http://www.pressbox.co.uk/detailed/media/the_film_knocking_about_the_christian_group_k .
the film knocking about the christian group known as jehovah's witnesses .
added: (tue aug 16 2005) .
We also hope to bring KNOCKING to cities throughout the United States in 2006 for special screenings. This will be a chance for you to see a sneak preview and perhaps meet some of the film's subjects in a live Q&A session.
Well, that ought to be fun. I wonder what would happen if a bunch of us on JWD took a field trip to a screening and enjoyed a little "live Q&A" with "some of the film's subjects"...
i remember when i was around the age of 10 or 11, there was a book that jehovah's witness parents used in family bible study that had two versions (one for male, one for females) or maybe there was one and it just had chapters and i am remembering wrong.
i do remember vividly having to endure the rather male dominated view of what happens when a young woman enters adolescence and what a young woman has to look forward to in her 'duties' as a loyal wife and mother serving her husband *gags*.
does anyone remember that?
Cultivate, too, habits that contribute toward stability. Instead of letting your room become messy, keep it orderly and neat.
OK kids, you heard it here first -- if you don't clean your room you could become emotionally unstable!
I remember sitting in my parents' living room reading the "Your Youth" book with my mom. I couldn't even read the part about sex aloud. Looking back, it's absolutely hilarious. No wonder I'm so screwed up!
born in, what difference does it make?
i was thinking about this one a lot over the last few weeks.
what difference does it make whether you were born into a cult or were brought in as a teen or adult?
<<How the hell do people go through that brain change? Having been born into it, I wanna know!>>
It's extremely painful. When you aren't "zoning out" (literally dizzy and spacey and experienceing panic attacks when trying to consider new ideas), it almost physically hurts. I was praying every few minutes for guidance and discipline for about a week. It challenged me to put my money where my mouth is because I had always told myself that I valued truth above personal comfort and that, if I was shown from the Bible that I was wrong, I'd change. Actually doing that is unlike any physical or psychological experience I've ever been through.
It's amazing now - I feel like I've been blind and then unexpectedly gifted with sight. There is a weight off my soul that I didn't even know was there. I smile more - I'm free to love others and pray for others as they are, not in an effort to secure their conversion. I've done some work in a 12 step group and had to really wrestle with the idea of unconditional love - I'd always know, from as far back as I can remember, that my parents' display of love was conditional. Only now can I put it into words and understand at least one of the conditions is a shared religious heritage.
Someone wrote me with an apt analogy: I can't describe to someone born blind the things that I see. I can't explain to someone deaf exactly what it means to hear something. We aren't getting our information via the same routes, so it's impossible for us to understand the world the same way. That's how it is being a Witness - when you let someone else do the thinking for you, you cannot comprehend information someone else obtains from another source - their own minds.
I think that's part of the reason I'm not bitter - certainly, I'm sad for those still mislead and try to be available for them - but they are operating in a different reality.
i have a woman that i work with, she heard me and another person talking about how the bible was demeaning to women, she whipped out here handy dandy pocket bible and wanted to argue,that women are in subjection to men but not demeaned in the bible.
can some of you who know where the scrip is to back me up send me some of the women are scum scriptures?
thanks you can email me at [email protected] thanks for the help
Just a note on Judges 19:22-24: If the "Bible lady" is at all familiar with this argument, she might note that there's nothing in this scripture to say God approved of this behavior. In fact, she might point out that Israel was not only outraged at the incident, but they got God's approval to punish the tribe of Benjamin since the rapists/murderers were from there - they actually killed 25,000 over this incident. [Personally, I'd have also liked to have seen the "old man" who gave the concubine and his daughter over to the rapists whup'd good as well.] She might point to the similar situation faced by Lot, when he offered his daughters to the raving mob outside his door in place of the angels who had come to visit him. There's nothing to indicate God approved of that either - she might actually assert that God made sure it didn't happen by having the angels drag Lot back in and then strike the mob blind.
Some see Paul's words as actually encouraging a more respectful view of women than was common in Greeks society at the time, concluding that his refering to women as a "weaker vessel", for instance, meant that (1) men were already "weak" vessels, and (2) the analogy would cause men to treat women like a precious, fragile vase - as opposed to a more hardy, less important vessel that could be knocked around more without as much damage.
Others assert that, for example, the qualifications for positions in 1 Timothy, which applied to men, had nothing to do with a persons' worth before God, but was simply an organizational move based on qualifications only God may understand. Some also see a lot of it being Paul's opinion, not a mandate from God.
Just some ideas to have in mind when you go back - How women are portrayed in the Bible seems more a matter of opinion and perspective than anything else.
it would be nice to correspond with someone from my area.
I started doing research on the JW beliefs I'd been raised with - I hadn't really looked at them closely since my baptism when I was 14. Well, a whole 'nother 14 years has passed and I decided I needed more knowledge and understanding than what sufficed when I was 14. I started with researching the basis for the blood issue and things went downhill from there. I'm not attending meetings and my family took my actions quite personally, so JWD was one of the places I turned to for support and connection with others.
FMW - maybe if you modified the title of the thread to include the DelMarVa area, more people would post.
8-11; ch.
as in ch.
like the "great crowd", they are "of every race, language, people, and nation (cf.
Leolaia - thanks for the response. So are the events in chapter 20 out of chronological order? 20:3 says the dragon is sealed in the abyss "that he might not misled the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended." 20:8 says Satan's subsequent release is to allow him to "mislead those nations in the four corners of the earth," with those mislead going on to 'advance over the breadth of the earth and encircle the camp of the holy ones and the beloved city.' (20:9) What happens during the "thousand years?" Are those in the "second resurrection" only raised for the purpose of then condemning them to the "second death?" And what are 21:1,3, talking about a "new earth" and "mankind", about? I apologize if I'm repeating things you've already answered, as I'm not as advanced as some here. I think the book idea is a good one - maybe an e-book?
it would be nice to correspond with someone from my area.
I'm on the city line, northwest of downtown Baltimore. It wouldn't be too hard for us to put together a 'fest - I know JWs who used to plan formals between here and DC and half the east coast would show up. {LOL}
FindingMyWay - you look to be new here like me. How did you come across this board?
8-11; ch.
as in ch.
like the "great crowd", they are "of every race, language, people, and nation (cf.
Leolaia - thank you for such an extensive and interesting post!
Since exegesis is new to me, could I have your feedback on a few things?
1) "In the second part of the diptych in ch. 7, the Seer witnesses a "huge multitude, impossible to number, of people from every nation, race, tribe and language" standing in heaven in front of the Throne and "in the sanctuary" (Revelation 7:9, 15). These are people, not angelic beings (as they are drawn from national, tribal, and language groups), and since they are in heaven these are likely either deceased individuals or living resurrected individuals (in the "first resurrection" of ch. 20). "
Could you explain the difference between "deceased individuals" and "living resurrected individuals"? Would the latter be defined as those individuals (theoretically) taken to heaven in a "rapture"-like process?
2) "This doesn't leave much room for a third group on earth...a group of faithful Christians on earth who don't receive a "mark of God" (i.e. a group that is not part of the 144,000), or a group of faithful Christians who don't receive a "mark of the Beast" and survive the tribulation anyway, without dying."
The explanation of the relationship between the 144,000 and the "great crowd" makes a lot of sense and, as you said, wouldn't leave much (if any) room for the understanding that one is a heavenly group while the other is earthly. But, do chapters 20 and 21 leave open the possibility of a "third group on earth", namely, those resurrected and whose names were found in the "Book of Life"? (20:12,15) I'd be interested in your analysis of 20 & 21, especially since I'm confused by 20:3-9.
I found your post quite eye-opening. It's amazing what you can learn when you don't have blinders on!
it would be nice to correspond with someone from my area.
I'm in Baltimore, but that's only - what? - ~ 50 miles from DC?
It would be great if we could get together, apostafest-style. I imagine a dinner cruise on the Lady Baltimore @ the harbor.
i am trying to prove that jeruselum fell in 586/87 thereby making the witness date of 607 an error.
i sent my jw sister in law the chart of dates that prove chronologically the date of 607 is wrong using the insight book and the babylon book.
i told her i was 'troubled' by this find and asked her to help me out by showing me where i can find proof in the literature that would line up with these dates.
There's a great article here: http://www.disfellowshipped.org/607eng.htm
It examines the assertions in the 'Kingdom Come' book.
I found this on beliefnet.com, submitted by member "Falkwing." It uses only WBTS publications:
http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/message_list.asp?boardID=28082&discussionID=426084
Nice, neat, to the point.
"Though Berossus claims that Nebuchadnezzar took Jewish captives in his accession year, there are no cuneiform documents supporting this."
Since when has the WBTS depended on cuneiform documents to establish doctrine? Why don't they note that there are no cuneiform documents supporting a date of 607 BCE for the destruction of
"More significantly, Jeremiah 52:28-30 carefully reports that Nebuchadnezzar took Jews captive in his seventh year, his 18th year and his 23rd year, not his accession year." This is correct, as far as Jeremiah's writings are concerned. What is not mentioned is Daniel 1:1-3, 6. From: http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/captivity.html
"He states that Nebuchadnezzar besieged in the third year of Jehoiakim (father of Jehoiachin), and that he, Daniel, was taken captive at that time (Dan. 1:1-3, 6). This account means that Nebuchadnezzar had taken captives even before he was crowned king. Further, Daniel's account is verified in the history of Nebuchadnezzar by Berossus of Babylon. This Babylonian history, no longer extant, is quoted by Josephus as stating that after Nebuchadnezzar defeated Egypt at Carchemish in Syria (in the spring of 605 B.C.), he immediately "settled the affairs of Egypt, and the other countries" and sent captives from the Jews, Phoenicians, Syrians, and Egyptians to Babylon before he returned there himself (in August) to be crowned king after his father's death."
Also discussed is the chronology behind the missing two years.
"Historians accept that Cyrus conquered in October 539 B.C.E. and that Cyrus’ first regnal year began in the spring of 538 B.C.E."
How come they rely on "historians" to establish these dates for Cyrus, but don't accept "historians" who state was destroyed in 587/6 BCE?
