OneEyedJoe

Joined

• started 34 topics
• posted 2,930 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by OneEyedJoe

• 
  61

  Zone Visit feedback, from ones still in??

  by Crazyguy in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  just wondering if any one has heard from ones still asleep, what their feedback has been and what comments have been made by the rank and file??.

  .

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OneEyedJoe

  I think he was referring to one (or more) of the other speakers besides herd and AMIII. There was at least one speaker that was introduced as being a "Helper to the governing body"
• 
  10

  i have a theory about the long term doctrine of wt!

  by purrpurr in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i can see no reason why the gb would want to loosen their grip on their cash cow/ cushy life.

  but what will they do in 20,30,50 years?

  well i suspect that at some point they will claim that the promised paradise is already here but that it has come in spirtual form.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OneEyedJoe

  Personally, I suspect they'll just keep kicking the can down the road with new definitions of "generation" and new start points for the generation. If the paradise is already here, people won't be motivated to preach about it's coming and they won't have the imminent threat of armageddon to keep 'em active if it's already come.

  Even if you're thinking they'll switch to saying everyone goes to heaven (which I can't see happening, but who knows) people will slow down. If you have to die to get to paradise/heaven, then that means you should plan for a long life in this system, which means working, saving for retirement, education, etc - all these things will make people slightly more likely to wake up and leave the cult.

  Though, I will admit, they have been saying that we live in a "spiritual paradise" for a while - when we're close to the congregation
• 
  61

  Zone Visit feedback, from ones still in??

  by Crazyguy in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  just wondering if any one has heard from ones still asleep, what their feedback has been and what comments have been made by the rank and file??.

  .

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OneEyedJoe

  Can someone confirm this:

  The JWs were told to not record the talk or take notes?

  I won't claim this to be verbatim but we were told:

  No flash photogrophy, don't block the aisles to take pictures without flash (or something like that)

  No recordings are to be made

  You should not stream any audio or video of the event to another location

  Though you may use some of the points mentioned in the talks to encourage others, you should not share any of your notes with anyone.

  This was without a doubt the most comprehensive and paranoid sounding disclaimer at the beginning of a talk. I'm used to the stuff about not posting video online at the conventions, but this was well beyond that. I may even be leaving out something in there.
• 
  40

  Armageddon will be here in less than 4 years!

  by hoser in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  that's the word according to my mil.

  mrs hoser is starting a new career and the college and work training will take her four years to complete.

  her mom is giving her a hard time telling her that the system will be over before she graduates.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OneEyedJoe

  It's hard to make out the mentality of people who repeat these "prophecies" when they have a history of failed claims behind them. Do they really believe it themselves or is it just a coded way to express their frustrations or fears at other people's choices?

  For me, I never really believed it, but I would find myself saying it just because that's just what you say. I was taught how to interact by JWs and when someone says X is 6 years away, you just have to say "if this system lasts that long." Its sorta like the JW version of please and thankyou. You just say it out of habit at a certain point - especially if you're socially awkward like me and looking for a formulaic way to interact with people.
• 
  40

  Armageddon will be here in less than 4 years!

  by hoser in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  that's the word according to my mil.

  mrs hoser is starting a new career and the college and work training will take her four years to complete.

  her mom is giving her a hard time telling her that the system will be over before she graduates.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OneEyedJoe

  I remember once my (very judgmental) JW mother going off about a young sister in our congregation that wanted to be a doctor. She just couldn't understand how someone could go to school to be a doctor, and invest 8 years in schooling before you could even start practicing. Armageddon would surely come before she had the chance to be a doctor, and we wouldn't even need doctors in the new system. That was 15 years ago. I guess that schooling wasn't so ill-advised.

  Meanwhile my hypocrit mother now has a masters degree. I guess armageddon wasn't so imminent that she couldn't go to school to be financially stable.
• 
  13

  "Opinions about dress and grooming..."

  by leaving_quietly in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  from the july 15, 2014 watchtower, page 15. par.

  "opinions about dress and grooming, health and nutrition, and other personal matters may also trigger controversy.

  accordingly, if no scriptural principle is being violated, jehovah's people wisely abstain from arguing over such matters, "for a slave of the lord does not need to fight, but needs to be gentle [tactful, ftn.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OneEyedJoe

  I'm sorry, I just realized I'd been wildly ambiguous. When I said the scripture in timothy I was referring to 2 Tim. 2:24 (from the OP).

  I would have had no issue if he had read the verse, then said something like: "Some have observed some of our brothers and sisters wearing clothing that is a little too tight or too revealing. Perhaps we should evaluate what we're wearing to see that it's modest and appropriate before we leave our homes." And leave it at that. Let people's own consciences guide them.

  This, 100%. The problem is if you let people excercise their conscience, it'll get stronger and they'll start using it on other things like blood, shunning, reporting serve-us time, etc etc until they start excercising their conscience by not contributing money to a corrupt organization - that's when it becomes a BIG problem.
• 
  13

  "Opinions about dress and grooming..."

  by leaving_quietly in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  from the july 15, 2014 watchtower, page 15. par.

  "opinions about dress and grooming, health and nutrition, and other personal matters may also trigger controversy.

  accordingly, if no scriptural principle is being violated, jehovah's people wisely abstain from arguing over such matters, "for a slave of the lord does not need to fight, but needs to be gentle [tactful, ftn.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OneEyedJoe

  Oh no, he read 1 Timothy 2:9 before his diatribe.

  Did he? Wow, I must've missed that. So while they're reading scriptures that directly conflicts with what follows, does this mean that they're going to start reading Matt. 9:13 before a discussion on blood transfusions?
• 
  13

  "Opinions about dress and grooming..."

  by leaving_quietly in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  from the july 15, 2014 watchtower, page 15. par.

  "opinions about dress and grooming, health and nutrition, and other personal matters may also trigger controversy.

  accordingly, if no scriptural principle is being violated, jehovah's people wisely abstain from arguing over such matters, "for a slave of the lord does not need to fight, but needs to be gentle [tactful, ftn.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OneEyedJoe

  BU2B - well he was certainly violating the scripture in timothy - his talk was nothing resembling gentle or tactful.
• 
  24

  Tight Pants Tony Made The News

  by thedepressedsoul in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  if you go to google and just type in, jehovah witness about 10 different articles pop up about tonys comment with the gays wanting men in tight pants!

  i didnt play with any other google words yet but comment is getting a lot of publicity!.

  he done goofed on that one!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OneEyedJoe

  agreed. However I don't think it would be a stretch to suggest that tight skirts on women is out of line for a "christian". Why would tight pants on men be any different?

  I get that the GB stand on a platform of speaking for god, but to be honest, any christian SHOULD consider tight pants or "skinny" pants unchristian the same way they would find tight skirts

  Tight pants are unchristian today in exactly the same way that exposed ankle on a lady was unchristian in the 1700s. Standards for modesty change. I think it's clear that pants that are sufficiently tight to show the outline of the head of the man's penis are probably something that would be considered immodest by most even today, but he never said anything like that. The pictures in Cadelin's post certainly show tailored somewhat tight suit-pants, but I don't see how they are in any way immodest. In fact, I don't think I would necessarily say that either of the men in your pictures are immodest. The second guy is obviously a little closer to the line than the first, but still I think it's just a matter of taste.

  While it's obviously easier to poke fun at the rediculous sound bites that came from the tight-pants rant, my biggest objections to it are:

  1. This organization consistently says that they do not make rules for every little bit of minutiae as did the pharasees in Jesus' day. This is a clear example of them doing just that, and from the very top of the pyramid at that. Instead, they should allow their adherents to apply their "bible trained conscience" that they keep going on about and decide for themseleves. The blatant hipocrisy is disgusting.

  2. The underlying effect that the GB's making of man-made rules has on JWs is immense, even if the rules are relatively trivial. AMIII says no skinny jeans, so a few JWs throw away their skinny jeans. The very act of their compliance then makes them more likely to go along with bigger things in the future (even if they don't agree that skinny jeans are wrong, they must change their belief to deal with the cognitive dissonance that occurs when they throw them out due to peer pressure). This small, seemingly innocent, rule exemplifies the high level of control that the organization exerts over JWs and it is this control that is most damaging. JWs find themselves in a place where every detail of their lives is controled for them and they have no valid way to introduce their own reasoning. This control results in, among other things, the deaths of thousands for refusal of blood transfusions and organ transplants, the death by suicide of countless teens who are shunned by their own parents, the molestation of countless innocent children by known child molesters and the list goes on. This small, innocent, seemingly christian rule sets the stage for all that. It may seem like an exageration, but it's a well understood psychological effect and without these small rules, the most damaging rules would be more likely to be questioned and ultimately rejected.
• 
  5

  Article "How Mormons Will Come to Accept Homosexuality" - roadmap for JWs?

  by sir82 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  check out this article:.

  http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2014/11/mormons_will_accept_homosexuality_mormon_church_leaders_use_revelation_to.html.

  it gives a history of how some mormon doctrine has changed over the years.. any of this sound familiar?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OneEyedJoe

  Strangely enough, I can actually see the courts steadily going in that direction in the future, but considering the rhetoric coming out of WTHQ reiterating all their ultra-conservative stances, they seem far more inclined to draw lines in the sand than compromise, these days.

  Which, IMO, is good, in that it ensures their decline.

  I tend to agree, what I really see happening if some country begins sanctioning religions that ban homosexuals from joining is this:

  1. Fight it to the highest court in the land.

  2. Upon losing, issue a public statement that they do not ban homosexuals from joining nor do they excommunicate them for being homosexual.

  3. Issue a private letter to the elders (not to be read nor disseminated publicly in any way) that anyone who participates in homosexual behavior (not mearly being a homosexual) has disassociated themselves by their actions.

  4. Stop talking about homosexuals as openly in the publications, but continue to make it a topic for CO talks and at conventions.

  With any luck the reputation their earning themselves in the legal world will make it obvious what they're doing and expose them.