i just read the first article in the july 15 study edition, entitled "the house-to-house ministry--why important now?
" i thought it was insane overall but i noticed that they seem to be reintroducing the "marking work.
" hadn't that belief been eliminated?.
Now note this statement from WT April 1, 2008, page 31, last paragragh:
"Lovers of Jehovah God and his Son, Jesus Christ, need not fear Armageddon. God's battle is directed solely against those humans whom God judges to be incorrigibly wicked."
This is, of course, the public edition.
Cate
lets have a free for all .
i would say why dont you have a book study anymore but that one is done to death... we had a witness recently and i asked for the latest jw only mag (he didn't realise i used to be in his cong... have i done that good a job at fading?
) it was a laugh to see the two of them struggle to come up with an answer.... ok lets here the best you can come up with, there has to be some better than mine, what question will leave them stuck for an answer...... .
1. Do you donate blood?
2. Would you accept blood fractions?
3. Why would you allow someone else to violate God's law for you? Would you not then be bloodguilty?
Thank you alamb. I've been trying to think of a way to word a question about blood fractions that won't allow them to say something like, "we don't join the military, but we can be protected by it." With your help my question now is, "If you believe that God's law is that blood only be poured out, not transfused, then by accepting blood fractions, aren't we encouraging others to break God's law on blood?" Cate
i had no doubts at all about the 'truth' untill a friend of mine in the cong' began falling away.
in trying to help him i had to ask questions and do research and that of course cracked the doors of my mind open for the first time in over thirty years.. years ago, when jwd allowed members to have signatures, i used the following quote from voltaire as mine.
i still love it.. doubt is uncomfortable, certainty is ridiculous..
Doofdaddy: You said:
"For me, it was the search for truth. When articles came out that contravened previous thought, I would research to see why. An article came out years ago that said there is refining of thought but there are basic truths that are set in stone. The article rattled off about 5 points, one being the (literal) generation will by no means pass away that saw 1914. It was a cornerstone of the preaching work through the 70's and 80's. Articles were thin on the ground though through this period, then silence until 1995."
Do you have the date and page number of this article?
Thanks, Cate
it seems as though an age has passed from discovering this site seven years ago to where i am now.
just before we started studying the daniel's prophecy book, i went online to see if anyone had made a study bookmark with the dates and paragraphs on.
i "stumbled" across this site, way back in 2000. of course, like a good christian i pretty much determined that this site had gone apostate from the other jw sites, such.
There were things that had always bothered me about "the truth." But I pushed them down and "waited on Jehovah" to answer questions and fix problems. Finally the pile of these things grew too large. I was feeling depressed, anxious and all alone. Apparently I was crazy, because everyone else in the organization was okay, the organization said so. And if one had doubts or concerns, all one had to do was study more, go out in service more, and pray. But this didn't help.
So, one day, I typed "Jehovah's Witnesses" into a search engine and started reading. I found this site. I am still trying to figure out my life, but at least I don't feel all alone anymore.
Cate
it has bothered me for a while now.... and it all stemmed from something i thought about during a dc some 6 years ago.
well, it was pretty boring!
hypocrisy.
The changing stand on blood is one of the things that started me questioning. If blood is only to be poured out on the ground, how can we accept any part of it? Regardless of the rationale on fractions (something about what travels between mother and fetus, among other things). If it goes on the ground, it goes on the ground. Period. So then I started to think. (Oh-oh!) The society also once condemned transplants, comparing them to cannibalism. Now they are okay (or at least a conscience matter). But that doesn't mean we can sit down to a tasty dinner of someone's kidney (with a nice Chianti perhaps?). Eating an organ and transplanting an organ are two different things. So what about eating blood and transplanting blood?
Cate
i realized the other morning that it was twenty years ago that i started my exit.
at the spring 1988 circuit assembly (i think it was in february or march) they absolutely hammered on the point that higher ed was a waste of time.
armageddon was going to happen any day now and there was no point in preparing for life in system that was about to end.
JeffT: Precisely. And when you consider that some of the things we can't question are literally life-or-death matters, then such a stand is serious indeed! I would be much less freaked out these days if they presented themselves as seekers after truth instead of the only ones possessing truth.
Cate
i realized the other morning that it was twenty years ago that i started my exit.
at the spring 1988 circuit assembly (i think it was in february or march) they absolutely hammered on the point that higher ed was a waste of time.
armageddon was going to happen any day now and there was no point in preparing for life in system that was about to end.
They want to have it both ways. Make a mistake, and say "We never said we were inspired." But claim to be God's mouthpiece so that their word cannot be questioned.
i may be the only one that posts on this and i'm going to bed but i'm starting this thread anyway.
i love imbd.
*********************************************** ******************************************************************************* george costanza: you ask me to have lunch, tell me you slept with elaine, and then say you're not in the mood for details.
On the "Shrinkage" episode:
Elaine: They shrink?
Jerry: Like a frightened turtle!
Elaine: How do men walk around with those things?
(I give you the gist; I'm not sure I remember the lines perfectly.)
Cate
they brag about the fact that they the don' t baptize their babies because "how can a baby 'know' what religion it wants to believe in the rest of it's life!".
but a 14 year old does?.....they put so much presure on their children to get dunked, that if your not baptize by 18 years old there is something really "wrong" with you.. so the poor kid does it, just to get everyone off their backs.
legally a minor can't be held to a contract if they are under 18 years old and why?
Confession: Great poem. So sad, and so true.
Cate
they brag about the fact that they the don' t baptize their babies because "how can a baby 'know' what religion it wants to believe in the rest of it's life!".
but a 14 year old does?.....they put so much presure on their children to get dunked, that if your not baptize by 18 years old there is something really "wrong" with you.. so the poor kid does it, just to get everyone off their backs.
legally a minor can't be held to a contract if they are under 18 years old and why?
If they are going to push children to be baptized, then like the court system, there should be different consequences/punishments. Instead, make a decision at 12 that turns out to be wrong for you, and you will suffer the consequences your entire life.
I've asked some people who are keen to see children baptized if they would agree to let a child get married. When they say, "No," I've asked, "which is the more important decision?" They have to say, "baptism." I'm not sure if this reasoning sticks with them, however.
I agree with the posters who pointed out that it is about control. If there are truly horrible consequences for leaving, 37% will stay.
Cate
PS I was baptized at 13. Because all my friends were getting baptized.
