Big YES. While I don't know any christmas songs, my wife and I fully embraced the decorating and doing christmas activities. Our children absolutely love all things christmas and it is truly a magical time for them.
sloppyjoe2
JoinedPosts by sloppyjoe2
-
35
Christmas, yes or no ?
by jhine ini have just started to steep the mincemeat for my mince pies in dark rum .
christmas is a big deal in my family and circle of friends.
however among ex jws it's a bit different or so l understand.
-
-
sloppyjoe2
-
31
How do Witnesses reconcile Isaiah 43:10 with John 1:1
by Vanderhoven7 insomething does not compute.
you are my witnesses,”declares jehovah, yes, my servant whom i have chosen, so that you may know and have faith in me and understand that i am the same one.before me no god was formed, and after me there has been none.
isaiah 43:10. in the beginning was the word, and the word was with god and the word was god.
-
-
sloppyjoe2
@wonderment,
My point about Colossians which I didn’t really make is that they added those words themselves to suit their purpose. They used to have brackets to show that they added the word other and instead now remove them as if they were always there. As far as the trinity goes, I don’t have a dog in the fight. If my Bible said the word was God at John 1:1 and then Paul said Jesus created all things, and Genesis 1:1 says God created all things in the beginning, there’s an argument to make. Throw in God said let us make man in our own image. Someone can start to build a case. I don’t think Jesus taught the Trinity, but I don’t really care what side people are on.
-
31
How do Witnesses reconcile Isaiah 43:10 with John 1:1
by Vanderhoven7 insomething does not compute.
you are my witnesses,”declares jehovah, yes, my servant whom i have chosen, so that you may know and have faith in me and understand that i am the same one.before me no god was formed, and after me there has been none.
isaiah 43:10. in the beginning was the word, and the word was with god and the word was god.
-
-
sloppyjoe2
In my opinion, this isn't the verse that would ever catch a JW. You would go in circles with a JW with neither side budging. I think you know that. The verse I don't believe any JW could defend nor even know is how the word "other" was added to Colossians 1:16
-
31
How do Witnesses reconcile Isaiah 43:10 with John 1:1
by Vanderhoven7 insomething does not compute.
you are my witnesses,”declares jehovah, yes, my servant whom i have chosen, so that you may know and have faith in me and understand that i am the same one.before me no god was formed, and after me there has been none.
isaiah 43:10. in the beginning was the word, and the word was with god and the word was god.
-
-
sloppyjoe2
When I was a witness I could reconcile that very easily as punkofnice pointed out. Your bible is wrong and should read "a god".
-
23
"The Truth"
by Ding inwe all know that jws consider the wt religion to be "the truth" and refer to it as such.. granted, that phrase is used repeatedly in the literature and from the platform.. but it's obvious that much of what the organization used to require jws to teach house-to-house as important truths--even within our own lifetimes--has been abandoned.
it's been replaced by "new light" and "refined understanding.
what's meant by "the 1914 generation" is a prime example.. in fact, i think it would be hard to find another religion that has changed so many of its teachings, especially in such a short period of time.. so why do jws still believe their religion to be "the truth"?.
-
-
sloppyjoe2
The truth to JWs is that the watchtower organization is Jehovah’s one true organization. And the Governing Body is who Jehovah uses to communicate to his people. Those two beliefs are the whole “truth” for JWs. If they changed their doctrine to the trinity tomorrow, would all 9 millions witnesses leave? No way! If they changed to Yahweh’s witnesses, that’s what JWs would do. ANYTHING except those two beliefs are subject to change. That is what JWs hold as truth. Whatever changes in doctrine that come along is a part of being a JW so long as you maintain those two core beliefs.
-
7
"Christian Witnesses of Jah" by Greg Stafford
by Bartolomeo inhow many of you know greg stafford and his youtube channel "christian witnesses of jah"?
.
i really like his style, always calm, respectful of the holy scriptures and firmly based on them to analyze the teachings of the wt from which he disagrees.
-
-
sloppyjoe2
While I have not seen his YouTube channel, I don’t need to know what he believes. When I was a teenager in the late 90s and realized what was wrong with Watchtower, he was one of the most avid defenders of the organization. Writing books, doing open debates and so on. Regardless of his academic background, it took him many years to finally realize the org wasn’t what he believed it to be. I am a simpleton and figured it out as a young kid. He is just as susceptible and swayed by his own bias and beliefs as anyone else. No need to follow him.
-
-
-
sloppyjoe2
I do not identify myself as a republican or democrat as I have voted both sides. I think the hearings are necessary because the capitol building was stormed by citizens. It's a federal building and the severity of this happening should not be disregarded. I don't really care about the politics behind it or the result in the end since I don't expect anything to happen. Trump supporters when January 6th happened jumped up and down swearing it was actually ANTIFA and people funded by George Soros impersonating Trump supporters. Now the same Trump supporters defend and downplay what happened that day. Trump has turned into many republicans supreme leader and I don't know why. The stock market went up, and the economy was good, but as a leader I thought he had terrible leadership skills. I thought his response to COVID would make or break his reelection and he blew it in my opinion. I sincerely hope Trump doesn't run again and wish some new candidates would run on the republican ticket.
-
173
Roe vs Wade Overturned by US Supreme Court!
by Simon ini know there was a leak a few weeks back, but this really does seem to have come out of the blue.. the anomaly was the original decision.
it clearly had no basis in law or the constitution, and was a flimsy, ridiculous ruling.
plus the whole thing was based on a fraudulent case in the first place.. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61928898.
-
-
sloppyjoe2
This is the fundamental difference between anyone that is ok with abortion and those who are not. I am not speaking for late term abortion as I don't agree with that. For me viability is not a sustainable life yet and I accept that as a part of society, I agree with the freedom to choose. I don't accept abortion after that because I now feel there is sustainable life. But in this situation, we are going to disagree, I understand that.
-
173
Roe vs Wade Overturned by US Supreme Court!
by Simon ini know there was a leak a few weeks back, but this really does seem to have come out of the blue.. the anomaly was the original decision.
it clearly had no basis in law or the constitution, and was a flimsy, ridiculous ruling.
plus the whole thing was based on a fraudulent case in the first place.. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61928898.
-
-
sloppyjoe2
@data dog, the point of viability according to medicine has nothing to do with the importance of life. As I posted earlier, if you support abortion or in my case just believe the freedom of the choice should be there, I acknowledge that the fetus would become a living breathing human being. Viability is the cutoff I agree with because at that point, the fetus can't survive outside the womb. I disagree with late term abortion, so there has to be a "cutoff" point somewhere. -
173
Roe vs Wade Overturned by US Supreme Court!
by Simon ini know there was a leak a few weeks back, but this really does seem to have come out of the blue.. the anomaly was the original decision.
it clearly had no basis in law or the constitution, and was a flimsy, ridiculous ruling.
plus the whole thing was based on a fraudulent case in the first place.. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61928898.
-
-
sloppyjoe2
@simon it was certainly a broad statement. So I will be more specific. If one is against all abortions no matter what, they don’t care about the following. A woman raped that doesn’t want the child. Incest causing pregnancy. A woman that may die if the fetus is not terminated. A fetus that will never be able to be functional due to a genetic disorder and the parents would prefer to terminate. And like you said forced prostitution which i would classify as rape. If you read my prior comments, I don’t think abortion is good. I don’t glorify it and I don’t think it should be happening past viability. I just prefer we keep our freedoms. There was already a post about what to do with men that get women pregnant. Eliminating one freedom will now lead to eliminating more freedoms.