Thought it might be interesting to put a perspective on things. While many here have had terrible experiences at the hands of JW's and the WTBTS, are there religions that you know of which are any worse? For example, JW's might disfellowship a member who became known as a thief, but they don't chop off your hand. While they completely condemn sex outside of marriage, they don't stone people for it (although some have been reminded by elders that they COULD have been stoned in the past). So, who is even more strict, even MORE mind-controlling, and has even MORE bizarre teachings than JW's?
gaiagirl
JoinedPosts by gaiagirl
-
21
Whose religion is WORSE than JW's?
by gaiagirl inthought it might be interesting to put a perspective on things.
while many here have had terrible experiences at the hands of jw's and the wtbts, are there religions that you know of which are any worse?
for example, jw's might disfellowship a member who became known as a thief, but they don't chop off your hand.
-
-
-
6
Who's Got The Blues [C.D.'s and D.V.D.'s]?
by Rapunzel into state the obvious, rock and roll has its roots in the blues.
if you listen to many "classic" rock bands - like led zep, the who and the stones - the influence of the blues is self-evident.
the members of both those bands grew up listening to the blues.
-
-
gaiagirl
I've heard many of the artists you mentioned, but the absolute best blues song I've ever heard, no kidding, was "Generic Blues" by Weird Al Yankovic. The song is sort of like the distilled essence of every other blues song ever written. Here is a link to a youtube video of the song, enjoy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=su9m_eQeWrY
-
17
Could a JW lifer not know about theocratic warfare?
by RebelWife ini was just looking at another thread about lying.
it reminded me of a discussion i had a while back with my husband, who has been a jw all his life (dfd now).
i brought up lying and this term "theocratic warfare," which i had never heard before, but found online.
-
-
gaiagirl
I suppose it would depend on when their "life" began, certainly people who were JWs between the '40s and the '80s would know of it. I left in the early '90s, so don't know how much emphasis has been placed on it since then.
-
2
Anyone remember the articles justifying the "Theocratic Lie"?
by gaiagirl inat one time, an article in one of the publications used the illustration of rahab who lied to conceal two israelite spies to justify outright lying to protect the interests of the wtbts.
experiences were mentioned of jw's during wartime who regularly denied their identities, or lied regarding their possession of hidden literature, etc.
does anyone remember these articles.
-
-
gaiagirl
At one time, an article in one of the publications used the illustration of Rahab who lied to conceal two Israelite spies to justify outright lying to protect the interests of the WTBTS. Experiences were mentioned of JW's during wartime who regularly denied their identities, or lied regarding their possession of hidden literature, etc. Does anyone remember these articles.
-
17
"This Generation" of 1914, ended in 1995. When did teaching begin?
by Fatfreek inas far as i can tell with google searches, it began sometime in the '60s.
can someone confirm this?
is that also when awake, page 4, began its classic statement, "... before the generation that saw the events of 1914 passes away.
-
-
gaiagirl
So, why couldn't holy spirit guide "the organization" to the correct understanding from the beginning, instead of leading them through all the errors? If holy spirit couldn't get it right from the beginning, how can anyone be confident that they have it right at the present time?
-
29
How do we know animals have always killed each other?
by inkling inok fellow forum people, i really need your help.. i am trying to put together a concise argument that animals have killed and eaten.
each other since the dawn of time.. i need any fossil evidence that any animal before the "flood", or dinosaurs before.
"adam and eve" were indeed carnivorous.. i don't mean obvious stuff like sharp teeth, i mean things like little chomped up.
-
-
gaiagirl
If you examine marine fossils beginning in the early Paleozoic, roughly 600 million years ago, and follow them forward through time, you observe more and more armor plating on invertebrates and even some fish. There is only one reason any creature has armor plating, and that is as a defense against something trying to eat it. There was also a increase of obviously carnivorous fish such as sharks and Dunkleosteous (used to be called Dinicthys), so what you are observing is an "arms race" of sorts. Same thing happened during the time of dinosaurs, as more efficient predators evolved, more effective defensive armor evolved in response.
-
14
10.000 B.C. movie...
by greek inhi, anyone thinks that in 10.000 bc there was altars, sacrifices of jehovah s worshippers ,or something like " divine revelation" to the humans of that epoch -to wit,neanderthals, cro-magnon, etc.?.
for if god really existed billions of years back, so he should care of the spiritual necessities of mankind.. think this:.
cro-magnon = 1500 cc.
-
-
gaiagirl
Actually, Neanderthals had a slightly larger brain, by several percent, than modern humans. Not sure what they did with it, but brain casts of those skulls which have been found do show this to be the case.
-
12
Two endings for book of Mark - Proof of editing in later years?
by gaiagirl ini recall that the nwt used to have both a "short" and a "long" ending to the book of mark.
apparantly, by the time of the oldest existing manuscripts, (a century or two after the time of first writing if i recall), more than one version had already come into being, and were being used by christian congregations, and these are what have come down to us today.
now, in the 21st century, the wtbts is unsure which ending (if either) is the correct one, so they hedge and offer both in their printed bibles.. does this not constitute evidence that the books of the bible were heavily edited from their original form even in the early centuries?.
-
-
gaiagirl
Clearly, Mark would have written it one way, not with alternate endings. No other book in the Bible has alternate endings. So even if the "short" ending was intentional, only one version can be the original (ahem) "inspired" version. Therefore, the "other" must be a later edit, containing "un-inspired" material. Alternatively, neither version could be inspired, with the "inspired" original being simply lost.
-
41
Watchtower 2008 dumb logic= "Belief in evolution makes you an orphan."
by Witness 007 inwatch, feb 1 2008 p.4 "if we really are the product of evolution and there is no creator, the human race would in a sense, be an orphan.
mankind would have no source of superior wisdom to consult- no one to help us solve our problems.
we would have to rely on human wisdom to avert enviromental disaster, to solve political conflicts, and to guide us through our personal crises.
-
-
gaiagirl
Every single thing we have which has made our lives more comfortable, and every single thing the human race has learned to do, has come from some clever human, not handed down from God. Every single fabric which we weave to make clothing, every wood, metal, plastic or other material we learned to work these materials on our own. The housed we live in, the cars we ride in, the computers we communicate with, all are human products. The medicines which alleviate pains and in many cases save lives, and the good foods and beverages which we consume are all produced as a result of human knowledge and labor. If not for human inventiveness, we would all be wearing nothing, picking berries and nuts, and sleeping on the ground or in a tree. Most women would die in childbirth during their teens or 20's. Most men would be eaten by wild animals of the forest while foraging, or die from injuries which could not be healed. Almost no one would know their grandparents. Everything we have, we acquired on our own, with no help from "God".
-
12
Two endings for book of Mark - Proof of editing in later years?
by gaiagirl ini recall that the nwt used to have both a "short" and a "long" ending to the book of mark.
apparantly, by the time of the oldest existing manuscripts, (a century or two after the time of first writing if i recall), more than one version had already come into being, and were being used by christian congregations, and these are what have come down to us today.
now, in the 21st century, the wtbts is unsure which ending (if either) is the correct one, so they hedge and offer both in their printed bibles.. does this not constitute evidence that the books of the bible were heavily edited from their original form even in the early centuries?.
-
-
gaiagirl
I recall that the NWT used to have both a "short" and a "long" ending to the book of Mark. Apparantly, by the time of the oldest existing manuscripts, (a century or two after the time of first writing if I recall), more than one version had already come into being, and were being used by Christian congregations, and these are what have come down to us today. Now, in the 21st century, the WTBTS is unsure which ending (if either) is the correct one, so they hedge and offer BOTH in their printed Bibles.
Does this not constitute evidence that the books of the Bible were heavily edited from their original form even in the early centuries?