Posts by Merry Magdalene

69

Do Ladies Prefer Gentlemen?

by compound complex in

jw
friends

dear lady friends,.

i'm massively naif when it comes to the ways of the world.

and 40 years a wta has not given me a great sense of what's real: crazy rules and regs on "appropriate behavior.".

Merry Magdalene

I think gentlemen are no less romantic and appealing (and maybe even dangerous) than scoundrels and rogues, and sometimes much more so. I love this description:

"A tramp, a gentleman, a poet, a dreamer, a lonely fellow, always hopeful of romance and adventure." Charlie Chaplin

I appreciate a multidimensional man who values and cultivates the manners and morals I strive for in myself. "Gentleman" is one quality among many that I appreciate.

The man I loved most in childhood, my granddad, was a gentleman (among other things).

The man I love now I would describe as a gentleman, and I feel like who he is and how he treats me brings out the best in me, somehow.

~Merry

236

For the ladies. Do you think that when you.....

by NotaNess in

jw
friends

dress to impress, get all slathered up and have your little or lots of flesh showing, depending on your blouse, skirt, pants or shorts....that people(men) are not supposed to stare at you?.

seriously, if your at home in your closet deciding which outfit you're gonna wear to work, school or out to play, and thinking how you'll look more attractive in this or that....do you not know that guys are gonna stare at you?

but you see these females on occasion that will get all in an uproar when some guy is staring at them....but hello...didn't you choose with pin-point accuracy, the exact top that's gonna reveal your cleavage at it's fullest?????

Merry Magdalene

Ok I am trying to be very tactful and respectful to your beliefs here Merry, but this is not what I have seen practiced by Islam in North America.

Thank you for your tact and respect, sweetstuff. Much appreciated. But, in all fairness, I did not address what Muslims may or may not be doing, here, there or anywhere, but what is taught, according to my own experience and understanding of Qur'an and Sunnah. When Muslims do the opposite of what is taught in Qur'an and Sunnah I am saddened, but what they do is not my responsibility and not within my control. What I do is, insha Allah. I do hope, however, that expanded programs of education and assistance will help them and coming generations of Muslims and Muslimas.

Did modest clothing stop the women in Afganistan from being brutally raped by members of the Taliban leadership? Nope. It did not. Did Islamic principals stop said rapists from doing such action?

Does anything short of imprisonment or death stop a rapist from raping or an abuser from abusing? I don't believe I implied what you seem to think I did. I do not believe anything a victim wears, does or says has the power to either infallibly protect her from rape/abuse or to cause rape/abuse. But I still believe dressing and behaving modestly is the correct thing for me to do and I try to follow the teachings of the Qur'an and Sunnah in that regard, out of love and respect for Allah, for my fellow humans, and for myself.

Notaness. Interesting topic. Interesting views. I found it startling that so many assumptions were instantly generated by it regarding personal motives and character. I find this sort of thing happens a lot in more intimate personal relationships, to no one's benefit. Empassioned assumptions, a rush to judgment. It is better, I think, to question first, to contemplate, to tease the matter out a bit. Then again, maybe you were just asking for itLOL

~Merry (hoping her moment of jest isn't taken wrong)

236

For the ladies. Do you think that when you.....

by NotaNess in

jw
friends

dress to impress, get all slathered up and have your little or lots of flesh showing, depending on your blouse, skirt, pants or shorts....that people(men) are not supposed to stare at you?.

seriously, if your at home in your closet deciding which outfit you're gonna wear to work, school or out to play, and thinking how you'll look more attractive in this or that....do you not know that guys are gonna stare at you?

but you see these females on occasion that will get all in an uproar when some guy is staring at them....but hello...didn't you choose with pin-point accuracy, the exact top that's gonna reveal your cleavage at it's fullest?????

Merry Magdalene

Merry: "Explain yourself".
changeling

Such a lovely invitation. How can I refuse?

I was actually reading and formulating my thoughts on this a bit earlier but was called away from the computer.

I think it is very important that men should restrain their thoughts and desires, or at the very least their words and actions, regardless of what a woman is or is not wearing.

I also think it is very important for women to do the same. Self-restraint. Is it fair for women to dress, speak or act provocatively and to hell with whoever might be aroused or offended by it?

Too many people, men and women both, like their freedoms to come without responsibility or consideration for others. I am seeing too much of blaming others and putting responsibility solely on the other sex, and not enough of tending to ourselves, again from men and women both.

I very much appreciate the teachings of Islam in this regard. Men and women alike are told to "lower their gaze" when confronted by something that naturally triggers arousal, and both are told to dress modestly and to not try to draw attention to themselves, whether that be to whatever attractiveness they might be blessed with or whatever wealth they might possess. We are not to try to make the opposite sex desire us or the same sex envy us. We are advised to appreciate each other more for our soul qualities than our physical qualities. "If you've got it, flaunt it," is definitely not Islamic.

We are not prudes by any means either. Spouses are encouraged to dress, speak and act in private in such ways as to bring the greatest pleasure to each other. But, in regards to women's clothes, things that might be perfectly great in private--sexy, seductive, arousing--are now worn freely in public with the consequence that young girl's imitate what they see and I find that quite distressing, the sexualization of children.

I am raising my daughter with the idea of modesty and not showing off what we've got. I am not raising her with the idea that she is at all responsible for someone else's actions, only for her own. My mother believed that women were responsible for men's behaviour, sexually (that men could not be expected to control themselves). I do not believe that. But I also don't believe in pushing their buttons, so to speak.

That's all from this corner.

~Merry

236

For the ladies. Do you think that when you.....

by NotaNess in

jw
friends

dress to impress, get all slathered up and have your little or lots of flesh showing, depending on your blouse, skirt, pants or shorts....that people(men) are not supposed to stare at you?.

seriously, if your at home in your closet deciding which outfit you're gonna wear to work, school or out to play, and thinking how you'll look more attractive in this or that....do you not know that guys are gonna stare at you?

but you see these females on occasion that will get all in an uproar when some guy is staring at them....but hello...didn't you choose with pin-point accuracy, the exact top that's gonna reveal your cleavage at it's fullest?????

Merry Magdalene

Interesting responses...a most revealing thread...curiouser and curiouser...

~Merry

25

i born muslim just two year ago come be a JW.

by faith in hatyai thailand in

dear , friend.

i am gino alen from songkhla thailand, when i born i have muslim stamp.

and steel when i am 30 year old, my belived is very perfect, in mean time one day one jw pooiner met me and i start study bible first time when i am 30 year and 2 month, this is very intresting for share with all, every muslim belived bible, but 99% no see bible, only speak with you i belived .

Merry Magdalene

Hello Gino

I was born a JW and came to be a Muslim one year ago. Small world!

Take care.

~Merry

26

International Conventions

by stillajwexelder in

so i am sure you will be thrilled to know that the international conventions in 2009 will be held in mexico, hawaii, south america (but did not say where exactly), austria and germany with other possibles and kenya - nairobi.

cost to europe is slated at 2500 dollars package but warned that other destinations will cost more.

the main requirement read in the letterwas "make sure you have the finances".

Merry Magdalene

Speaking of Int'l Conventions...

alt

~Merry

34

The smoking gun: Proof they intentionally lied about Iraq to go to war

by Simon in

back in november 2005, col lawrence wilkerson, the chief of staff to mr powell, told the bbc's carolyn quinn he was aware the germans had said that they had told the cia of the unreliability.

"and then you begin to speculate, you begin to wonder was this intelligence spun; was it politicised; was it cherry-picked; did in fact the american people get fooled?," col wilkerson said.

interesting, but not surprising.. they never had hard evidence (how could they?

Merry Magdalene

What is indisputable is the Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds

and then

Only six months after the slaughter at Halabja, the White House lent Saddam Hussein another billion dollars.

All the Western countries were supplying it with arms and funds. France was particularly zealous in this respect. Not content with selling Mirages and helicopters to Iraq, it even lent the regime Super Etendard aircraft in the middle of its war with Iran. Germany supplied Baghdad with a large part of the technology required for the production of chemical weapons. And in an unusual display of East-West military cooperation, German engineers enhanced the performance of the Scud aircraft which Iraq had obtained from the Soviet Union, increasing their range so that they could strike at Teheran and other distant Iranian cities.

and

Clearly, Iraq’s powerful allies did not want Baghdad condemned. In August 1988 the United Nations Sub-Committee on Human Rights voted by 11 votes to 8 not to condemn Iraq for human rights violations. Only the Scandinavian countries, Australia and Canada, together with bodies like the European Parliament and the Socialist International, saved their honour by clearly condemning Iraq.

It was not until Iraq occupied the oil-rich emirate of Kuwait in August 1990 that Saddam Hussein became America’s bogeyman, referred to by George Bush as a new Hitler. Still useful, however, he survived the Gulf war. American troops did nothing to overturn the Iraqi dictator. And they stood idly by in the spring of 1991 while his presidential guard ruthlessly suppressed the popular uprising for which the United States’ president had himself called.
http://mondediplo.com/1998/03/04iraqkn

and then in 2003

President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials asserted before the U.S. invasion that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, had chemical and biological weapons and maintained links to al Qaeda affiliates to whom it might give such weapons to use against the United States.

but in 2004

Charles A. Duelfer, whom the Bush administration chose to complete the U.S. investigation of Iraq's weapons programs, said Hussein's ability to produce nuclear weapons had "progressively decayed" since 1991. Inspectors, he said, found no evidence of "concerted efforts to restart the program." The findings were similar on biological and chemical weapons. While Hussein had long dreamed of developing an arsenal of biological agents, his stockpiles had been destroyed and research stopped years before the United States led the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Duelfer said Hussein hoped someday to resume a chemical weapons effort after U.N. sanctions ended, but had no stocks and had not researched making the weapons for a dozen years.
Duelfer's report, delivered yesterday to two congressional committees, represents the government's most definitive accounting of Hussein's weapons programs, the assumed strength of which the Bush administration presented as a central reason for the war. While previous reports have drawn similar conclusions, Duelfer's assessment went beyond them in depth, detail and level of certainty.
"We were almost all wrong" on Iraq, Duelfer told a Senate panel yesterday.
....The document rules out the possibility that biological weapons might have been hidden, or perhaps smuggled into another country, and it finds no evidence of secret biological laboratories or ongoing research that could be firmly linked to a weapons program.

and yet

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) said: "We didn't have to find plans or weapons to see what happened when Saddam Hussein used chemical and biological weapons on his own people. So just because we can't find them and Saddam Hussein had 12 years to hide them doesn't mean he didn't have them and didn't use them."

and people are still echoing this sentiment in spite of all available facts.

And people continue to suffer and die for a lie while other people profit from it.

~Merry

22

''Miracle Wheat'' in the news today

by candidlynuts in

the brooklynn eagle's ''today in history'' .

an excerpt is posted below.

there's more to the story on the link.

Merry Magdalene

I had never heard this part before:

In 1912 Russell went on a world tour and had sermons published in many places as paid advertisements. The 2/19/1912 issue of the Brooklyn Daily Eagle stated that the newspaper had proof that Russell never preached the sermons as he claimed. He stated he had preached them before thousands but witnesses who were on the same cruise refuted it. They were said to be imaginary sermons and Russell was again proven to be a fibber.

Interesting. Thanks for posting.

~Merry

16

NON JW Watchtower Shareholders!

by Gill in

jw
friends

i remember reading on a thread probably a year or so back that some of the wt shareholders, some of the many who are now shareholders of multiple wt companies, are not jws!.

can someone enlighten me on this and how this could come about in the first place?.

i take it that should the wt actually 'dissolve' these shareholders would take whatever is left financially in the companies!

Merry Magdalene

I forgot to quote this before:

my understanding is that the limited number of shareholders are only voting shares, not ownership interest. this is the case because the corporations are all charities (non-profit organizations). with a non-profit corporation, no share holder, officer, etc. is allowed to profit from an ownership interest. in a sense charities are "owned" by the public. they enjoy their tax-free status because they give back to the public or serve the public's interest. if someone that is private individuals were allowed to benefit, then that would be a taxable situation. (of course this doesn't mean that charities don't take in more revenue than expenses (i.e. profit), can't pay a reasonable percentage of operating costs as salaries or on personnel, etc., or are exempt from all forms of taxation.)
charities are set up for the benefit of the general public or with specific purposes to serve specific segments of the public. if a charity has to be wound up, after payment of any debts, any residual assets are either distributed in accord with the Articles of Incorporation or in the absent of a specific directive, in a manner that would similarly serve the public interest as the purpose of the charity. Generally the board of directors has this responsibility to wind up the non-profit corporation (charity) and makes such decisions as to the distribution or use of assets. If however, there is no acting board of directors or responsible party, the State Secretary where the charity is incorporated would make such a distribution or allotment. The goal would be to use such assets to serve the public interest in comparable fashion, so for example lets say there were a certain sum left of cash, no board, and the State Sec is making the decison, the State Sec could distribute the funds to other religious or bible charities/non-profits.
--from Ouroborous on another thread http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/121766/2150350/post.ashx#2150350

This is as close as I have been able to come to the WTS's Articles of Incorporation, a Charter Amendment registered in 1945, still interesting in its own right. It does discuss membership. Haven't read it all yet.

http://www.macgregorministries.org/jehovahs_witnesses/charterscans/wt_chartscans.html

~Merry

edited to add link to other post

16

NON JW Watchtower Shareholders!

by Gill in

jw
friends

i remember reading on a thread probably a year or so back that some of the wt shareholders, some of the many who are now shareholders of multiple wt companies, are not jws!.

can someone enlighten me on this and how this could come about in the first place?.

i take it that should the wt actually 'dissolve' these shareholders would take whatever is left financially in the companies!

Merry Magdalene

I bring this back up just in case someone knows or has an idea how to find out

...who the WT Society has named as their beneficiary in the event they dissolved.

as it certainly might be interesting.

I am also curious about this:

A tip for those "following the money": The Treasurer's office was always part of the Pennsylvania corporation. Today I see Treasurer's correspondence under the NY corporation. Makes you go hmmmmmm.

~Merry