sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".
"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?
you're fired!"..
It may be legal to post such a sign but it isn't legal to act on it in a discriminatory manner as considered by the Constitution and the courts. But you all already know that; you are simply whining about your feelings and wishing the world catered to them. And wasting everyone's time.
We don't have a constitution in the UK. And I'm not whining. Offering information for others to read is not discriminatory either. Nor is it a waste of time.
sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".
"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?
you're fired!"..
we all hear this notion of "theocratic warfare", and how it is used to justify jehovah's witnesses to lie or withhold the truth even under oath, based on the reasoning that we don't owe the truth to those who aren't entitled to it.
but, can we put our finger on where this doctrine started?
well, brace yourselves, here it is.
The best bit of Franz I ever heard was when he referred to a conversation he'd had the day before. A sister had told him that she hated keeping her infant children up late for the meetings. He proceeded to tell us all at the DC that he'd replied to the sister: "A tired child is better than a dead child".
wooooo..
it just seems to me religion in general primarily makes truly bad people worse, not genuinly good people better; and in many cases has even made good people do bad things in the name of their religion.
just curious, a personal poll if you will.
what are you guys' current views on religion as a whole?
I never had any any interest whatsoever in religion. My parents were converted while I was still in my childhood and i loathed the whole damn thing with a passion. I found meetings incredibly boring and despised door-to-door work. Eventually I became convinced that the fault was mine and did my best to measure up, but it was never in my heart.
These days my interests revolve solely around the sociological implications of being a witness, I'm especially concerned for the children of witness parents, most of whom are being brought up to be social outcasts. The only other JW interest I have is proving them to be false prophets by quoting their own literature back at them, but I most confess that is something of a fun thing for me..
the penalty of this charge??
yes, disfellowshipping.. bad association?
excessive time at work?
Actually, as a translation I think "brazen conduct" is an improvement over the more ambiguous "loose conduct."
I always assumed "loose conduct" was a sex thing. Isn't it?
just watched the news about the air canada crash in halifax that they want to claim was just a "hard landing".. i can only imagine the distinction matters for insurance purposes otherwise they are just being idiots.
pretty poor behavior for the airline whatever the motivation imo.. now i'm no plane expert but i think when then plane is smashed up, the engines have come off and the nose is in pieces that should be obviously classed as a crash.
if you can't take off again then you have been in a crash, not a hard landing.. .
Were these girls at Halifax airport doing their end-of-the-runway dancing again?
back in the early 70's, the wt stated that all persons who had lived and died would be resurrected after armageddon.
only non believers would be killed at armageddon, never to return.
in short, if you died before the big a, you were guaranteed to return.. this gave rise amongst several ex's to concerns that their well-meaning jw parents might just consider the possibilty of having their offspring "lovingly" bumped off so as to ensure their resurrection!.
Back in the early 70's, the WT stated that all persons who had lived and died would be resurrected after armageddon. Only non believers would be killed at armageddon, never to return. In short, if you died before the big A, you were guaranteed to return.
This gave rise amongst several ex's to concerns that their well-meaning JW parents might just consider the possibilty of having their offspring "lovingly" bumped off so as to ensure their resurrection!
I'm just recalling an article a while back in which mentioned that JW's maybe asked to do something that might seem at first to be an unreasonable course of action. That seemed a little weird.
I guess I'm just rambling a little, but IMHO, anyone who could disown their own children for a religion just has to be pretty radicalised.
it appears that a new 16-page brochure, with the title "return to jehovah" is to be released at the regional convention (dc) this year.
it would be written specifically for those faded or da/df.chapters are:a letter from the governing body1.
the lost one i will search for2.
It's also for the beneifit of the media. Non-JW's are often astounded when they hear of the harshness of disfellowshipping, I'm betting that the WT will respond by saying that they do all they can to help the DF'd ones to return and quote this booklet.
I suggest quoting their own literature back at them, in particular their misuse of the parable of the prodigal son. They conveniently forget that it was the father himself who ran out to meet the returning son before he'd even arrived at the family home, not the father waiting until the son had had prostrated himself and then waited a year for re-admission.
just can't wrap my head around this.
the guy (a) evidently did all of this on purpose, and (b) evidently had no reason at all to do so.. there is a huge chunk of the puzzle missing from this one (so far)..
i am most curious.
