under_believer

Joined

• started 118 topics
• posted 1,767 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by under_believer

• 
  21

  Narkissos you are missed!

  by slimboyfat in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  seriously, where have you gone man?

  i don't like what the mods do either sometimes, but just ignore it and try to keep your head down.

  for what it is worth i read your review post about the book before it was deleted - and it prompted me, despite my prior reservations, to buy the book.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  under_believer

  w00t!
• 
  5

  CAN IT BE DELAYED UNTIL 1914?

  by under_believer in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  from the july 15, 1894 watch tower: .

  can it be delayed until 1914?

  seventeen years ago people said, concerning the time features presented in millennial dawn, they seem reasonable in many respects, but surely no such radical changes could occur between now and the close of 1914: if you had proved that they would come about in a century or two, it would seem much more probable.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  under_believer

  From the July 15, 1894 Watch Tower:
  

  CAN IT BE DELAYED UNTIL 1914?
  
  Seventeen years ago people said, concerning the time features presented in MILLENNIAL DAWN, They seem reasonable in many respects, but surely no such radical changes could occur between now and the close of 1914: if you had proved that they would come about in a century or two, it would seem much more probable.
  
  What changes have since occurred, and what velocity is gained daily?
  
  "The old is quickly passing and the new is coming in."
  
  Now, in view of recent labor troubles and threatened anarchy, our readers are writing to know if there may not be a mistake in the 1914 date. They say that they do not see how present conditions can hold out so long under the strain.
  
  We see no reason for changing the figures--nor could we change them if we would. They are, we believe, God's dates, not ours. But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble. We see no reason for changing from our opinion expressed in the view presented in the WATCH TOWER of January 15, '92. We advise that it be read again.

  Note the sense of urgency displayed in this quote, the strength of the conviction, the utter certainty.

  The Society and especially individual Witnesses seem to be speaking in these terms again. It is good to remember that they have made similar predicitons in the past. Remember the story of the little boy who cried "WOLF?" Well, even if God really was going to start Armageddon next week, do you think he'd blame people for not listening to an organization who is in the very character of that little shepherd boy?
• 
  21

  Narkissos you are missed!

  by slimboyfat in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  seriously, where have you gone man?

  i don't like what the mods do either sometimes, but just ignore it and try to keep your head down.

  for what it is worth i read your review post about the book before it was deleted - and it prompted me, despite my prior reservations, to buy the book.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  under_believer

  Anyways, I hope he comes back.
• 
  21

  Narkissos you are missed!

  by slimboyfat in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  seriously, where have you gone man?

  i don't like what the mods do either sometimes, but just ignore it and try to keep your head down.

  for what it is worth i read your review post about the book before it was deleted - and it prompted me, despite my prior reservations, to buy the book.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  under_believer

  I miss Narkissos too.
  
  I can't fault him for being offended by that last fateful conversation, though. The mods here are inflexible and hardcore.
  
  Before any mods get mad at me for saying that, please see also my response to that last Narkissos thread.
• 
  36

  Sex before marriage = a miserable marriage according to WTBTS!

  by Gill in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the anti sex beatings from the wtbts go on and on!.

  november 1st 2006 'awake'.

  this particular mag has an article on 'does romantic love justify premrital sex?'.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  under_believer

  In our circuit there was a couple who got married and discovered on their wedding night that their bits were incompatible. He was abnormally large, and she was abnormally small. They couldn't make it work.
  
  The last I heard, they were considering surgery for her. They had never had conventional intercourse. Other forms (oral, for example) were verboten of course. This was years ago and I never heard what became of it (though they're still married.)
• 
  35

  garybuss

  by evita in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  garybuss

  your sense of humor makes my day!

  thanks for showing up here to provide insight and comic relief.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  under_believer

  My favorite Gary thread is the bittersweet and fascinating photo album he posted. I have gone back to it several times. Don't miss it: Me and my brother and our guitars (pic)
• 
  44

  The WTS fornicating with CESNUR

  by greendawn in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the wts is a member of cesnur an organisation that seeks to promote new religions and to oppose anti cult actions by governments on the grounds that these are attacks on personal and religious freedom.

  surprise surprise the other members of this organisation make up a strange brood: mormons, scientologists, new agers, ramtha's school of ancient wisdom, etc.

  clearly the wts that criticises mainstream christianity so much chooses to join forces with such dubious religions in cesnur.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  under_believer

  sbf, I'm not getting sucked into a discussion of CESNUR. You're trying to change the subject, a famous debating tactic that you learned at your Kingdom Hall. Go back and look at my post and address the actual issues therein.
  
  I argue that their definition of being no part of the world is inconsistent and adds to what the Scriptures dictate. I also argue that, even if their interpretation is correct, they do not conform to it. Involvement with CESNUR is proof of that violation of principle. So, of course, was UN NGO status. So amicus curae involvement with Jimmy Swaggart's tax lawsuit. Lastly, they have a different set of standards for individual members than they have for their organization at large--any individual member would have been disciplined in the 90's for any involvement whatsoever in CESNUR, the UN, or for friend of the court filings in a case involving a televangelist.
• 
  44

  The WTS fornicating with CESNUR

  by greendawn in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the wts is a member of cesnur an organisation that seeks to promote new religions and to oppose anti cult actions by governments on the grounds that these are attacks on personal and religious freedom.

  surprise surprise the other members of this organisation make up a strange brood: mormons, scientologists, new agers, ramtha's school of ancient wisdom, etc.

  clearly the wts that criticises mainstream christianity so much chooses to join forces with such dubious religions in cesnur.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  under_believer

  SBF, way to pick out one tangential thing in my post and pick on it. What about the gist of my post? I notice you don't even try to address that.
  
  In any case, yes, any group that runs a forum for that list of organizations to proudly proclaim to the world that they're not cults is a wacko fringe cult defense organization, regardless of their stated goals.
• 
  44

  The WTS fornicating with CESNUR

  by greendawn in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the wts is a member of cesnur an organisation that seeks to promote new religions and to oppose anti cult actions by governments on the grounds that these are attacks on personal and religious freedom.

  surprise surprise the other members of this organisation make up a strange brood: mormons, scientologists, new agers, ramtha's school of ancient wisdom, etc.

  clearly the wts that criticises mainstream christianity so much chooses to join forces with such dubious religions in cesnur.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  under_believer

  sbf, I would have to argue that your questions can't be answered. The Society wants to be "no part of this world." They want their followers to be "no part of this world." The question then becomes where to draw the line.
  
  Look, there are three branches of the US government--the judicial, the executive, and the legislative. Clearly, being involved with any of these three is political involvement. The Society engages with the judicial branch, obviously on Paul's example, but they can't say that they're no part of the world, then, can they? They're attempting to affect the laws of the land and the way that those laws are enforced. In some cases they're even getting laws struck down. Is it materially different whether they do this through the legislative branches or the judicial branches?
  
  Remember, Paul wasn't campaigning for Christian rights or freedom of speech or anything. He was there for himself.
  
  I'd argue that line the Society drew in the sand as far as participation in government is completely arbitrary and was drawn out of convenience rather than any specific scriptural reasoning. If they really wanted to be "no part of the world" then they'd eschew court cases, governmental registration, and everything else. They'd ignore those things as if they didn't exist, and trust in God.
  
  But they don't. They're definitely "part of this world." Their involvement with a wacko fringe cult defense organization is yet one more example of this. If Jehovah is looking out for them, they need no such association.
• 
  42

  Hypnotic method of WTS

  by OnTheWayOut in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i was reading various materials from the web and came across information that suggests that j.f.rutherford .

  learned to use hypnotic study methods.

  study books for students engage the left brain and right brain, .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  under_believer

  Dido, I can't find where I told you that I only believe in things I can see; that would be foolish, wouldn't it?
  
  I'm assuming that you were joking when you used your "can't see the wind" example, since that very same thing is so often used by the Watchtower Society to make people believe in God, and you left the Society so I can't imagine you seriously using one of their arguments.
  
  Anyways, when the Society uses that example it is pretty silly, don't you think? We can't see the wind, but we can feel it, directly, with our own sense of touch. We can see, directly, things that it does: It blows weather stations and windmills and trees and waves and sailboats and clouds.
  
  You appear to have switched this conversation over to the question of God's existence (I thought we were talking about whether the Society uses hypnosis.) I didn't want to take it there, and I decline to discuss this topic on this thread. If you'd really like to analyze God's existence, you should start a new thread.