Great comments!
Don't worry, I agree! I have no desire to really ever go back. Certainly no desire to take it seriously...
It was more of a morbid curiosity - like watching a car crash in slow motion....
just wondering if anyone has gone back to a meeting out of curiosity?
(perhaps to an area far from your old khall where you know no one).
with all the changes from 2012 onwards (videos, tv screens, new meeting format, new songs etc) it would be an odd experience to be in attendance!.
Great comments!
Don't worry, I agree! I have no desire to really ever go back. Certainly no desire to take it seriously...
It was more of a morbid curiosity - like watching a car crash in slow motion....
just wondering if anyone has gone back to a meeting out of curiosity?
(perhaps to an area far from your old khall where you know no one).
with all the changes from 2012 onwards (videos, tv screens, new meeting format, new songs etc) it would be an odd experience to be in attendance!.
Just wondering if anyone has gone back to a meeting out of curiosity? (perhaps to an area far from your old KHall where you know no one)
With all the changes from 2012 onwards (videos, tv screens, new meeting format, new songs etc) it would be an odd experience to be in attendance!
It would be a testament to our ability to sit there and spot the logical fallacies, leading assumptions, strawperson tactics. The cognitive dissonance would be in overdrive I am sure too!
So has anyone visited a meeting recently?
Thoughts?
geoffrey jackson testified to the arc that the governing body has apologized for things in the past, so an apology to sexual abuse victims is "perceivable".
what has the governing body ever apologized for?.
22 q. just on that point, mr jackson, has the governing body23 considered apologising to survivors of child sexual abuse24 at the hands of elders within the organisation?25 a. i haven't been in any discussions with regard to that.26 27 q. is that something that you foresee might happen ‐ in 28 other words, that an apology at least be considered?29 a. the governing body has apologised on other matters, so30 for me to say ‐ i can't speak collectively for everybody, 31 but we have apologised on things in the past, in other32 areas, so it is perceivable.. .
The closest to an apology would be something like this:
"In the past, some well meaning individuals have proposed ideas that were not in harmony with our current understanding. These individuals have been helped to humbly change their thoughts and ideas with the help of Jehovah and his Spirit directed organization"
In other words, "IT WAS YOUR FAULT that you believed the things we told you"
look at this "gem"!.
it's from the november 1st, 1947 watchtower, p.336.
essentially, this is what started the doctrine that you couldn't divorce your spouse if he/she cheated on you with another member of the same sex.. this ended in 1972 with another wt article.
Totally astounding!
So, when Jehovah gave such directions through his earthly channel, was he having a bad day and getting things wrong?
Has Jehovah now realised his errors?
Or could it be that the people "speaking for God" were wrong?...Hmmm? Does that prove that they DO NOT speak for God?
something occurred to me today.
quite randomly as i was working away at my desk i remembered an illustration from the bible teach book in which satan claimed he knew better than jehovah about ruling mankind.
here's the illustration from chapter 11 of that book:.
Spot on! Great point!
BUT, you realise that you are committing the unforgivable sin of "using your independent thinking abilities" ?!?!
the last post about the violin for sale got me to looking at their ebay account which says it's based in wallkill.
they've got over 200 items for sale, most obsolete electronics that are grossly overpriced.
among them are used hard drives, like this one:.
Ewww...amongst the many items they have for sale is a "medical examination bed" as used by gynaecologists! (complete with feet stirrups!)
jehovah's witnesses cover-up.
http://www.ucobserver.org/justice/2018/01/jw/.
Brilliant article!
Really well researched and written! No "apostate driven lies" in this article. It is all facts.
Now let us see how the Society responds?!?!
my first impressions watching it, coming from a heterosexual male, was that it was just plain ridiculous (big surprise, i know), but i just want to share some thoughts as to why.. regarding the hypothetical scenario of two guys asking each other if they've ever woken up with an erection and other stuff like that: no, that would not arouse me.
i'm talking with a male, which i'm not sexually attracted to, and assuming he's a friend, it's just a casual conversation that i'm mature enough to handle.
the only way this is flirting (and then only maybe) is if one of us is gay.
That scenario of two guys masturbating in front of each other, has to be one of the most disturbing things I've ever heard said by the Society!
I spent 5 years in bethel, and that idea NEVER came up. I mean seriously, how messed up are the GB to even create such a hypothetical example?
is this true?
is this really true?!.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qirjv48c55m.
Oh Amelia! That is freaking hilarious!
Whoever thought of this eBay listing is a genius (if it was you Amelia, then bravo my friend!)
it struck me as funny that in order to sign in to this site we have to answer the question in the affirmative "i am not a robot.
yet if we are a jw we are a robot after years of programming by the organisation!
ironic isn't it.
"Does not compute"
haha. Good point though!