an evidence for divine origin that has often been used (at least to me) is where job describes "...escap[ing] with the skin of my teeth".
science is quoted as having discovered that teeth are covered in skin and therefore how would job have known something that modern science has only just discovered.
i was reminded of this at this weeks meeting when this verse was quoted but was surprised when a commenter said how it wasn't necessary to mention this in light of other "evidence" in the bible.
Discovery of "skin" on your teeth! Bible proven scientifically accurate!
So what if there's not literal skin on your teeth? You're just looking to find fault! It was meant figuratively!
And so it goes with every bible verse. The lucky guesses are prophetic, the failures are figurative or hyperbole.
the problem is i have a baptized witness going out on service door to door giveing comments at kh who for the last 4 years has had sex with at least 10 prostitutes and regularly takes drugs ie speed the cong has no idea he's doing this he says he will never go to elders for fear his family will shun him if df so he continues i know because he tells me everything should i tell the elders or not.
Unless his behavior is directly hurting you, just leave him alone. Consenting adults and all that. Just my opinion
Edit: on second thought, even if his behavior is hurting you, there are better ways to handle it than going to cult elders. If you are being affected by his behavior, I'm sure many here (including myself) would be glad to help you find a solution.
when i first left the watchtower society, i can remember being very eager to learn new information, especially information which pertained to discrediting the watchtower organization.
i called it "the cage stage" .
this excitement and newfound change in worldview completely rocked my world.
I posted similar thoughts a while back: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/474120002/why-trying-reason-jw-out-cult-lost-cause-what-solution-might
While I definitely believe there's a place for reason and facts and all that jazz in waking up a JW, I think it takes a secondary role. I woke up purely because I determined the doctrine to be false and I had been intentionally lied to, but I still had to be in the right emotional place before I could accept that. There had been sufficient evidence to tell me I was in a cult for my entire adult life, but accepting the evidence and seeking out more potentially faith-destroying evidence is something that most will not do until they're emotionally ready to do so.
www.the-newshub.com/general/are-jehovahs-witness-a-religious-ponzi-scheme
i am now seperated from my jw husband.
he cheated twice on me, once while i was pregnant.
he hasnt been to meetings for approximately 2 years.
They often show themselves as being completely legalistic. They act as if DFing is some arrangement that just makes it easier for everyone in the congregation to do what they should/would be doing anyways (if they knew all the details for the situation) but in reality many in the congregation only care about someone's transgressions if it actually gets them DFed. There's a similar situation for me - I've told one of my (conditional) friends about my reasons for leaving the cult, outright admitting that I am an apostate and he basically said he'll still be my friend as long as I don't get announced as no longer a JW. I told him myself I'm no longer a JW, but he doesn't care until it's official. So legalistic. Also, some friend that he'll tell me to my face that if some random guy stands up and says I'm no longer a JW he just immediately drops me even though it is in no way new information to him.
Your situation also demonstrates what I suspect is a result of the rampant misogyny in the cult. Something tells me if an elder was trying to get his wife DFed for cheating, it wouldn't matter if she didn't attend meetings - they'd be happy to DF her so that he could save face in front of the congregation when he starts dating.
jw's are constantly trying to prove they have the truth.
they always point to matthew 24:14 and say "who is accomplishing this work today?
this proves we have the truth and gods backing".. for those of us in this community looking from the other side what is one thing that proves to you that this organization does not have gods backing?
hesitantly i attended this talk with my family and sat through it without batting an eye.. mentally i take myself out during the entire meeting some would describe this as daydreaming or zoning out.
whatever the case may be, for some reason this particular speaker, whom i know of but not personally, got my attention the way he would say certain phrases.
he cited some texts that directly advised the audience that faith in christ was the only way to salvation.
i like how it looks in other people but not for myself.. this is a phrase i have heard often from my wife.
now i am to a point where i am trying to figure it out if this is something all women do or say.
i can understand how you would say this if you were talking about a type of clothing that doesn't go with your figure, except that you may add the disclaimer... "if i had that figure i would wear this".
Sometimes things look good but don't suit your personality? Sometimes I see guys that have their hair dyed a neon color and it looks good on them (might even look just as good on me) but I wouldn't like the attention that it would bring because I'm an introvert. Sometimes I'll see a guy with a bunch of jewelry or bracelets or something and it looks good on him, but I wouldn't want to have to worry about putting all that stuff on in the morning. Surely you've been there too. I don't see what's so hard to grasp about it.
Another possibility is that its an easy excuse to avoid making a commitment to something new or going after something you want - sometimes people are afraid to try and they avoid doing so.
i have looked around and i don't see this covered, so i am starting a thread.. 1) the new "blood card" goes beyond being just a "blood card".. 2) a new edict concerning compliance.. pay attention to the changes.. first, the new card is termed "advance decision to refuse specified medical treatment".
the big change with the card itself is that it includes an 'override' of your "power of attorney".
this is huge.
I find it hard to believe that the WTS will put anything in writing on these healthcare choice documents that compels a jw to make a certain choice. Put it behind the scenes more likely. jws don't know what the meaning is a the medical choices, many just blindly do what they are told verbally by elders, COs, etc.
I'm sure the letter doesn't say "make sure every publisher signs it or they're DFed" - it'll say that they've made "provisions" for people to keep their card on file with the elders, and are encouraged to do so. We all know what it means, though. The elders will be "encouraged" to verify that they have something on file for every publisher to make sure that the publisher was aware of this provision (wouldn't want them to miss out just because they didn't know about this loving arrangement!) but what it really means is that they're supposed to hound everyone until they've all signed away their lives and have it on file. When they put coercion in writing, they do it subtly and in a way that they can claim it means something else.
I'm not sure how I feel about this. It will almost certainly not free any of those in russia that are currently mentally enslaved to this cult (indeed it will probably cause them to double down in their commitment), but it may well help prevent future victimization from taking place. This also has me wondering how truthful the cult's frequent line that when under ban they often have more growth than in countries where they're free to practice. That seems feasible because it would require even more deceptive recruitment tactics, as opposed to the slightly more up-front (though still far from honest) recruiting in other countries. But it seems most things that the cult says is either a lie or wildly deceptive, I'm not so sure.
I wonder if something else might be more effective - instead of banning "extremist" groups (which is something that can be somewhat subjective to define, and will always be debated by such groups) they should ban any groups that push for deceptive recruiting tactics and do not provide full disclosure to prospective members up-front. This would be reasonably easy to demonstrate to be the case with JWs and a statement saying that you're banning a group because they use deceptive recruiting tactics and have refused to be up-front in recruiting after being given a warning sends a very different message. They can no longer claim persecution as effectively (especially if documented evidence of said deceptive recruiting is provided to the public) because they're being punished for what is essentially fraud. It would also do a lot to warn the public away from them - being banned because you're extremist can be read as being banned because you really believe in your cause which some see as a virtue. Being banned because you deceive people into joining your group has no up side to it.
It might be harder to implement something like that, though, in a legal setting. But it would probably still cover everyone that they want to target - extremist groups and cults all use deceptive recruiting.
