Corboy101:
Most of you (not all) just want to argue and be angry to anyone who "disagrees" with them.
So... does doctrine really matter to you, or not? That's the point of the thread.
i have been out for 22 years.i was raised as a jehovahs witness.
i was baptized in 1986 but soon after left the religion.
theres a whole lot to the reasons why i left, but i left.
Corboy101:
Most of you (not all) just want to argue and be angry to anyone who "disagrees" with them.
So... does doctrine really matter to you, or not? That's the point of the thread.
i have been out for 22 years.i was raised as a jehovahs witness.
i was baptized in 1986 but soon after left the religion.
theres a whole lot to the reasons why i left, but i left.
gingerbread:
They stick with the big 'doctrines' and rules ( blood, neutrality, meeting attendance, regular field service, etc.) but ignore the 'little' stuff.
Kind of. But do they really? I'd like to see the average 'new' JW defend core doctrines about 607 in support of the Governing Body's delusional self-appointed claim of authority. That's big stuff. It's the entire basis for all beliefs unique to JWs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppchqfzgey8.
this is part of the video appendix for the series of when ancient jerusalem was destroyed.
appendix 7a primarily covers line 1-4 of vat 4956. hopefully, this will be followed by 7b and 7c that reviews the rest.
sir82:
Well if this topic title doesn't bring Lars out of hiding nothing will.
Where has he been recently anyway? Out cursing fig trees & such?
He's probably arguing with a fig tree.
i have been out for 22 years.i was raised as a jehovahs witness.
i was baptized in 1986 but soon after left the religion.
theres a whole lot to the reasons why i left, but i left.
1009:
I cared much about doctrines, but I made for myself a difference between major and minor doctrines, and I did agree with the (in my eyes) important ones.
You're just reinforcing my point.
i don't mean the 'unruly men who cook up wicked reasoning and season their brew with poisonous lies that deceive minds' definition.... i mean - who are they actually referring to when they are doing these awful talks at the conventions about the mentally diseased apostates etc.. specifically - is an 'apostate' someone who was actually baptised (baptized for you american's ) ?
or can someone who was simply raised in "the truth" but left and was never baptised be classified as this lying, deceiving, mentally diseased apostate also?
or am i considered to be an apostate - even though i wasn't raised in the cult, never went to a meeting etc.
Captain Obvious:
What the WT has done is strikingly similar to what the nazis did to the Jews.
Godwin's law strikes again.
i don't mean the 'unruly men who cook up wicked reasoning and season their brew with poisonous lies that deceive minds' definition.... i mean - who are they actually referring to when they are doing these awful talks at the conventions about the mentally diseased apostates etc.. specifically - is an 'apostate' someone who was actually baptised (baptized for you american's ) ?
or can someone who was simply raised in "the truth" but left and was never baptised be classified as this lying, deceiving, mentally diseased apostate also?
or am i considered to be an apostate - even though i wasn't raised in the cult, never went to a meeting etc.
In JW land, an 'apostate' officially refers only to someone who was baptised and later rejects the teachings of 'the Brooklyn 8' (i.e. the 'Governing Body'). They use the broader term 'opposer' for anyone who says anything unfavourable about them. JWs are only explicitly directed to shun those who are disfellowshipped or who disassociate*. However, similar treatment is often directed at other individuals who point out any flaws in JW teachings, even if they were never baptised .
*JW elders can also decide that a person has disassociated without any input from the person.
so tonight finally had to make a decision about the dc.
we missed saturday and sunday of the one we were assigned to.
i was going to convieniently try to forget (been working most saturdays last few months) but she persisted tonight.
tresdecu:
She said "I hope this is OK" and "The Society frowns on that"
Hope the Hotel has a bar.
Sounds like you're gonna need it.
Good luck.
so this morning i was thinking about a few things that hit me like a ton of bricks:.
1. god destroyed the entire earth because man was evil - yet right after he destroyed them for being evil he said that he will never destroy all of manking again because the are evil.... 2. god asked noah to bring two of every kind on the ark.
then he gets off the ark and sacrifices some of these animals.
kurtbethel:
1. The mass of the beanstalk would have to come from nutrients drawn from the ground. How could such a massive beanstalk grow in one place without depleting nutrients from the soil and making a crater, or otherwise altering the topography where it grew.
Duh. They're magic beans.
2. How is it that in the duration of one night a giant took residence at the top of the beanstalk? When you consider the logistics of hauling building materials aloft, crews of construction workers, and support material such as food and water, how was this possible in such a small span of time without being noticed by anyone?
Giants always lived in the firmament to begin with. (Obviously this took place before the 'Great Flood'.) The beanstalk just provided a way of getting there.
3. Isn't it likely that the beanstalk story was merely a dream, or even that the beans were toxic and had hallucinogenic properties that caused Jack to imagine the events after acquiring the beans?
Maybe the writer of the 'Noah's Ark' story had been eating the same 'magic' beans.
4. Could it be that Jack's beans actually were mutated and the beanstalk grew unusually large? Perhaps a large bird of prey nested in it and that the current version of the story was the result of later people who embellished the original account?
Nah, let's go with 'God did a magic thing'.
ok i have been fading fast, missed a lot of meetings over the past couple of months and the kids think its mostly do to my being busy with work.
this morning was probably the first sunday that i was home and could go but did not.
so my 8 year old asked me if i was going and why when i said no.
always plan on being busy at work on meeting nights or doing something else that you enjoy and saying that you are working (having fun)
You can start with simple things like you work all the time and you need some time at home.
Make up an excuse, you have to fix something around the house, you are ex pecting a phone call, you need to take a nap, etc.
Making up 'excuses' delays the inevitable, and the strategy starts wearing thin when there's an 'excuse' week after week.
You don't have to go, so if you don't want to go, don't go.
You don't have to go into every detail about why you don't want to go, but be honest about what you do tell them.
You might also give them the option that they don't have to go, but not necessarily that they can't go.
thank you to all of you who commented yesterday.
no doubt you gave me an accurate description of what to expect.
when i first walked in, i was greeted by the jw who calls on my house.
InChristAlone:
The focus of the entire talk and WT study seemed to be on taking in an accurate knowledge of God...but not about knowing or experiencing God.
JW meetings are about indoctrination, not worship. The talks are always based on Watch Tower Society publications, with no real freedom of expression. The prayers are actually just a summary to reinforce the content of the meeting. The songs punctuate the meeting with something not quite as boring as the other content so people aren't sitting down for the full two hours. It's all very regimented.
Don't get me wrong, I think the worship at other churches is a superstitious waste of time too. But at least it's about the worship.