Posts by Hisclarkness

39

Who make up the new memorial partakers?

by jwfacts in

when the doctrine regarding 1935 being the close of the calling was done away with in 2007, it was not unexpected to see the number rise.

over the next few years it went from around 8,500 to 10,500. this seemed to indicate that there were a couple of thousand people that may have felt they had the calling all along, but too shy to profess it.

for the 30 year period between the mid 1978 and 2007, parktakers had barely dropped.

Hisclarkness

Vidqun is right.

I personally know many people still in and who have since left who know that the teaching of 144,000 is wrong and that ALL Christians should be partaking of the emblems.

Its that simple. No need to speculate any more than that.

There has been a movement starting in the mid to late 2000s to “awaken” JWs to the true hope held out in the scriptures and many thousands have listened and are partaking as a result.

Again, I personally know many of these partakers and this is the reason they are all stating.

22

Interested in a refresher about the anointed

by frozen2018 in

i've had very little to do with jw's since the early 1990's.

however, i do try to stay a little informed on what they are up to as i have several close relatives who are devout.

i rely on this site to keep me updated.. over the weekend i learned that a couple of my relatives, a father and son, have decided that they are anointed and had some bread and wine at the last memorial.

Hisclarkness

It’s simple. According to the Bible, if you are a follower of Christ then you should be partaking with a view to a heavenly hope. Period. More and more JWs are starting to wake up to this realization and defying Watchtower’s twisted teaching of only 144,000. That’s the reason the numbers have increased drastically.

37

Annual meeting topic

by asp59 in

how many think they will announce in the annual meeting they just gonna have one meeting a week?

if they dont it will be astonishing, amazing and other things..

Hisclarkness

It seems like the annual meeting is going to be the new time and place for new releases. That way they can control the fact that only publishers in good standing will get a copy through the congregation as opposed to just handing them out to anybody who walks through the door at a convention.

286

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

by Simon in

seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.

it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.

it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.

Hisclarkness

There is still separation of church and state in this country. A “Christian” business could be considered an outlet of the church. Therefore, a “Christian” bakery would not be obliged to bake a same sex wedding cake anymore than the church would be forced to recognize gay marriage. But I imagine you wouldn’t just be able to set up shop and call it a “Christian” store without some actual affiliation with a church.

If you are a baker who owns a bakery that makes wedding cakes and you just happen to be Christian as is in this case then you are obliged to not discriminate.

286

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

by Simon in

seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.

it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.

it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.

Hisclarkness

Hi simon,

i think the baker could have a “Christian” baker shop. But I don’t think that was the case here. It was simply a bakery that does wedding cakes.

I think I’m being consistent here. Just as an Islamic meat shop couldn’t be compelled to serve pork a “Christian” shop couldn’t be compelled to do something against their beliefs.

The only two things I could say is:

1. The baker’s shop wasn’t a “Christian” bakery. It was just a Christian running a bakery. There’s a difference.

2. People who oppose “gay” marriage on religious grounds are going to have a difficult time in the future if they offer wedding specific services but won’t offer them to gay couples. Again, the government doesn’t recognize “gay” marriage or “straight” marriage; it recognizes marriage. So if someone decides to differentiate between gay and straight marriage then that’s discrimination based on sexual orientation.

286

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

by Simon in

seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.

it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.

it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.

Hisclarkness

Hi Jehalepeno,

I would say it depends. Are the Islamic web designers only offering Islamic web services? If so, then no, they wouldn’t have to make a Christian site. That’s just like asking an Islamic meat shop to sell pork. If they don’t offer pork to begin with then you can’t compel them to sell pork products.

If they are simply web designers that are Islamic, and if they are offering a general service to the public, then that could get a bit fishy.

The gay web designer could refuse serving Westboro Baptist Church based on their hateful rhetoric. He is not discrimating against the baptist church at large; he is refusing this congregation specifically based on their hateful message.

Even if it wasn’t the Church but simply a member who wanted something innocent like a birthday design, the designer might choose to do business with the individual but if he chose not to serve that person based on their association with westboro, he would still legally be in the right. That may or may not be the right thing to do but legally it’s fine.

286

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

by Simon in

seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.

it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.

it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.

Hisclarkness

Morpheus, you said,

“In the end, the red hen will lose buissness from some and maybe gain from others. People will vote with their wallets, for and against.”

Don’t you think it should be a little more than that? I mean, yes, what you say is true but our laws are set up to ensure that the voices and rights of the minority are not simply washed away. It doesn’t seem sufficient to say, for example, let a business be free to discriminate and simply let the chips fall where they may, good or bad. Shouldn’t the goal of society be to eradicate all forms of discrimination? It is often laws that are put in place first and eventually hearts change as well.

But a government for all people should be just as interested in protecting the rights of the minority and that would require stepping in and enforcing measures against discrimination.

286

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

by Simon in

seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.

it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.

it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.

Hisclarkness

Hi simon,

What you said with religion is precisely why the baker is wrong. Anybody could use religion as a shield to what really amounts to discriminatory behavior. Which is why there has to be a line drawn between your personal life and interacting in a commercial setting. Which is why the baker is entitled to his religious beliefs but they shouldn’t have to adversely affect others in a commercial (neutral) setting. If the baker chooses to open a business then he is choosing to interact with the general public and should not be able to bring his religious beliefs into the picture. Otherwise, he should decide not to offer certain services that he knows might cause potential conflicts with his personal beliefs.

According to the law, you are either married or single. You are not “gay” married or “straight” married. You are just married. A person’s religious beliefs might not recognize that and that’s fine. But businesses will have a hard time in the future defending these discriminatory actions in the future.

I know you feel differently. I love the discussion. I just hate the anger, sarcasm, ridicule, etc that often accompany these discussions.

286

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

by Simon in

seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.

it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.

it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.

Hisclarkness

On another side note, I find it very interesting that opinions are so varied here on this site where we mostly all come from a JW background.

As Witnesses, and as strongly as we held our beliefs, we would never have forced our beliefs on to others in a commercial setting. A witness doctor would not turn away patients because he didn’t believe in blood transfusions; he would simply get a colleague to do it. A witness waiter in a restaurant would simply ask his fellow waiters to sing happy birthday to his customers; he wouldn’t refuse the customers’ business.

We always sought to find alternatives.

I know. I know. The baker didn’t refuse service to the couple. I wonder if there was someone else he could have gotten to do the cake instead of himself?? Though I fear this still would have been an issue because he spoke of being concerned that the name of his business would have been affiliated with the wedding.

I just feel like there could have been many alternatives in this situation that should have resolved both the baker’s conscience and the couple’s desire for a custom cake.

286

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

by Simon in

seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.

it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.

it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.

Hisclarkness

For the record, I think it was wrong for sanders not to have been served regardless of her political beliefs. However, this isn’t the same issue.

Businesses can refuse service to anyone they want for whatever reason as long as it’s not discriminating based on a protected class.

The issue of whether or not the baker discriminated against the gay couple has already been discussed at length. But sexual orientation is a protected status. Political belief is not. So while I disagree with it, there is no legal issue here.

On on a side note, it can be difficult to have these discussions where we have real differences of opinion on issues that affect real people in real situations and then just pretend everything is normal and we can sit and eat together.

It can be difficult for someone who has family members that are directly affected by certain laws and policies to treat those who support and are affiliated with said policies as if everything is peachy. I’m not saying that we should be hating each other but we should keep in mind that at the end of the day it’s more than just policies and ideals; it’s actual people and lives.

Just saying.