Posts by digderidoo

34

She Would Have Been Better Off A JW

by DJQuimica in

well i have been wanting to tell this story for some time now.

does anyone believe that a person is better becoming a jw?

i ask this question because i have carried this around with me for some years now.

digderidoo

Hindsight is a wonderful thing DJ_Q. Sorry to hear your story. Who knows whether she'd have been better off? I think we all have to get that partying phase out of us, for some of us the curiosity of it is strong, i know it was for me.

May be she would have been better off, maybe she'd have felt trapped in the constrains of a JW life.

Life is full of if's. If my uncle were born a female, you know what? ...he'd be my aunty. I know it's easy to say don't dwell on the if's, but the complexities of life and the questions we ask when someone dies is reality, if's are just our dreams and hopes.

Paul

41

Another JW Caught in the Act

by jamiebowers in

this was posted on facebook by a fellow exjw:.

http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=115905575893&h=iugq7&u=dfsnw&ref=nf.

.

digderidoo

Assault by penetration IS rape! Forced Unlawful Carnal Knowledge. See why I hate the 'F' word so much?

English law only recognises penile penetration as rape, assault by penitration is a new offence since 2003. Assault by penetration still carries a maximum life sentence but when the sexual offences law was reformed recently it was decided to differentiate between penile penetration to any other penetration. Although by legal definition there is a difference, the seriousness of the offence is not diminished as shown through the maximum life sentence.

The sexual offence laws of this country had a major reform with the Sexual Offences Act 2003 as the old laws were seen as archaic. Reformation of the law has led to more convictions, where prior many got off on technicalities.

Back to the topic... Why on earth would a "warning" be given for assaulting a child?!

That's exactly whatI was wondering...possibly parent unwilling to alow the child to testify or the child was too traumatized to testify?

It wouldn't be the case that the parent wouldn't allow the child to testify. The guy was given a 'caution', not a warning. Personally i am disgusted that the police can give cautions for this, there has been media debate on this as it is not widely known that police are allowed to do this.

If police give a caution, one of the criteria has to be that the suspect admits to the offence. Therefore there would be no need for the child to testify anyway, the suspect has already admitted his guilt.

Paul

12

I hate District Convention time

by digderidoo in

jw
friends

i had to pick my daughter up from my mothers yesterday after going to the district convention.

i hate having to listen to how my mother has bumped into so and so and they've been asking about me.. she bumped into some of my ex's family who stopped and chatted.

so two faced all of them.. it kind of gets my back up and i can feel anger coming up when i hear people who i used to respect asking after me, then if i were to walk past them in the street i know most of them would try to avoid me.. to top it all my mother has been dropping hints as to whether i will go with her.

digderidoo

Gayle - Did you daughter go with your mom to the DC?

Sorry gayle for not responding sooner, i have only just logged on here after a week or so. In answer to your question she just went on the Saturday.

Paul

12

I hate District Convention time

by digderidoo in

jw
friends

i had to pick my daughter up from my mothers yesterday after going to the district convention.

i hate having to listen to how my mother has bumped into so and so and they've been asking about me.. she bumped into some of my ex's family who stopped and chatted.

so two faced all of them.. it kind of gets my back up and i can feel anger coming up when i hear people who i used to respect asking after me, then if i were to walk past them in the street i know most of them would try to avoid me.. to top it all my mother has been dropping hints as to whether i will go with her.

digderidoo

I had to pick my daughter up from my mothers yesterday after going to the District Convention. I hate having to listen to how my mother has bumped into so and so and they've been asking about me.

She bumped into some of my ex's family who stopped and chatted. So two faced all of them.

It kind of gets my back up and i can feel anger coming up when i hear people who i used to respect asking after me, then if i were to walk past them in the street i know most of them would try to avoid me.

To top it all my mother has been dropping hints as to whether i will go with her. I think it's because i went to one day last year for the first time in about 10 years. I have repeatedly told her i am not going, then as i walked out of the house she says i have got you a car park ticket just in case youn wanted to go on Sunday. What cheek, she has actually ordered me a car park ticket after all the times i have said that i am definately not going.

Sometimes i just wished i was df'ed or da'ed, but that would create more problems i guess.

Paul

4

Did you ever had someone not speak to you for years because of a grudge?

by asilentone in

jw
friends

did you ever had someone not speak to you for years because of a grudge against you?

as the years passed by, did you make up with that person and become friends again?

do you know someone that has that kind of experience?

digderidoo

My nan and my uncle haven't spoke since my Grandfather's death in 1975. It really began with my nan not liking his wife, she did used to treat him bad. He left her the once, she said to him if you going to go back to her then i want nothing to do with you. There was a few family arguments at the time involving my uncle, which added to this, and since then they haven't spoke.

It was my nan's 90th about 3 months ago and my uncle was thinking of attending. I think he wants to do something before it is too late. They are both stubborn, so neither will speak first. The longer it went on, the harder it got for both of them. They have acknowledged each other once in that time, at a family party, by saying hello, this was about 15 years ago.

They both attend family parties, we are a large family so they keep apart. My nan did come to our house once whilst my uncle was there about 15 years ago, around the same time that they acknowledged each other. They both sat in the same room and didn't speak, after a couple of minutes my uncle got up and left.

I remember my uncle inviting her to his silver wedding anniversary in 1990, she refused to attend.

It is a shame for them both, my nan is now 90 and my uncle around 68, they have missed so much not speaking for 34 years, but that's the way it is between them.

Paul

54

Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate.

by compound complex in

jw
friends

our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate.

our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.

it is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us.

digderidoo

Love it, thanks CoCo.

Paul

158

Older posters check in...just post your name...we need to hear from you!

by restrangled in

i am not the oldest but have 3 years here!

restrangled.. how about you?.

digderidoo

8 years for me, with a few gaps in between. In that time life has had it's ups and downs, on a happy level at the moment. I can see how my post JW life has panned out through reading my old threads.

Paul

56

Regional Identities in the UK - A short guide for Americans

by besty in

jw
friends

so the uk is divided into 4 separate countries - the big bit called england that has wales on the side and scotland at the top with northern ireland off on its own island.. each country has multiple cultural identities.

broadly speaking (and i generalize) the wealth of england (and the uk generally) is concentrated in london, the 'rust belt' is in the middle namely birmingham and manchester and the north of england tends to be poorer.. scotland - where i'm from - is culturally rich but economically poor.

there is a long-standing argument about how wealthy scotland could have been if it had been able to keep all the north sea oil revenue instead of sending it to london.

digderidoo

Thanks Midwich..........only 10 minutes walk from my house.

When you walk in The Crooked House you feel drunk before you've had a drink. There's a wall in that pub where if you place a ball on the railings it appears to go up.

I often walk my dog down to there, but it's more for tourists than locals.

Paul

31

Question about 70 yr. excile:

by whyizit in

was discussing how secular references point to destruction of jerusalem in 586/7 with a jw.

used kiss method of counting back the kings from babylonian fall (according to wt daniel book on page 50-51, says it was 539.).

not sure what this person meant.

digderidoo

Hi Whyizit,

OnTheWay Out has said it for me,

Jeremiah ends the 70 years with the "account against the King of Babylon". Babylon fell in 539 B.C. indicating the start of this 70 year period against "these nations" could have been 609 B.C.

It most certainly could have been 609BCE when Babylon conquered Assyria, most scholars mark 609BCE as the starting point for Babylonian domination, hence Jeremiah 25, 'that these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.", implying a number of nations, rather than the nation of Israel.

Alternately, 70 years was the length of time the temple was in a state of disrepair, from the start of the siege on Jerusalem in 589 B.C. to the completion of the new temple in 519 B.C.

Here he has shown two explanations for the 70 year period, both reconcile a 587/6 destruction for Jerusalem. There are alternative explanations for a 70 year period that fit in with scripture.

What the JW's do is to set up a strawman argument. They tell you that that the 70 scriptural period HAS to begin with Jerusalems destruction and HAS to end with Cyrus announcing decree which they guesstimate at 537BCE, yet this is not what the scriptures actually say. The strawman is then set up that if you accept a 587/6 date you are then arguing with scripture, this is then presented as a scripture VS secular debate and ask you which one you should choose, the bible or secular sources.....typical strawman.

The reality is that alternative explanations for a 70 year period do harmonise with the bible and secular sources.

Paul

44

hi everybody and my story

by inbetween in

jw
friends

as mentioned in my very first port here, i will now give my story and some thoughts i have so far.. i ve been lurking here for about a month, before i registered.

well, a few months ago something like that would be unthinkable for me.. i was raised as a jw, and serve currently as an elder in a congregation.

i have family, also jws.

digderidoo

Hi Inbetween, welcome to the forum.

For me the issue was 1914, it is worth looking into. I always used to use the fact that JW's prohesied this date as reason enough to prove JW's had the truth.

Imagine my surprise when i found out that what they prophesied was Armageddon. That there were a number of dates of which 1914 was only one, that the thoughts on 1914 being an invisible presence, along with dropping the dates of 1874, 1925 happened in 1929. That the same guy (Nelson Barbour) who changed the adventist prophecy of 1874, coming up with an invisible presence idea after the event for the Adventists, then went on to write for the Watchtower. In fact Russel himself was an assistant editor on the Adventist magazine, Herald of the Morning, not just associated with the adventists i was led to believe, i was told that he just listened in on their meetings. It is no wonder that this invisible presence idea of 1914 was adopted.

Then to top it all Jerusalem wasn't even destroyed in 607BCE, but in 587/6BCE. Only JW's give the 607 date for the destruction of Jerusalem. They do this by counting 70 years backwards from 537BCE when they guesstimate Cyrus announced his decree....which shocked me, considering the certainty they place on 1914. They then present the 70 year period as a scriptural reason to acccept 607, verses a secular reason to accept 587/6....a complete strawman's argument as their are plenty of ways to harmonise a 70 year period with a 587/6 date, so this date then becomes both scriptural and secular. 1914 was completely debunked for me, if they were wrong about this, what else can they be wrong about i began to wonder.

I do not want to give all the details on 607-1914 as there is far too much to digest for someone having doubts, but it is well worth the effort of looking into.

Welcome to the forum, so Neo will you take the red pill or the blue pill, all we can offer is the truth about the troof?

Paul