by eyeslice 41 Replies latest watchtower bible
Okay, the kid probably HATES that outfit and is trying to think of a way to destroy it. Someone gave Jackson an outfit like that when he was an infant and I swear he threw up on it every time I put it on him. It never did make it out the door with him in it. Looking back on it, I think that was a calculated maneuver on his part to keep from looking like Little Lord Fauntleroy.
Nina
[quote]paedophiles like pictures of little boys reaching for balls....[/quote] It takes a paedophile to look at the innocent picture and come up with the above comment.
It takes a paedophile to look at the innocent picture and come up with the quote above.
Kinda stabbed yourself in the foot there, Swordy!
The point of that illustration was that although the little boy is not dirty yet by the puddle, by playing or being so close to it he is more likely to fall into that puddle of mud and get his nice clothes dirty.
It was applied to immorality, if you ignore the warnings and get close to immoral things you are more likely to fall into gross sin. One example given in the next few paragraphs dealt with viewing pornography. Although that in it self is not a gross sin, it is still dirty, and by watching you are more likely to fall into gross sin.
, if you ignore the warnings and get close to immoral things you are more likely to fall into gross sin.
yay!
Sincerely,
District Overbeer
illustration of a 3 year old not obeying.This here show the problem with how the GB views the congregation...what arrogance!!!
arrogance it may be, but unfortunately as a generalisation, they're metaphorically right.
The picture implies, in my opinion, that JWs are like children and they must heed the warnings of the "mother" aka the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society Inc.
It was applied to immorality, if you ignore the warnings and get close to immoral things you are more likely to fall into gross sin. One example given in the next few paragraphs dealt with viewing pornography. Although that in it self is not a gross sin, it is still dirty, and by watching you are more likely to fall into gross sin.
Yes, but sword, why use an image of a child in an article about sexual immorality? It's just twisted!
quote]paedophiles like pictures of little boys reaching for balls....[/quote] It takes a paedophile to look at the innocent picture and come up with the above comment.
And Sword? Before you go throwing around accusations like that, Why don't you look at the fact that you belong to and defend a religion that bends over backwards protecting pedophiles.
You see, the WTS writes all these articles bashing the catholic church, and defending those who go after the priests for covering up molestation. Yet when their own members want justice, it's just "sour grapes, apostate lies, trying to defame Jah's org." Why the double standard? ANSWER ME!!!
Lots of interesting comments. I agree with the comments about pedophiles are out of line, I personally see no connection with the picture and such comments/thoughts. But let's get this thread back on course.
What I get from the picture is not that the little boy is going to get his Sunday best dirty but that he is in danger of drowning; losing his life! The whole thrust of Watchtower doctirne is if you don't do what we say, you will die at Armagedon.
However, the little kid is just that; a little kid. You have to realise that three year olds can drown in just a few inches of water. If he falls in and drowns that would a terrible accident, but no one in their right mind would say "it was his fault that he died because he didn't listen to the warnings of his parents". The picture is a very poor effort at trying to illustrate the point the Watchtower is making.
eyeslice
