and I will be the only baptized male in the Kingdom Hall and in an incapacitated state, so that this child, now a baptized minister of God, will teach me with "her" head covered to signify her submission to God's arrangement."
I guess also in your opinion, humility is only applicable to women and children. Makes you feel powerful and good about yourself doesn't it? You're already in the top 25% since you're not a woman and aren't a child. Why don't you rewrite some more literature for us, and tell us what the Society meant to say, or how they should have worded things. They use weasel words for a reason. One of them is so people like you, can write crap like that.
@Leeca:
So no rule requiring parents to shun their children. If so why am I being shunned by my parents?
I don't know. You will have to ask your parents. There is no rule.
I'm NOT disfellowshipped, nor have I sinned against god. Just decided the religion wasn't for me. Never spoke against the religion, I actually used to defend it.
All of this is just dandy in my opinion, but you will have to ask your parents why they are shunning you, and you might have the enlist the aid of the local elders in their congregation to get an answer.
There was an article stating NOT to have transplants, it was likened to cannibalism. New Light on that subject since.
That was ignorance, and Jehovah's Witnesses have been known to print some ignorant stuff. Both Charles Russell and Judge Rutherford has a few zany beliefs, but this didn't mean that Jehovah couldn't use these men to accomplish his purpose for this time. Why Jehovah used two pagans -- Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus -- to accomplish his will, so why not Russell and Rutherford? This change wasn't new light, but an error that needed to be corrected.
Vaccinations was evil, do NOT get your child vaccinated. New Light on that subject too.
More ignorance at work. This change wasn't new light either, but just another correction that had to be made. Perhaps it is the receiving of new information that one didn't have before that becomes "new light" to the person that receives it.
I've made mistakes in the past and I've said some things about which I was totally wrong. It wasn't that there was some new light on the matter on which I had been wrong: I just didn't know once upon a time that the Bible never gave any indication of the fruit that Adam and Eve ate. How is my thinking Adam and Eve had eaten an apple only to discover later on that the Bible is silent on this constitute "new light"? If you are ignorant about something, you're just ignorant, and to hear you say what you're saying to me here about these views formerly held by some Jehovah's Witnesses in the past -- and not me, but some of those before me -- makes you come off as ignorant. Many young children innocently believed in Santa Claus. They were ignorant at that time. They became informed and were ignorant no more.
What do you mean no rules on blood transfusions. Errr... That's what the religion is known for.
Most people do not know what Jehovah's Witnesses believe as to the sacredness of blood, so how could they possibly know what our view is on blood transfusions? People tend to "know" Jehovah's Witnesses as being the religious group that doesn't celebrates holidays or birthdays. Some of those that have attended school with the children of Jehovah's Witnesses know them as the ones they knew in school that would stand, but would never recite the Pledge of Allegiance and never put their hands above their hearts as everyone else sang "The Star Spangled Banner" in the classroom. I really don't know how to answer your question, except to say that Jehovah's Witnesses are not known as the religion that doesn't accept blood transfusions. This is your view.
Why the blood cards we all HAD to have, baptized or not? As I am medically trained blood transfusions and blood fractions are the exact same thing. No wonder they want their members uneducated.
I resent your remark. What if I attended college while some other Jehovah's Witnesses did not attend college: Does this mean that those that didn't attend college are less educated than I am? I'm not a doctor; does this make me more educated than a lawyer or less educated than a lawyer? You drive a city bus; does that make you more educated than I am when it comes to driving a car or less educated than I am when it comes to driving car? I know how to recover all of the media files (MP3s, videos, photos, document files) that you thought were lost when a virus took down your Windows box so that you could no longer start Windows; does this make me more talented country singer than Carrie Underwood or a less talented singer than Carrie Underwood?
Why you had a blood card, I don't really know, but it wasn't because having a blood card made you an expert on blood transfusions or on blood fractions, so why even ask me such a question? Your question is as foolish as the three questions with which I began the previous paragraph.
Many years ago there was a wt article and talk about beards. Beards were banned, everyone who had one had to shave them off immediately. Some brothers who did have beards did complain, but like good little foot soldiers obeyed. No beards is a rule, not a choice.
And the problem with this article was...?
There was a talk about a sister who had the audacity to wear a pants suit to a [meeting, she] was publicly reproved. The only time ever I saw a sister wear pants to a meeting in 26 years. She suffered public humiliation in the cong for daring to wear pants.
Ok, but did you humiliate the woman? Were you among those that subjected the sister to public humiliation? If this sister was publicly reproved as you indicate here she was, then the body of elders that voted to disfellowship her did so for reasons about which you are to this very day unaware. This story of yours is nonsense.
I remember having to sit through another talk, stating married couples, those dating are NOT to hold hands during prayer at the meetings. Apparently it was stumbling others. So yes another man made rule.
Maybe the brother that made this statement thought that it looked wrong to him to see couples or those dating holding hands when a prayer was uttered in the Kingdom Hall, but why make this a federal case? I'm not going to hold it against you if I should see you holding anyone's hand while I'm offering a prayer on behalf of everyone in attendance following one of our meetings. I'm not! I don't have such a rule and neither do the congregations of God. If such a talk should have stumbled anyone, the stumbled one(s) would have done better to have brought the matter to the attention of the presiding overseer of the local congregation, and there are also elders outside of the congregation to whose attention this matter could have been brought.
A talk that was given finally "stumbled" me, never went back after that meeting. He said that none of us are good enough, not doing enough, really why are we here at the meeting if we are not devoting every inch of ours lives to the ORGANISATION. No mention of devotion to Jehovah. Yes in that moment I did think, what the hell am I doing here? And that was before the talk had even finished. It was like I had my eyes open for the first time. That was the last meeting I ever attended. Wonder how many others have left over a talk that "stumbles" them?
Well, I'm sorry to hear that you were stumbled over someone telling you that you weren't good enough and/or wasn't doing enough. I don't know how you knew that the brother delivering this talk was talking do you, but, oh, well: If the shoe fits....
Excuse me, @Leeca, if I sound rather calloused about this whole affair, but is there anything else besides "new light" and your people being "stumbled" by men that you would like to bring to my attention? I do admit that I'm not as sensitive as you are about what I view as little human foibles. In Christ, I've learned how to forgive all such, but I really do want to hear every one of your gripes. and, please, don't worry about my time: I'll take the time.
@djeggnog
@Leeca, Djeggnog replied to your comment by saying, "I really don't know how to answer your question, except to say that Jehovah's Witnesses are not known as the religion that doesn't accept blood transfusions. This is your view."
I just wanted to let you know that I thought they were known for that too (and obviously we are not alone in that view), and although djeggnog is technically correct in one sense (that it is your view as it is others'), he is incorrect in another sense (to say they are not known as the religion that doesn't accept blood transfusions). How can I say that with any authority? Because their own organization makes it known, and if an organization 'makes it known' that they don't accept blood transfusions, well then by golly, they are known for it. :) What djeggnog has done in his response(s) to you (as if you didn't already know) is, he has presented a half-truth or partial-truth as if it were a whole-truth or fact, which isn't too difficult to discern. When people use that approach (as djeggnog has done quite effectively) they get to 'choose' the sense they feel comfortable addressing while avoiding the sense they wish to avoid (for whatever reason--I'm not here to accuse). :) I often times see this happening amongst children, where they really do know the main point of an issue is correct and valid, but for different reasons they still choose to argue.
http://www.watchtower.org/e/jt/index.htm
“Jehovah’s Witnesses—Who Are They? What Do They Believe?”
….
“WHAT JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES BELIEVE”
….
“Taking blood into body through mouth or veins violates God's laws”
“Jehovah’s Witnesses—Who Are They? What Do They Believe?”
….
“WHAT JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES BELIEVE”
….
“Taking blood into body through mouth or veins violates God's laws”
Here is the simplest a Christian religion can be: Jesus died for your sins, and that is a perfect, complete sacrifice to which nothing ever need be added. Thus, any sacrifice made in the name of God would desecrate that sacrifice--you must not sacrifice anything in the name of God. No other rule is needed.
Islam is almost as simple: Its core is to do good works in the name of Allah. "Good works" is defined as any works that benefit yourself and/or society. And refraining from doing bad works--bad works are those which harm self and/or society. This is as close to the real truth as you get--eliminate "in the name of Allah", and it would be perfect. Notice the lack of rules and burdens. You decide, is eating pork something that is harmful to self or society? What about homosexuality between consenting adult partners? Does that genuinely harm society? Or does it merely offend a few people who are religiously programmed to see such as vile? And since when is it necessary for women to wear face veils to do good works? They can do good works as well as, or better, without those stupid face veils.
Rule Number One: If you wish to make a religion appeal to the maximum number of people and have it stick around, keep the rules to a bare minimum. Eliminating redundant sacrifices for Christians and excessive rules for Muslims would make their religions less oppressive, plus it would appeal to more people.
So my take is by standing up to them an getting labled an apostate should be an honor because that means you are like christ.
