It was an unreasonable demand to make - 'change your religion to the one I stipulate or else you get nothing.' I know somebody in my town whose father tried to pull a similar stunt (different faith), and there have been stories on this forum where adult children who left JWs were cut out of their parents' wills on that basis. It's mean to blackmail potential beneficiaries that way based on religious preference (or political or whatever) - I don't care who does it - and the JW children were right to challenge it. Shame the judge upheld the conditions in the will but maybe those were the constraints of the law.
AnnOMaly
JoinedPosts by AnnOMaly
-
26
Father denies children inheritance unless they quit Jehovah's Witnesses
by Tiktaalik inan article in the sydney morning herald:.
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/father-denies-children-inheritance-unless-they-quit-jehovahs-witnesses-and-become-catholics-20140810-102egl.html#ixzz39yziuuvf.
"from beyond the grave, father-of-four patrick carroll continued a five-decade crusade to steer his children away from being active jehovah's witnesses and into catholicism.. mr carroll wrote into his will that his adult children were not to receive any inheritance unless they met two conditions: attend his funeral and become catholics within three months of his death.. mr carroll died in april 2012. his children attended the funeral but they did not become catholics and challenged the condition in the nsw supreme court in a bid to still receive their share of his estate.. but justice francois kunc last week ruled that mr carroll was entitled to place such conditions on his will.. the court heard that mr carroll's motivation was not so much about imposing his own beliefs but rather the fact he never approved of his children becoming jehovah's witness.. the court heard that mr carroll did not raise his children as catholics, neither he or they had attended church services when they were young and he did not enroll them in catholic schools.. but when he split from their mother lillian in 1959 she became a jehovah's witness and over the next decade the couple's four children, robyn, paulene, anthony and susan, were baptised as jehovah's witnesses.. mr carroll never approved of "their adherence to that faith", the court heard.. "[lillian's] conversion to that faith enraged mr carroll, who for the rest of his life continued to express his very strong objections to lillian's and the children's member of that faith," justice kunc said in his judgement.. the court was told that all four of his children remain active members of their congregation.. in his will, written in december 2011, four months before he died, mr carroll left more than a third of his estate to his four children "dependent upon them becoming baptised into the catholic church within a period of three months from the date of my death and such gifts are also subject to and dependent my children attending my funeral.".
-
-
-
48
Hubby's tempted to go back
by jgnat intoday he kept bumping in to (or rather dodging and weaving from) fellow witnesses.
he's talking about returning but can't figure out a way to do it without enduring a fair amount of humiliation.
i did not panic.
-
-
AnnOMaly
He has considered if asked if the enquirer might hold his hand for a couple months until he gets back in to his groove. That might drive away the Witnesses faster than anything.
Or it may backfire and somebody will 'disciple' him until he's back and committed again. Bad idea!
What exactly does he feel guilty about?
Is it that his KH friends miss him and the only time they would see him and catch up is at the meetings - he feels bad that they miss him? (I.e. he's hurting his friends.)*
Is it that meetings are communal worship and he feels he's missing out or shortchanging God by not going? (I.e. he's hurting God.)
Is it just a vague, 'superstitious' feeling that stems from having Heb. 10:24, 25 drilled into him for so long? (I.e. he's hurting the Org.)
Or a mix of all three?
If he identifies what, exactly, is triggering his guilt, you can both work on neutralizing it.
-----
* That's a pull with me. Recently two very nice JWs from our Hall dropped by after their FS. We get on with them, have some laughs, but they said they missed us and please come back - 'you know it's the Truth' etc. It was hard to keep our lips buttoned. While we were pleased to see them, naturally we do not want to have to sit through nearly 2 hours of irritation twice a week so that we can see each other. Nevertheless, the emotional tugs, the faint stirrings of guilt, did try to surface.
-
100
Can anyone disprove 607 BCE date using only the NWT and WT literature?
by Bart Belteshassur ini haven't come across any arguement that does not involve secular history and external references.
in fact the wt can not get to 607 bce without using external sources as in knowing that they need to get back from 1914 ce to 607 bce, and botching an argument using an external date as reference to create their start point at 537 bce.. i realize that to get the final date we must provide a fixed figure from somewhere which can only be a historical source, but the objective would be to disprove the wt flim flam.
once that is achieve we can use which ever fixed historical point they wish to chose.
-
-
AnnOMaly
Bart,
Not 'disproved' per se, but serious doubt can be cast on the Org's skewed interpretation of certain scriptures. wizzstick has already mentioned a good one - Jer. 25:12.
Jer. 29:10 is another. How could Jehovah say the exiles would be there 'at' Babylon when a) the exiles He was addressing were taken 10 years before Jerusalem was destroyed (so these exiles would, in fact, have been 'at' Babylon 80 years, not 70), and b) Jerusalem may never have been destroyed and further exiles taken if Zedekiah and the people had obeyed Jehovah's instructions (Jer. 27:11,12,17)? Why start the '70 years clock' at an indeterminate time in those exiles' future - a future that was not set? Why mislead those exiles by saying they would only be there 70 years when God really meant 80?
If the 70 years 'desolation, without an inhabitant' period could only start to be counted after Gedaliah's murder in the 7th month of '607,' why did Jehovah tell Ezekiel to prophesy to the 'inhabitants of these ruins' in the 10th month (Ezek. 33:21-29)?
Also, going back to Jer. 29, the Bible says the 70 years would be fulfilled, then the exiles would pray, then Jehovah would bring them back home. Daniel (ch. 9) discerned the 70 years were up and then entreated God for His forgiveness, to turn away His reproach and bless Jerusalem and its sanctuary. If the 70 years finished once the Jews were back home (thereby evidence of God's forgiveness and blessing), why then entreat Him for his forgiveness and blessing?
Just having 539 BCE as the end point of Babylon's 70 years, of the exiles' servitude to Babylon, of Babylon's king being called to account, will screw up the WTS's 607-based timeline.
-
9
Interesting site in the UK for lurkers
by *lost* insite is housechurchesuk.weebly.com/jehovahswitness-cult-or-christian.html.
make of it what you will.
-
-
AnnOMaly
*Snort*
Illuminati? Chem trails? Yeah sure, a reliable source of information.
Haig's Law and the Time Cube Law are both well represented here!
-
56
JWs: not creationists but believe in creation...
by TheStumbler ini've been having a bit of an email exchange with elder dad and i need some advice.
i thought i was getting through to him but i think my criticism and tone became a bit too strident in my last email and now he thinks that i am attacking him personally.
i think he has dismissed everything i said because he perceived me as 'overally critical, and rude.. .
-
-
AnnOMaly
Suggestion for future discussions with your dad. Ask questions. Get your dad to explain himself. Questions can be less threatening. And keep a sense of humor.
E.g. something like this:
"How can it be that JWs believe in creation but they deny they are creationists?"
"Ah creationists believe God created everything in 6 24-hour days and JWs don't believe that."
"But you're describing Young Earth creationists. Are you aware other types of creationists exist? Can't JWs be classified as Old Earth creationists?"
"No. JWs are not creationists."
"I don't understand. The dictionary and encyclopedia definitions say creationism means [blah, blah]. JW beliefs fall within that description, don't they?"
"The dictionaries and encyclopedias have it wrong."
"ROFL! Really? What do you think the proper definition should be?"
[Allow response.]
"LOL. Maybe you should write in and correct them, dad. You're a hoot. Hey, let's meet up for lunch."
-
56
JWs: not creationists but believe in creation...
by TheStumbler ini've been having a bit of an email exchange with elder dad and i need some advice.
i thought i was getting through to him but i think my criticism and tone became a bit too strident in my last email and now he thinks that i am attacking him personally.
i think he has dismissed everything i said because he perceived me as 'overally critical, and rude.. .
-
-
AnnOMaly
It's classic Orwellian double-think.
JWs say they abstain from blood, but they take from blood (in fractionated form);
JWs say they don't follow human leaders, but they follow the Governing Body's lead (w.10, 9/15, pp. 21, 23);
JWs say they are not creationists, but they believe the universe was created.
Your dad can't back down even on this no-brainer, trivial matter. If he admits he's wrong on this, he'll also have to admit the Org's wrong on this and he senses where that could lead. You've more than adequately made your point. Having been confronted with the glaringly obvious, once your JW insists that black is white, you've gone as far as you can for the present. It's time to smile knowingly and change the subject.
-
-
-
AnnOMaly
Depends on the lighting, the time of day, which way the wind's blowing and how many glasses of wine I've had before looking in the mirror and assessing myself, but I'd say anywhere between 3 and 11.
-
34
Indianapolis Assembly Hall Chorus AMAZING!
by NoMoreHustle inthis is what wt has been producing, this had my bottom jaw on the carpet while i was watching (like the footloose one).
and they say there different from other religions yeah right!!.
i hope this link works https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vahglagd2i.
-
-
AnnOMaly
Now THAT was classy! And it was more appropriate for a JW place of worship (bearing in mind the past JW mindset about 'entertainment' and music in the KH, etc.).
It's sad in a way: a factor in prompting me to join a 'worldly' choir before fully leaving was the new songbook which ruined many of the older songs and where the pre-recorded piano arrangements had become so bland, so robotic. These Indianapolis guys breathe life and passion into the songs. The sad thing is, this is likely a one-off.
Blondie says she remembers the time many decades ago when the older songbooks had SATB notation to allow bringing more color and depth to the songs. But they cut that out and it has long been one of the deficiencies in JW services - taking a pride in the music, using it creatively and expressively to stir the soul, and having the songs sung well or led by a choir.
------
As an aside, there's a recent and interesting article on JW music and its development over the years:
THE JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES’ CHANGING HYMNODY
by George D. Chryssides, University of Birmingham UK
A paper presented at the CESNUR 2013 -
38
Paul - GB Member (W 9/15/14)
by pixel inok, is this a "new understanding" or what?
up until this point i thought that the borg refered paul as a co or do, but never gb member:.
p. 12 now, why would paul a spiritual giant who likely was a member of the first-century governing bodycall himself a miserable man?.
-
-
AnnOMaly
Not new.
*** w85 12/1 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***
Was the apostle Paul part of the Christian governing body?
It is reasonable to conclude that Paul was a part of the Christian governing body in the first century. ... ...
-
59
BBC Radio 4 reference to 607 Babylonian conquest?
by 88JM inwas listening to bbc radio 4 late sunday night, and in a programme about migration, they referenced the "babylonian conquest of jerusalem in 607 b.c.
" which caught my attention.. did they not mean 587 b.c., or did i understand it wrong?.
the link to the programme is below - sorry if you're not in the u.k. as you probably won't be able to listen to bbc programmes.
-
-
AnnOMaly
Good one, Londo!