by sir82 41 Replies latest jw friends
Is it a sign of weak faith, that JWs do not debate with apostates?
No, of course not, you prideful apostate scum!
JWs "discuss various viewpoints with many people in our ministry. We answer sincere questions from people who are not determined to "destroy our faith".
Man, those buzz words...
One thing we can say, they are consistent with their material. I'm having a deja vu of the afternoon session and the echo through the arena with these statements. {{{shiver}}}
I thought that scripture instructs all Christians "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander."
When one asks, apostate or not, about the wrongdoings of the men who dictate the JWs their faith, is it not their scriptural obligation to answer a question?
Should I ask a Witness about their beliefs and they offer a paraphrased scriptural selection that will always be from Acts 15, why would they consider it an argument if I inform them that their own citation is itself a paraphrasing of Leviticus and that the scripture explicitly demands to abstain from eating blood?
Peculiar that "everything Witnesses believe is Bible oriented" though they are being instructed to disregard scriptural demands.
So you are full of pride if you don't listen to someone who refers to themself as a glorious ones. I think the "glorious ones" might have a little problem with pride.
Reliability and accuracy....now there are two words that come to mind when you think of the Watchtower's track record.
I can't imagine ever having to waste a good weekend listening to that BS.
Can you elaborate on their reasoning,pets are false gods? Is it the time or do they view being a good pet owner as a tactic of Satan to draw us away from true worship or what?
How can they be against technology when all the pioneers and elders got their Ipads out?
I'm glad I missed it.
If Witnesses would only stop and think,well,they wouldn't be Witnesses anymore. But,why would a loving God,have so many senseless rules that would prevent a person of eternal life. Yeah,they saw that movie the GB said was bad,destroyed. They love Fido more than me,destroyed,etc. You get my point. They want to take all pleasure out of life don't they?
A day is a thousand years to god.... But he wants you to keep track of every hour you spend talking about him and hand it in every month...
*** g76 1/22 pp. 19-20 Enjoy Animals—in Their Place! ***
Reasonable in Affection
As we have discussed, animals can be valuable in many ways. And there is abundant proof that a pet can be a pleasant, entertaining and devoted companion. Understandably, humans might respond with affection, wanting to be kind and to care for a pet.
Still, the fact that some imperfect humans go to extremes with regard to various pleasures and interests should alert us to the danger of “going overboard” concerning animals.
Did you know that persons have provided their pets with things such as gold bracelets, black lace panties, evening gowns and birthday parties? They have obtained clip-on diapers for their parrakeets, false eyelashes for their poodles and sunglasses for vacationing pets. One New York woman has her two dogs picked up each day in a chauffeured limousine; they are slowly driven around a park “so they may have some fresh air and see some green.”
Individuals become so emotionally wrapped up with pets that the animals govern human lives. One couple was going to emigrate to Australia. They already had shipped their furniture. But when their Alsatian dog failed a medical exam and was refused entry, they canceled their passage and paid £500 for their furniture to be sent back. They said: “A new life would have been meaningless if we had sacrificed our dog for it. She is part of our marriage.”
As with the man and his boa constrictor, for some persons a pet becomes even more important than marital attachments. One woman kept six Siamese cats, though her husband was allergic to cats and had nearly choked to death a number of times. Even though pregnant with her first child, she was willing to have a divorce rather than live without her cats. It is reported that she “only hoped her child would not inherit the father’s allergy.”
When affection for animals is not controlled by reasonableness, pets can seem even more important than human life. Hysterical pet owners gathered outside during a fire in one animal hospital. The report is that “women screamed, tore their hair, several fainted, and two tried to break through the cordon, crying that they wanted to die with their darlings.”
Yes, reasonableness is needed. Otherwise a person might gradually allow animals to occupy an increasingly important place in his life and affections. As we have seen, this can and does happen. Whereas at first a person might think that it would be pleasant to have a pet around the home, without reasonableness being manifested he could get to the point of spending inordinate amounts of money, time and attention on the pet. Or, even though he is a clean person, he might come to permit himself to be “kissed” by a pet that had recently been licking its sexual and anal areas or eating something unsanitary. Surely extremes need to be guarded against.
Also, a person ought to evaluate his intention in regard to a pet. Is it a matter of settling on the affection or companionship of an animal as a substitute for obtaining such from humans? In his book Tiere Sind Ganz Anders (Animals Are Quite Different), Hans Bauer observed: “It is altogether unreasonable to ‘fly to the animal world’ because one is ‘disappointed’ by men.” He went on to mention how sad it is for someone to ‘bestow his affections on a dog or a cat in the hope of discovering in an animal what he has failed to find among his own species’ when an animal’s “whole nature prevents it from ever giving” this to him.
I remember reading that Awake article blondie. It seemed written by someone who hated animals.
And even as a Witness I was into animal welfare causes. And the suggestion in the article to allow a pet to have puppies/kittens as a teaching tool for children,was beyond irresponsible. Since millions of pets in the U.S. alone are euthanized in shelters. I was happy to read someone wrote in the "From Our Readers" section to complain on that point too.
And of course,they have to give extreme examples about an issue.
black lace panties,
This is what they are really concerned about.
OK, if you substitute "GB" for every reference to 'animals' or 'pets' in blondie's post above - you get things in perspective.
i.e.,
Individuals become so emotionally wrapped up with pets that the animals govern human lives.
for some persons a pet becomes even more important than marital attachments.
a person might gradually allow animals to occupy an increasingly important place in his life and affections.
thank you blondie; love animals and they can sense it, but always was leary of that wet lick ,
it might make you sick.
