Posts by digderidoo

53

Can someone help me?

by losthusband in

hi - i'm new here so go easy on me!.

i've been lurking for a while trying to find out info on the jws.

some questions i have:.

digderidoo

I was 14 and my brother 12 when my mother started studying in the 80's.

It sounds to me as though your children are already involved in the religion. They have friends within the religion that they will lose should they decide to leave it.

For me, within a few months i was 'encouraged' to stop hanging around with school frineds and only mix with congregation kids. At that age you're impressionable, i looked up to many kids in the congregation, there was alot of youngsters my age and a little older. Eventually when all of your friends are JW's and both you and they are told to only mix with congregation kids by parents and elders then you are trapped and just can't leave.

I also believed at that age through bible study with JW's that i will die at Armageddon, which was coming shortly if i didn't carry on with my studies.

As a kid with a very high IQ i left school with no qualifications and did a menial job so that i could pioneer. But everything was great because all my friends were pioneers too, so we had a laugh.

Eventually as an adult once i realised that i had been taught wrong and wanted to leave i had to leave all those friends behind.

I hope you find your answers here.

117

Roll Call !!! I am going to reveal my name, anyone else DARE?

by Leprechaun in

jw
friends

roll call, just as it is written i am not afraid what can man do to me.

my name is shane draney i live in ogden utah, i am supposed to be going to the roy city congregation but i am not going to so there!

but you never know since i was raised in it, its been hard to shed drinking the cool aid.. .

digderidoo

My real name is JCanon and i am the Messiah.

33

Michael Jackson murdered?

by besty in

jw
friends

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/08/lethal-levels-of-anesthetic-propofol-killed-michael-jackson.html.

michael jackson died of "lethal levels" of the powerful anesthetic propofol, according to a search warrant affidavit unsealed today in houston.. .

the court documents quote the l.a. county coroner's office as reaching that conclusion after an autopsy of the pop star.. .

digderidoo

He wouldn't be charged with murder, as the article says at the end charges of involuntary manslaughter through medical negiligence may be brought agianst the doctor.

Paul

101

Lurkers and Jehovah's Witnesses- The WT Lied to you about " Generation "

by flipper in

jw
friends

i know this has been re-hashed many times here.

in great detail with quotes from former watchtower articles, etc.

i'm going to cut to the chase and just make this brief and direct.

digderidoo

Thanks for the thread Flipper.

Back in the 80's as i was about to leave school i was told 'why polish the brass on a sinking ship? The generation that seen 1914 are in their 70's now.' So i did the honourable thing, never sought an education, window cleaned part time and pioneered.

Now in 2009 i still window clean. I am now getting an education, but there was so many lost years when i could have set myself up to do what i wanted.

Angeleyes leaving a man made organisation that constantly gets it's prophesying wrong is not the same as leaving Jehovah, I find it interesting that your posts seem to suggest that it is.

Paul

60

Is Shunning an Act of Revenge?

by cameo-d in

.

does wt demand an act of wickedness to prove loyalty to the institution?.

is shunning a wicked act of revenge?.

digderidoo

Reniaa, if you're going to quote a scripture you really need to look at the whole passage to get it's meaning, rather than just picking out a sentence to misinterpret scripture.

2 Thessalonians 3:14 and 15

If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of him. Do not associate with him, in order that he may feel ashamed. 15 Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother.

Paul

2

These guys will not survive Armageddon......

by digderidoo in

.

just thought i'd share this pic lol.

paul.

digderidoo

Just thought i'd share this pic lol

Paul

74

'Capitalism: A Love Story' (Trailer for New Michael Moore Film)

by leavingwt in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihydyxrjuju.

.

digderidoo

Looking forward to seeing it.....Michael Moore telling it as it is

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

vague memory from when i was studying up on male 'rape' many moons ago the term rape didnt apply to men as they didnt have a vagina, and rape was classed as per vagina so the term 'assault by penetration' was used instead...

so if they're using that term its quite possible the lady was subjected to sodomy instead of being raped in the usual sense of the word. either way its horrible that anyone should be subjected to any kind of assault.

The term does now apply to male rape, this is one of the things that was reformed in 2003 with the Sexual Offences Act, i have cut and pasted section 1 of the act, as you can see it covers penile penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth.

1 Rape

(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—

(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,

(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and

(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

(2) Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.

(3) Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

The guy however admitted to assault by penetration which is covered by section 2 of the act and differentiated from rape,

2 Assault by penetration

(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—

(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina or anus of another person (B) with a part of his body or anything else,

(b) the penetration is sexual,

(c) B does not consent to the penetration, and

(d) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

(2) Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.

(3) Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

As you can see this involves penetration by anything other than penile. It would cover a finger or other implement such as a stick, bottle, etc. penetrating the vagina or anus.

As you can see by subsection 4, that the maximum penalty is life imprisonment, so although the law recognises a difference, it doesn't make it any less serious than rape.

Paul

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