Posts by helppls

23

A LETTER FROM A JW concerning My Story on Randy's Freeminds Website

by Terry in

is it your purpose to save people from living a hellish life if they become a jehovah's witness?

you think you'll cure the world of divorce after you annihilate the jehovah's witnesses?

what is your story?.

helppls

I watched the news and I can not help but noticed the genuine glee of families of soldiers who died in combat. --Ron Ron R

Terry--Your response to this person's letter is very admirable...very logical, concise and thoughtful. Unfortunately, the same could not be said of his. The above statement is a case in point. My God! It is obscene to imply that "families of soldiers who died in combat" showed "genuine glee". But then again, many jws see only what their twisted minds are trained to see........

62

What Are Words Or Expressions Peculiar To JWs???

by minimus in

jw
friends

jws have their own terminology.

it's a characteristic of a cult.

here's a few: "new system", the friends" and the "body".......can you think of more?

helppls

How about "fruitage of the lips" ???

JW's thank Jehovah for the "fruitage of the lips" all the time! A few times I pointed out (casually) that: I don't believe that "fruitage of the lips" is such a blessing. Why? Because "fruitage of the lips" are just WORDS..just TALK,,,and we all know that talk is cheap. We can say till we're blue in the face that we love our brother (fruitage of the lips?) but if we don't back up our words with action--- it doesn't mean anything. People with the gift-of-gab do bear fruits..."fruitage of the lips". Right?

JWs are the only people I know who consider "fruitage of the lips" such a big deal...

34

Interesting thought on the importance of the name Jehovah.

by PaNiCAtTaCk in

first off, i did not write this.

i found it on the net.

i think this guy made an interesting point.

helppls

The question rises: who lost this correct pronunciation? --PaNiC

I really won't be surpised if they answered: Satan caused the correct pronunciation of God's name to be lost! Which is really frustrating because --how do you disprove such foolishness???

21

UPDATE ON MY DAD

by Mary in

jw
friends

thank you so much for your support and pms......much appreciated.

we got my dad to the hospital where they administered the clot-busting drug and yes, it was done within the 3 hour time frame.

it was a very serious stroke but so far he has responded extremely well.

helppls

Merry--I'm very happy to hear this encouraging news about your Dad. You are all in my prayers. Please take care of yourself...and may your Dad get well really soon. Thinking of you......Always

PS. I wonder why they can't pass a law (here in the US) which says something to this effect: if any organization or person/s representing such an organization... directly or indirectly interferes or try to interfere in its members' medical decisions, such organization shall be legally liable for the consequences of such interference, subject to punitive damages that may cost up to hundreds of millions of dollars. We all know that WT's stubborn attachment to their evolving blood policy cannot compare to their attachment to corporate $$$. At this point, these are most likely one and the same! Freedom of religion is one thing...but allowing any organization unchecked freedom to limit its members medical choices even to the point of causing death, is surely a CRIME. This is so upsetting!!!

290

607

by Zico in

jw
friends

can anyone provide me with any evidence (links to other sites is fine) that jerusalem could not have possibly fallen to the babylonians in 607?

thanks again for your answers.

zico

helppls

If your husband is such a beautiful person then you should follow his lead and listen and learn from him. -scholar

Just because my husband is "such a beautiful person" doesn't make him always right. I realize that WT indoctrination in all these years, has "interrupted his throught processes" (as it was meant to do). He needs to separate from WTS (the corporation), and undergo a major debriefing for his normal thought processes to be restored. We have agreed to disagree at this point.

I am more than happy to address your sincere and humble questions regarding such a complex and confusing subject of chronology which is not for the fainthearted but the strong. -scholar

With SOLID SCIENTIFIC AND HISTORICAL FACTS TO SUPPORT IT, chronology need not be a "complex and confusing subject". It only becomes such when it is used to advance man-made speculations which don't have basis in fact. I always expect long, convoluted answers from people who don't know what they're talking about, or who are distorting facts to advance their own agenda.

.....I hope this is simple enough and my advice is for you to learn more and study hard the Bible and the wonderful publications of the faithful and discreet slave. -scholar

Why does that sound really patronising to me? Anyway......I also believe that we should never stop learning and growing...I try to follow this, as much as my schedule would allow. I am a working wife and mother (economist/investment analyst) and does not always have the luxury of time. As for anything coming from the WT...years of reading their publications have given me nothing but useless information and I simply do not want to re-visit those publications ever again! The idea that Jerusalem fell in 607 is baloney...just as ridiculous as the idea that +/-12, old men in New York should be allowed to determine how we live our lives.

290

607

by Zico in

jw
friends

can anyone provide me with any evidence (links to other sites is fine) that jerusalem could not have possibly fallen to the babylonians in 607?

thanks again for your answers.

zico

helppls

"Certainly, celebrated WT scholars could have chosen another methodology based upon the regnal years of Nebuchadenezzer with his destroying Jerusalem in his 18 th year but such a method invalidates the seventy years so such a method simply fails".---Scholar

"Please explain why it invalidates the 70 years? Just count FORWARD 70 years from 587 and the return from exile will be in 517, according to "Celebrated WT scholars'" version of the 70 years. Why not go with 517 for the return from exile? Please explain why not?"---MJ

========== Scholar---I'm sorry about my dig about your "intellectual deficiency", in a previous post in this same thread. Obviously that's not true. Please blame it on my frustration. Your stubborn refusal to see any line of reasoning other than that promoted by WTS reminded me of my husband's reactions...and that made me very, very sad, and frustrated. I love my husband so much....he is normally a very kind and compassionate person, until (WT) religion comes into the picture. Then he becomes intolerant, uncompromising, stubborn and tunnel-visioned (if there's such a word!). That's why he avoids talking about religion to me. Sometimes I even see a glimpse of ruthlessness, something really foreign in his personality otherwise. But I don't know you...I didn't have the right to say what I did. I'm sorry. For all I know, you could be just as great as my husband deep inside, past the layers of defenses fostered by your religion in you. In fact, it would be awesome if --like you, my husband could be persuaded to come to this site, and just read and learn. I would be most happy if that ever happens...my husband can be very open-minded when he wants to be. I realize that I may be banging my head against a brick wall here, but would you please address MJ's question above? Why can't we say that Jerusalem fell in 587 (just like historical/astronomical data indicate), and that the Jews returned from exile in 517 (70 years later)? What exactly in the bible would make 517 an unacceptable date for the Jews' return? Obviously, I am not as bible savvy as most of you here, are. This is a simple question. If you would, could you please give me a simple and direct answer which my inexperienced mind can make sense of ? Thank you Scholar....

24

"Unevenly Yolked"

by pooka in

i've posted before about seeing a jw and i am catholic.

right now we are having the "unevenly yolk" conseveration.

can anyone tell me what percentage of jw's are married to non jw?

helppls

"It's unevenly 'yoked'." ---Serendipity

----------------------

"Yoked"..........right! Hee-heee-heeeeeee! Thanks Serendipity- I stand corrected as well, as I followed Pooka's lead in my post. Consider the (egg) yolk's on my face...

290

607

by Zico in

jw
friends

can anyone provide me with any evidence (links to other sites is fine) that jerusalem could not have possibly fallen to the babylonians in 607?

thanks again for your answers.

zico

helppls

"Its amazing to me how much Scholar personally attacks. I can't understand how this sort of behaviour is acceptable in any way. "--ackack ==================== It's always been said that if you can't defeat the message, kill the messenger!!! I believe that's what "scholar"(?) has been doing to you, Auld Soul... but I'm sure you already know that! You naughty boy is probably just trying to further expose scholar's unflattering intellectual deficiency. Take him squirming, several notches down, eh? I keep on wondering what posters like scholar and jw are doing in a chat room such as this one. Doesn't the mother org tell them not to mix with thinking people like many who are here? Hey scholar, did you forget what mommy org said?.... "Bad association spoils useful habits." Don't you feel guilty about associating with admitted "apostates"--- WT Rule#1 ??? Well, just a reminder.........

290

607

by Zico in

jw
friends

can anyone provide me with any evidence (links to other sites is fine) that jerusalem could not have possibly fallen to the babylonians in 607?

thanks again for your answers.

zico

helppls

I don't usually comment on these types of threads, but I just couldn't pass this up:

Celebrated WT scholars have stated how the date of 607 is derived. It is derived not from some astromical date as you allege but from the date of 537 BCE which is establihed by means of accpted secular evidence which includes the astronomical evidence.

OK, so, if I understand correctly:

587 BCE as the date for the destruction of Jerusalem is WRONG WRONG WRONG because it is derived from astronomical data. 607 BCE is an infinitely better date because it is NOT derived from that BAD HORRIBLE astronomical data.

If 607 BCE is not derived from such GUT-WRENCHINGLY UNRELIABLE astronomical data, from where is it derived?

Just count back 70 years from 537 BCE.

And how do you get 537 BCE? From DIVINELY PRESERVED and UNDISPUTED astronomical evidence.

Yes indeed, I can see how those WT scholars are truly "celebrated". ======= Sir82-- He-he-he! I like that....soooooooooooooo fun--------neeeeeeeeeeeeee!!! LOL!!!! Scholar-- You should give it up! You're sounding more ridiculous with every key stroke!!! Why don't you go to an island far, far, really far away, and wait for your Armageddon there! Maybe take all of WTS leaders with you, please???

24

"Unevenly Yolked"

by pooka in

i've posted before about seeing a jw and i am catholic.

right now we are having the "unevenly yolk" conseveration.

can anyone tell me what percentage of jw's are married to non jw?

helppls

Sorry, wrong addressee---my post was not for La Catolica but for Pooka! Silly me!!!!