It's a very great pity that people can allow themselves to be so cowed as to actually think that they have to vet their private sexual practices (particularly between married couples) with any man. You can't really blame the average Elder, however, who is pretty much in the same boat as these people, but the Society has surely been controlled by some fairly and severely perverted individuals, so far as I can tell. A ban on oral sex? What kind of people would ban any intimate act between a married couple? It boggles the mind at times to think of the minutia that occupies the minds of the boys at the top.
My gut instinct is that the real exercise here is simply control. If you can control people's conduct, even private conduct, in small things, then you can demand of them insane sacrifices such as depriving themselves and their loved ones of life-saving medical treatments, or have them shun close friends and family who wander away. I don't think the WTS really gives a damn about whether a married couple partake of oral sex or whether a fourteen year old boy does what every fourteen year old boy since the beginning of time has done. The point here is that they exert control over these private acts, and once they have individuals in that position, then they do indeed have control.
RodentBoy
JoinedPosts by RodentBoy
-
17
Old committee notes.
by Gregor inas an elder in the late '70's i served more than my share of time on judicial committees.
the jc was made up of three elders: the presiding overseer, wt study overseer and bible study overseer.
since these positions rotated yearly, the average elder would serve three years straight on the jc.
-
-
RodentBoy
-
40
Do JWs take Genesis literally?
by undercover inas i grew up as a jw it seemed that we accepted genesis was a literal account with the only question being how long a creative day was.
for the longest time, as best as i can recall, a creative day was considered a thousand years long, based on the ole "a thousand years is as a day to jehovah" rule.. somewhere though, it seems that there was some waffling on how long a creative day was.
especially since science was showing that the earth was millions of years old.. since i've faded i wonder, do jws today consider genesis as a literal account of how things were created, even if they can't explain the exact length of a creative day?.
-
-
RodentBoy
Judging by Hovind's legal problems of late, I'll wager he doesn't have $250,000.
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Kent_Hovind -
40
Do JWs take Genesis literally?
by undercover inas i grew up as a jw it seemed that we accepted genesis was a literal account with the only question being how long a creative day was.
for the longest time, as best as i can recall, a creative day was considered a thousand years long, based on the ole "a thousand years is as a day to jehovah" rule.. somewhere though, it seems that there was some waffling on how long a creative day was.
especially since science was showing that the earth was millions of years old.. since i've faded i wonder, do jws today consider genesis as a literal account of how things were created, even if they can't explain the exact length of a creative day?.
-
-
RodentBoy
That is Kent Hovind, and he's so far off the nut that even Creationist organizations like Answers in Genesis have disowned him. His challenge is a loaded. See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind.html
-
40
Do JWs take Genesis literally?
by undercover inas i grew up as a jw it seemed that we accepted genesis was a literal account with the only question being how long a creative day was.
for the longest time, as best as i can recall, a creative day was considered a thousand years long, based on the ole "a thousand years is as a day to jehovah" rule.. somewhere though, it seems that there was some waffling on how long a creative day was.
especially since science was showing that the earth was millions of years old.. since i've faded i wonder, do jws today consider genesis as a literal account of how things were created, even if they can't explain the exact length of a creative day?.
-
-
RodentBoy
The problem then becomes the bizarre dichotomy. If scientific evidence is to be accepted that the Earth is billions of years old, then it requires a heavy dose of cognitive dissonance to reject evolution. This is the problem with JWs and all such Creationist sects, they are forced to cherry pick the science they like, and basically cast dispersions on the rest; which amount ultimately to little more than out of context quotes, inaccurate information and out-and-out lies.
-
40
Do JWs take Genesis literally?
by undercover inas i grew up as a jw it seemed that we accepted genesis was a literal account with the only question being how long a creative day was.
for the longest time, as best as i can recall, a creative day was considered a thousand years long, based on the ole "a thousand years is as a day to jehovah" rule.. somewhere though, it seems that there was some waffling on how long a creative day was.
especially since science was showing that the earth was millions of years old.. since i've faded i wonder, do jws today consider genesis as a literal account of how things were created, even if they can't explain the exact length of a creative day?.
-
-
RodentBoy
Interpretation of Genesis isn't just a JW problem, but one for all Biblical literalists. The Old Earth Creationism position, which JWs share, or at least did when I was involved, is probably the most ludicrous from a scientific point of view. To accept the age of the Earth, but then to insist that the faunal succession is not evidence for evolution (bearing in mind that faunal succession is a key evidentiary link between evolution and geology) or in fact to reject such a notion entire demonstrates just how much cognitive dissonance there is in the Creationist camp, irregardless of membership in any particular sect.
The claim made by JWs, and many other Creationist sects besides, that Genesis 1 is a scientific account is ludicrous on its face. The creative order is not at all what scientific discovery has shown. Beyond Genesis 1, the whole book is suspect. There is no evidence for a global flood, and, in fact, serious physical problems with even trying to formulate how one could happen. Noah's Ark is an impossible structure which could not be built out of any wood and still be expected to remain seaworthy and structurally sound for a few hours, let alone several weeks.
Actual analysis of the creation stories in Genesis indicates two such stories, and also demonstrate that the ancient Hebrews (like all such tribes in ancient Palestine), had adopted the Sumerian cosmology, with a circular, flat earth and a crystal dome above it. Re-read Genesis 1 with that cosmological model in mind, and it actually makes sense. It is a mythological story based upon a cosmological model common in ancient times among peoples from the eastern Mediterranean through to Mesopotomia. -
10
Do modern day Jews take blood transfusions
by MsMcDucket ini would love to hear from a rabbi his take on god's commandments on blood and how it relates/or not to blood transfusions.
-
-
RodentBoy
This is under the assumption that a practicing Jew even considers a blood transfusion to be the equivalent of eating unbled meat. I have never heard any Jewish theologian ever claim that the two acts have anything at all in common. The blood issue is a load of malarckey, a quote-mined and warped passage from the Bible that the WTBS has, for whatever reason, put its back up against the wall. Like the 1914 prophecy, the abject crap being spewed during the Rutherford era and even the celebrating of birthdays, the whole purpose has always been to find some line in the sand to keep the sheep in line. Simply put, the WTBS has no theological system at all, no real doctrinal way of determining the morality of any particular action.
-
46
What was your first Apostasy?
by Dune ini'm re-reading 1984 and the similarities between the wtbs and the "party" astound me, but anyway, it made me think of the time when i started to get doubts (thoughtcrime).. i remember once at this book study a sister commented about the 1914 and was reciting it's historical accuracy.
anyway, she went on to mention that the demons were probably learning everything about biblical prophecies from the wtbs.
i was 13 at the time but the comment made me cringe, i was thinking "why would superior beings need humans to interpret the bible for them?
-
-
RodentBoy
Thanks. Looks like an interesting place.
-
53
BIG NEWS I recieved my pamphlet WOW
by skyman inthe baylor university has a potential time bomb for the society all i can say is wow i can see how now.
you better get a copy.
use this link and get you a copy http://www3.baylor.edu/church_state/ordering_publications.htm
-
-
RodentBoy
I expect that the WTS may have been aware of this for time. I know that some members of my family still involved were talking about rumors that there was going to be a major switcharoo on the position of blood transfusions, and I expect that that was likely a planted rumor whose purpose was to soften the flock to a policy change. That's what makes rinky-dinky churches like the WTBS so superior for con-artists than the older mainline churches like Catholicism. Catholicism has two thousand years of theology and philosophy to regulate any doctrinal issue. The Pope won't simply make things up, and is bound by precedent and tradition. The WTBS, on the other hand, can simply alter teaching at any moment, with no particular underlying systematic approach. Not enough 1914 generation types around, why just redefine what it means. The world didn't come to an end in 1975, well that's really *your* fault. Blood transfusions will ultimately be the same way. They'll couch the retreat in clever language, and because most JWs are so isolated from the outside world, they'll buy it. Sure there'll be those that jump ship, having had to put up with major doctrinal shifts one too many times. But many will stay put, even if they privately question the wisdom of the Organization.
-
13
70 countries at Zero increase or worse
by metatron inby my count, there are 70 countries that reported zero increase in publishers - or actual losses.
i think last year it was 64.. worldwide:.
memorial attendance is down.
-
-
RodentBoy
The 1914 claim was always idiotic. Tip to anyone forming an apocalyptic cult, never ever give any kind of firm dates. In the JW case, of course, all of this was bolstered by the bizarre numerology and Bible code crapola. I still feel very sad that smart people like my dad are still involved, because it's so very clearly ad hoc nonsense. Anyone who takes some ancient mythological writings and starts counting numbers is either delusional or sees an opportunity for wealth and power.
-
46
What was your first Apostasy?
by Dune ini'm re-reading 1984 and the similarities between the wtbs and the "party" astound me, but anyway, it made me think of the time when i started to get doubts (thoughtcrime).. i remember once at this book study a sister commented about the 1914 and was reciting it's historical accuracy.
anyway, she went on to mention that the demons were probably learning everything about biblical prophecies from the wtbs.
i was 13 at the time but the comment made me cringe, i was thinking "why would superior beings need humans to interpret the bible for them?
-
-
RodentBoy
I was about ten years old and couldn't go to my physical education class at my school because of some injury or another, so was trotted off to the school library, which was empty except for the librarian. I was always interested in science, and grabbed a book on human origins. The first page I opened, about half way through the book, had this beautiful color painting of two species of Australopithecines on the African savannah. I suddenly began to desire that world, as opposed to the JW variant of Creationism, to be true.
Of course, it was when I was around thirteen or fourteen, when I found out that Life, HOw Did It Get Here had actually taken Dr. Richard Dawkins' out of context. At that point I knew that the Organization was no divinely directed group, but rather another mundane religious organization with too much power over the lives of those who were too frightened or too complacent to actually research what was being delivered from on high.