Posts by SAHS

19

Question on DF'ing

by Agent Smith in

jw
friends

.

ok...if 2 dubs divorce just because they hate each other, they are not free to remarry.. if one of them does remarry, he or she will be df'ed.

lets say that this person gets married with another dub....what happens to that person?

SAHS

?Balsam?:

. . . she has no use for the witnesses, and had wondered how her ex had pulled off getting married again without being disfellowshipped.

?littletree?:

my grandmother and her new husband ( now of 8 years ) were not disfellowshipped

I wonder if the Society has some sort of ?statute of limitations? to establish a recommended time period after remarriage during which a person could be disfellowshipped who has remarried when they weren?t, or aren?t, scripturally free to do so.

If, say, someone legally divorced their spouse and remarried to a JW even though they were not scripturally free to do so, but the new couple moved to another congregation in another area where their scripturally invalid remarriage wasn?t discovered for, say, ten years, then it wouldn?t make much sense to disfellowship them after they had already been remarried for that long.

Such a ?statute of limitations? probably isn?t in the elder?s manual (I think it?s called Pay Attention to the Flock), but I wonder if there is some sort of ?unwritten rule? about that.

?Cygnus?:

My ex-mother in law, a JW, divorced her non-JW husband. . . . Now I hear that she's getting remarried after some 8 years or so. When he got remarried several years ago she was so happy that she was now "scripturally free." My question was always: how can she be scripturally free after he's shacked up when he's not a JW and she was the one who left him?

I believe that once the other party has remarried to someone else, then the first party is automatically free scripturally, as well as legally, because remarriage automatically ends the first marriage (the other party can?t be married to more than one person at a time). Whether or not the first party was the one that left, or whether the other party was a JW or not, it really doesn?t matter. The deciding factor is that the first marriage has ended. (One would assume that the other party has consummated their new marriage in short order.)

?SAHS

16

So When and Why Did They Stop Feeding People At Assemblies?

by Englishman in

jw
friends

it seems nuts to me.

the feeding of umpteen thousand using voliunteers was their "in" with all the local press.

i know that cafeterias were still in use in '72 when i left.

SAHS

?Jez?:

why? C O N T R O L

You said it!

?SAHS

51

Local Elder Comes By My Work & He Left Looking Discouraged!

by minimus in

jw
friends

an elder that lives in the same area as my work came by and noticed i was waiting on customers.

he left and waited for them to leave.

then he came back in.

SAHS

?unbeliever?:

even though they knew the witness religion was bullshit I think they were still intimidated by the elders. They were also afraid of being shunned by their elderly parents. They felt it was in their best interest to avoid the elders at all costs and ride it out.

You?ve got to hand it to the WT?they sure know how to use the most effective coercion tactics, like threatening people with being cut off from their families and friends, to keep people in line.

They use fear of losing family ties to keep people in, but they also use DFing to kick out the non-conformists who don?t have the fear of losing family ties so they can ?keep the congregation clean.? In other words, they use fear to keep people in, until they think for themselves (hopefully not before they bring in more members), and then they?re disposed of. (Sounds like something ?Dr. Evil? on Austin Powers would think up!

?SAHS

16

So When and Why Did They Stop Feeding People At Assemblies?

by Englishman in

jw
friends

it seems nuts to me.

the feeding of umpteen thousand using voliunteers was their "in" with all the local press.

i know that cafeterias were still in use in '72 when i left.

SAHS

?The Thinker?:

Now that they don't have a food service, probably because of tax reasons, its OK to buy food from "satans World"

Actually, within the last year the Society has actually forbidden people to eat lunch at any restaurant or food stand during the convention!

The Society had a letter read in the congregations in Canada saying that apparently some of the unions for the stadium concession stands complained that they are losing revenue as their services are not required for JW conventions because JWs are supposed to bring their lunch. They said the problem is that some JWs have been observed spending their money on lunch at fast food places outside the convention grounds, and they feel it?s unfair because if the JWs buy their lunch outside the stadium grounds, they might as well spend their money at the stadium?s own concession stands.

So, the union for the stadium concession stands complained to the stadium administration, who then told the Society that if the JWs don?t bring their lunch like they said they were, then they might not be able to renew their contract for use of the facilities for future conventions.

However, I think that is a lot of BS! I think ?Elsewhere? is correct in saying that the real reason is the WT?s great aversion to paying taxes. Also, they don?t want ?worldly? food staff showing up at the stadium concession stands because it would introduce too much of a ?worldly spirit? (i.e., association with normal people having a non-JW perspective).

Now, when you go to a convention you feel guilty even if you just take a walk off the convention grounds to get a coffee. The reins tighten yet again! (I can?t wait for my chance to vote with my feet as well as my wallet!)

?SAHS

15

Watchtower Admits We Should Get Out of Her!!!

by minimus in

jw
friends

the july 15, 1915 watchower made this comment about the international bible students association (also known as the watch tower society), "if the i.b.s.a.

can be shown to be a section of babylon, we all ought to get out of it....if anyone can tell me how he got into babylon by getting interested in the affairs of the watch tower bible and tract society, let him show me how he will jump out, and i will jump with him".

SAHS

"If the I.B.S.A. can be shown to be a section of Babylon, we all ought to get out of it . . .

I guess now they?re sure glad that they hadn?t wrote ?. . . a section of Babylon or the UN?! Wouldn?t that have been quite the dirty feather in their cap!

?SAHS

49

Honest mistakes? The Governing Body's excuses for their actions

by Terry in

jw
friends

the governing body tells us they are not false prophets because they admit their mistakes.. they only err because they are zealous to see the new order commence.. they are on the watch and warning everybody just like they are supposed to.. their doctrines change (new light) because they see and admit their errors.. what more can we expect of them?.

is the governing body honestly doing the best they can?

they are only human; how can we expect them to be perfect?.

SAHS

?onacruse?:

The gb (lower case deliberate) . . .

Somebody has to bring them down a notch, even if it?s only a hairbreadth!

?SAHS

49

Honest mistakes? The Governing Body's excuses for their actions

by Terry in

jw
friends

the governing body tells us they are not false prophets because they admit their mistakes.. they only err because they are zealous to see the new order commence.. they are on the watch and warning everybody just like they are supposed to.. their doctrines change (new light) because they see and admit their errors.. what more can we expect of them?.

is the governing body honestly doing the best they can?

they are only human; how can we expect them to be perfect?.

SAHS

If someone kidnaps you a gunpoint, drags you into his car, and, while holding his gun to your head, tells you a stupid joke that he made up himself, and then asks you, ?that was pretty funny, eh?,? what are you going to do? Well, if you?re feeling rather terrified by the ordeal of being threatened by the power you perceive he has (the gun), then when he asks if you find his joke funny, even when you know it?s stupid, you?re probably going to say, ?yeah, it is,? and then make a forced nervous laugh.

However, as soon as you see that his gun has a bit of fluorescent red paint on the end of the barrel with a seam line along its length, and a ?Toys-?R?-Us? stamp on the side?the tell-tale signs of fakery?now your perception of his ?power,? which you thought was real due to his ?gun? (which you now know is only made of plastic)?that perception of ?power? gives way to reality, followed promptly by disdain, and anger. You now sense that the time has come for you to rip that toy gun away from him, administer the sweetest ?bitch slapping? of his life, and make your proud exit from his car. You won?t be giving up any of your money, dignity, virginity, or whatever the heck he wanted.

My point? As long as people fail to muster the courage to take a close look at the ?gun? (i.e., the ?big A,? and possible shunning by your family) that the WT is holding to their heads (as well as their families? heads) so as to realize that it?s not really what it?s ?cracked up to be,? then they will always, in effect, laugh at its stupid ?jokes? (dates, rules, and procedures), thereby continuing to dance to the crazed fiddler?s tune, who for now holds the strings (not to mention also holding a lot of bequeathed properties and estates).

In other words, the Governing Body doesn?t need to make excuses for its flounderings, as long as it holds the magic ?gun.? No peeking, now! The ?jokes? might not be as funny!

?SAHS

31

Writing bad checks on Jehovah's account: the Governing Body

by Terry in

jw
friends

the mouthpiece of jehovah speaks in his name with authority.

the governing body is the only channel of communication with the supreme being.

they identify themselves as the faithful and discreet slave.. if they are faithful, why do they write checks that bounce using jehovah's checking account?

SAHS

Well, at least now they have an electronic debit system. It?s called ?the Internet?!

No more pulling the wool over everyone?s eyes, in the west anyway. (Too bad we can?t put an online computer in every grass hut in Africa. Would that ever put a dent in the service report in the January 1st Watchtower!)

?SAHS (of the ?Mwaah ha ha ha haaaaa? class)

24

Were You Ever Really "On The Watch"?

by minimus in

jw
friends

jws are told to always be on the watch.

always be ready.

be alert in the "time of the end".

SAHS

Actually, I?m ?keeping on the watch? now. I?m keeping watch on my finances for the time when I will be in a reasonably good position to move out on my own?and then I won?t have to keep watching my watch to make sure I?m ready for the meeting, because there won?t be anyone to watch.

?SAHS

133

String theory, Relativity, and angels

by onacruse in

current mathematical models of the universe involve what is termed 'hyper-dimension.".

ever read the book flatland?

it describes how a 2-dimensional being would perceive the intersection of a 3-dimensional object in "their" universe.. a flatlander would never be able to comprehend a sphere.

SAHS

?funkyderek?:

Of course Santa exists, but only in the sense that any fictional character exists; as a concept, an idea.

?Sirona?:

A thought often preceeds something being created, such as when someone thinks about an invention. Once that thought exists, I think that the universe will never be the same as it was before that thought ever was there. I see thoughts as being influential on a physical level . . .

Actually, I think that you are both right, in a sense. A thought does precede something ?created,? which can be in the form of a physical thing or action, a cultural anecdote, or a religious doctrine.

In the religious sense, ideas get formulated, amalgamated, promulgated, and, over time, solidified?the end product sometimes being a long-standing socio-religious judiciary framework (such as the Koran, Jewish Law Code, Torah, Talmud, Bible), or even the mythological or theological ?characters? themselves purportedly behind such framework (Nebo, Dagon, Baal, Zeus, Isis, Hermes, Shiva, Ganesha, Vishnu, Allah, Jesus Christ, ?God?/Yahweh/Jehovah).

The character Santa Claus is also the product of such ?thought.? Aside from the fact that there supposedly was, in fact, such a man in history named Saint Nicholas (whose story is no-doubt a wee bit different than the red-suited, gift-bearing marketing guru of late), there does, in fact, also exist that same physical character today?in the form of a consortium of men acting out the role in your local supermarket.

Regarding the Santa Claus phenomenon, I believe that the cognitive-demonstrative process goes something like this:

? A man named Saint Nicholas did come onto the historical stage for what he was, a Catholic hero or something (I forget the actual story?I?m not going to dig up the Awake! article for the purpose of this post!).

? Someone had a ?thought? that ?preceded something being created??that ?something? being the factual account of Saint Nicholas embellished into a fanciful tale of folklore.

? Then, that fanciful tale of folklore became promulgated into what is now classical literature.

? That classical literature evoked admiration, and led to a common social practice, namely, the telling to children the tale of a red-suited, gift-bearing character visiting people?s homes at night in the name of Jesus Christ.

? That common social practice of re-telling that tale then became solidified as an annual event throughout the globe up to this day?including the consortium of men wearing the standard ?character costume,? complete with beard, hearty laugh, and candy canes.

The contemporary Santa Claus phenomenon is part of the larger Christmas phenomenon. It too has a ?main character? (can anybody guess who that is?). The entire Christian religion, complete with doctrine and tradition (i.e., Christmas, Santa Claus, and, of course, Jesus Christ himself), does ?exist,? at least in people?s minds, and is also formulated, promulgated, and solidified in the various sermons, paintings, statues, and icons.

Christianity must logically be the creative product of ?thought.? The question is, Whose thought?

?SAHS