i have no interest in pontificating on this matter which to me seems so straightforward.
however, since i continue to see newbies and others periodically post in error stating that the wts "owns" tobacco company stock i believe that this should be corrected and the matter put to rest, hopefully for good.. .
facts:.
The truth be known. I just don't give a darn about the "Watchtower" anymore. They have no hold over me (They do over my children.). I wish that I had never listened to the people who spew forth vermin, like yourself. They (Watchtower) are vipers and offsprings of snakes.
And you'll never be able to make me believe in that man-made (who can't direct his own steps) organization again.
i want to pose what is to me an interesting question: .
why is there a preponderance of women in religion?
i think we all agree that females do make up the majority of pretty much every religion, including jw's, but why?
Er? What was the question? I think I went off on a tangent! Eheh!
i want to pose what is to me an interesting question: .
why is there a preponderance of women in religion?
i think we all agree that females do make up the majority of pretty much every religion, including jw's, but why?
Funkyderek, for real, for real I took an archeology class on this stuff. It talked about maternalistic and paternalistic tribes. I, also, have seen documentaries about this type of culture too. Maybe, you should take a couple of archeology classes, and then it wouldn't be so hard for you to accept.
Look up terms like:
Matriarchal tribes, culture, etc...
Hunter gatherer tribes (something should come up)
Family Structure: According to a Khasia proverb, the civilisation originated from the female. Because of the existence of a social system based on matriarchy, Khasia girls make their own choice of bridegrooms from tribes other than their own and keep their husbands in her own houses after marriage. Marriage within one's own tribe is forbidden and results in the loss of ownership of property, excommunication from the village, and no funeral after death. Most marriages take place on the basis of prior mating on the part of the girl. Usually girls invite would-be husbands to their houses and sometimes living together also takes place. Guardians are informed of the agreement among the intending parties and fix the date of the marriage ceremony. The males on the bridegroom's side dress the bridegroom in a white loincloth and a turban and take him to the bride's house. The bridegroom is blessed by his mother and senior female relatives. The bride's party welcomes them. The priest recites religious verses and blesses the bridegroom. The gods are offered wine and dry fish. After palatable dishes and drinks the bridegroom's party leaves him at midnight. The bridegroom treats the brothers and sisters of the bride as his own brothers and sisters. Sometimes marriage also takes place on the basis of the consent of the guardians without prior mating. After the marriage is over, a cottage for the new couple is built by the side of the house of the bride's mother. In some punjis this is compulsory. No cottage is built for the youngest daughter since she happens to be the heir of her maternal house and property. The wife does the monetary transactions.
i want to pose what is to me an interesting question: .
why is there a preponderance of women in religion?
i think we all agree that females do make up the majority of pretty much every religion, including jw's, but why?
Funkyderek, look up maternalistic tribes and you should find some information regarding tribes with women in the lead role. Here's a little sumthin' sumthin' that I found:
The Asiatic cultures, primarily the Mongoloid culture greatly influenced both European and Middle East cultures.
Early Europe started out as a maternalistic culture as did most of our known world. Maternalism is suggested in their burial rituals that respect women, children and men equally. Some believe that Mesopotamia is the birthplace of paternalism rather than Egypt. The shift from maternalism to paternalism represents the beginning of a caste culture or as some believe a falling from God's grace. Most Europeans believe that Mesopotamia gave Europe three of the notable paternalistic religions, Semitic-Judaism, Roman-Christianity and Semitic Judo-Islamism. Others believe that Egypt is the primary source of these religious beliefs.
i want to pose what is to me an interesting question: .
why is there a preponderance of women in religion?
i think we all agree that females do make up the majority of pretty much every religion, including jw's, but why?
Ok are we just talking about dubs or the world, because if you look at it from a world view, there would be a preponderance of men in religion; ie, Hinduism, Islam, Muslim, Scientology, Mormons, Nazism, Orthodox Jews ...And these men do take religion seriously! Some will even kill you over it. Why is it that men don't women to be in positions of power when it comes to religion?
i'm in charge, frequently, at work.
i tend to be too laisser-faire.
i expect the people that i'm working with to know their jobs and do it.
Jgnat and Greendawn, I'll give your methods a try. The problem is these people think that they are my friends. I don't have friends at work, so to speak, I have associates. They try to get too buddy-buddy and take offense when I discipline them...*sigh*
What's a girl to do?
i'm in charge, frequently, at work.
i tend to be too laisser-faire.
i expect the people that i'm working with to know their jobs and do it.
I beg to differ on the definitions:
When it comes to government, laisser-faire means: laissez-faire (les'a fâr`) [Fr.,=leave alone], in economics and politics, doctrine that an economic system functions best when there is no interference by government. It is based on the belief that the natural economic order tends, when undisturbed by artificial stimulus or regulation, to secure the maximum well-being for the individual and therefore for the community as a whole.
When it comes to management, Laisser-faire means:
In this style, the leader allows the employees to make the decision. However, the leader is still responsible for the decisions that are made. This is used when employees are able to analyze the situation and determine what needs to be done and how to do it. You cannot do everything! You must set priorities and delegate certain tasks.
This is not a style to use so that you can blame others when things go wrong, rather this is a style to be used when you have the full trust and confidence in the people below you. Do not be afraid to use it, however, use it wisely!
NOTE: Also known as lais…sez faire (or lais…ser faire) which is the noninterference in the affairs of others. [French : laissez, second person pl. imperative of laisser, to let, allow + faire, to do.]
As the poster before us said: I need to become more laisserkickass!
i think there's been a thread on this before, but i figured i'd ask again.. for all of the ubms out there, why is it that we love witnesses??
what is it about them that we find so attractive??
why are we putting ourselves through this mess when we know full-well that there are lots of non-jws out there who would be better for us??.
Here's a video for you.
story here.
lol, all the hell that that show has given to xtians and jews over the years, and he never batted an eye.
cultists are a sensitive lot ain't they?
Gosh, I'm gonna miss his "Salty Chocolate Balls"!
i'm in charge, frequently, at work.
i tend to be too laisser-faire.
i expect the people that i'm working with to know their jobs and do it.
I'm not afraid of hard work. I will get in there and do what has to be done (within my scope). If a patient is in danger, that's when I'm the most assertive and don't give a shit about anyone's feelings. That being said, I'm finding that some people tend to be slackers or users. I want them to know that they aren't fooling me and I know what they are up to. The staff knows how far to push me before I go into "I don't give a sh*t about your feelings mode". So, they tend to try to be sneaky with things or manipulative. I have got to learn how to say "NO". Do you understand what I mean?
