Posts by crownboy

20

What scripture is embeded in your HEAD?

by Beans in

well as you know i have been out since i was 16 years old and that was on dec 21 1984!

but i cannot get these damn scriptures out of my head, i don`t know or care what they mean but there there!.

matt 24:14. pslams 83:18. get out of me you wicked scriptures!.

crownboy

Hey Beans,

The scriptures you quote plus:

Acts 1:8

Daniel 2:44

John 3:17

2 Tim. 3:1-5

Matt. 24:19, 20

The whole of Song of Solomon

5

Get Out of My House!!!!

by crownboy in

jw
friends

last night at meeting was the 2nd part to that rather odious km article on shunning disfellowshipped family members.

i guess the society can't take any chances in light of dateline, etc.

well, one of the paragraphs dealt with how you'd handle a disfellowshipped child who lives outside the home.

crownboy

Last night at meeting was the 2nd part to that rather odious KM article on shunning disfellowshipped family members. I guess the Society can't take any chances in light of Dateline, etc.

Well, one of the paragraphs dealt with how you'd handle a disfellowshipped child who lives outside the home. The Society pretty much ordered Witnesses not to take in their children unless they're dying or something, as they would bring in "leaven" into the house. The brother handling the part gave an example of how you should deal with your child.

He said that there was a brother who "extended kindness" to his dissfellowshipped son who had fallen ill with pneumonia. Due to the nature of the illness, naturally the child was bed ridden most of the time and sleeping. However, one day the father came home and noticed that his son "had his feet up watching TV". The father immediately demanded that his son vacate the home in the next couple days, as his son's being up and watching TV was clearly a sign that he had recovered from his pneumonia and he should be on his way out. He didn't want his son to think that "things had changed" and everything was "normal like it was before" just because he had taken him in to recover from an illness. Such a harsh, and possibly falacious reaction (maybe the child was just bored of being in his room all the time) is certainly what you would expect from a "loving arrangement from Jehovah".

28

Hope Sirona got good news ...

by Simon in

jw
friends

.

wasn't today the day she was due to get her results?.

here's hoping they are good ...

crownboy

(((Sirona)))

Positive thoughts here too.

12

Isaiah's Prophecy

by BIBLE BASHER in

jw
friends

dose any else find this study book boreing?.

the last 12 months at the book study has been very hard work for me.

i have found the isaiah book boreing and very hard to follow.

crownboy

RunningMan the Isiah Prophecy is broken up into two books, and we are about to finish the 1st one in a couple of weeks, so we have a schedule for book 2, but not for what's next (my guess would be one of the two new releases from this year, most likely the "Jehovah" book).

Biblebasher, you're not alone in your sentiments. My only question is why most JW's can't see through this obvious bunk. Anyone can make the scriptures say anything if the parameters are set wide enough, so it's always wise to realize that the scriptures may not have some cryptic "future fulfillment" all the time. Doesn't any JW question who gave the Org. the authority to give "future fulfillments" to scriptures anyway?

Add to that the fact that I don't find Jehovah particularly appealing as some choleric, misanthropic deity who apparently can't keep a small nation of nomadic Semites (much less the whole world) to his worship, then BS becomes even more BS .

14

All Hail King Bush!!!!

by crownboy in

jw
friends

apparently, ole dubya thinks congress is only there to rubber stamp his "war initiatives", not authorize them:.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&ncid=716&e=1&u=/ap/20020826/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq_23bush aides say iraq decision is his mon aug 26,10:29 am et.

by ron fournier, ap white house correspondent.

crownboy

Apparently, ole Dubya thinks Congress is only there to rubber stamp his "war initiatives", not authorize them:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&ncid=716&e=1&u=/ap/20020826/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq_23 Bush Aides Say Iraq Decision Is His Mon Aug 26,10:29 AM ET

By RON FOURNIER, AP White House Correspondent

CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) - White House lawyers have told President Bush ( news - web sites) he would not need congressional approval to attack Saddam Hussein ( news - web sites )'s Iraq, although advisers say political considerations could prompt the president to seek a nod from lawmakers anyway.

AP Photo

AP Photo
	Slideshow: Iraq and Saddam Hussein

Fleischer: Bush Won't Bypass Congress
(AP Video)

Two senior administration officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said White House counsel Al Gonzales advised Bush earlier this month that the Constitution gives the president authority to wage war without explicit authority from Congress.

"Any decision the president may make on a hypothetical congressional vote will be guided by more than one factor," said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer ( news - web sites ), who declined to confirm that Bush had received an opinion from Gonzales on the matter.

"The president will consider a variety of legal, policy and historical issues if a vote were to become a relevant matter. He intends to consult with Congress because Congress has an important role to play."

Despite the go-ahead from his legal advisers, administration officials said the president has not ruled out seeking lawmakers' approval if he decides to attack Iraq.

The officials noted that Bush's father was told in advance of the 1991 war that he did not need congressional authority to act, but nonetheless sought Congress' blessing for his action.

One of the officials said Gonzales also concluded the current president has authority to act against Saddam under the congressional resolution that authorized his father's actions in the 1991 Gulf War ( news - web sites ). Saddam has not complied with the terms that ended that war, the official said.

Furthermore, the official said Bush was told he also could act against Iraq on the strength of the Sept. 14 congressional resolution approving military action against terrorism.

Both of the officials said Bush had not decided whether to use military force against Saddam.

Still, the existence of a legal opinion along with earlier reports that the Pentagon ( news - web sites) is drafting attack plans reflect the seriousness of preparations within the highest reaches of government to pave way for war against Iraq if Bush so chooses.

The legal advice became public Sunday as Republicans sounded a mixed message for Bush about whether, when and how to use military action to remove Saddam from power.

The Bush administration's policy is that Saddam is trying to develop weapons of mass destruction and is refusing to allow international inspectors to find and destroy them, as Iraq agreed to do after the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

Rep. Tom DeLay ( news , bio, voting record) of Texas said Sunday the decision to act is the commander in chief's, but he expects Bush to consult with Congress first.

"The president says he's going to consult with the Congress, and he has. The president has taken the advice of many of us in Congress; he wants input from Congress," DeLay said. "He has said he's going to come to Congress when he decides what needs to be done and when it needs to be done, and I expect him to do that."

While saying Bush properly "is trying to keep the (anti-Iraq) coalition together," DeLay rejected a suggestion by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III that Bush first get a resolution of support from the U.N. Security Council.

The president answers only to the American people through Congress, DeLay said.

Baker, secretary of state to President Bush's father, wrote in Sunday's New York Times that a Security Council resolution was necessary as political cover for any U.S. military action.

"The only realistic way to effect regime change in Iraq is through the application of military force," Baker wrote.

But he added: "Although the United States could certainly succeed, we should try our best not to have to go it alone, and the president should reject the advice of those who counsel doing so. The costs in all areas will be much greater, as will the political risks."

Lawrence Eagleburger, who succeeded Baker in 1992, the final year of former President Bush's administration, is among several old-line Republicans advocating caution.

"I think there are any number of complex questions that simply haven't been examined," Eagleburger said on "CNN Late Edition." "And if it's wimpish to say that ... until we know at least with some confidence that we must act now, then I say we need to be very careful about going forward.

"I'm simply saying I think this is much more complex than (DeLay) and his chest-thumpers think it is."

24

Time 4 "What R U Reading these Days?"

by patio34 in

and what your all-time favorites might be.

it's been quite a while since we've had a thread like this, so here goes my list:.

1. the end of history and the last man by francis fukuyama.

crownboy

Hey funkyderek, I read The Virtues Of Selfishness, it was a pretty good book. I don't agree with all of the Objectivist philosophy, but there are many good ideas in Rand's books.

Currently I'm reading:

For The New Intellectual by Ayn Rand

The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins

The Cosmos by Carl Sagan

Evolution (forgot the author's name, but it's the book that accompanied the recent 6 part PBS series)

Dialouges on Religion by David Hume

The Last Days of Socrates by Plato

Forgeries in Christanity by Joseph Wheless (free here: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_wheless/forgery_in_christianity/index.shtml)

After this I'd like to work in a nice fiction book (haven't decided which as yet, though )

Edited by - crownboy on 26 August 2002 17:19:38

31

I may get a visit from the P.O. :(

by crownboy in

jw
friends

i think i may have a potential problem on my hand.

over the last year or so, i've been attempting to go the slow fade route with the jw religion.

for the most part i've succeded, as my significant decrease in jw related activities has been greeted only by brief "pep talks" by my parents at worse.

crownboy

Thanks for the replies so far, guys.

I definitely cannot use the menstural cramps excuse, being a guy and all .

I don't really plan on telling them much of anything, alot of your thoughts were in line with mine (except for the no baths thing ). Someone asked about my age; I'm 20, and half way done with college. Being indirect about this issue shouldn't be too hard, since I've been doing it with my parents for some time now. You guys seem to indicate that blowing off the elders "counsel" should be pretty easy, I'll definitely try my best to do so .

I'm pretty sure my parents would not actually kick me out over this, but my life would obviously be lot more difficult. Plus, I'm pretty sure if I did tell my parents how I felt, the first thing they'd do is go to the elders to get me "help", which is something I would totally like to aviod.

And for the person that suggested it, I already do go to at least a couple of meetings a month, but almost never more than once a week (last week I had zero, so I'll make an appearance at tomorrow's).

31

I may get a visit from the P.O. :(

by crownboy in

jw
friends

i think i may have a potential problem on my hand.

over the last year or so, i've been attempting to go the slow fade route with the jw religion.

for the most part i've succeded, as my significant decrease in jw related activities has been greeted only by brief "pep talks" by my parents at worse.

crownboy

I think I may have a potential problem on my hand. Over the last year or so, I've been attempting to go the slow fade route with the JW religion. For the most part I've succeded, as my significant decrease in JW related activities has been greeted only by brief "pep talks" by my parents at worse. I've been pretty inconspicious, and no one seemed to notice except for one or two of the "friends" at the bookstudy (which I hardly ever go to anymore ).

However, last night I was informed by my mother that the PO (and my BS conductor, or is that overseer? ) wants to have a "serious talk" with me about my "lack of enthusiasm for the truth" as of late. Of course, I wasn't actually at the meeting last night to hear this straight from the PO (I was actually reading David Hume's Dialouges on Religion ).

My question is, how do you guys think I should handle this situation? I live with my JW parents and have no desire to "cause divisions" in the household. My parents have no idea why I don't go to meetings that much anymore (I mainly use work or school as an excuse), and I simply want to be left alone. Coming from a family that's brimming over with JW's, "coming out" does not seem like a viable option right now (at least not as long as I live with my parents, which may be for another 2 years), so I don't want to go tell the elders about my true feelings about "the truth" (much less the bible and god ). However, I feel that if I simply agree with whatever tripe the PO will undoubtedly spew, that I may be expected to "amend my ways" and start feeling great pressure to go to meetings more, and especially go out in service (by having pre-arranged schedules for working with "stronger ones").

So, is there a way to approach this meeting with me not coming out weilding a DA letter, or agreeing to be a good JW again? Is it possible for there to be a way to get out of the meeting "unscaved"? I figure I could simply say "my life is very hectic lately" or something along those lines, but I don't know. Any suggestions?

5