i had a "free" bible study with 2 dubs a few months ago, they tried their usual sales pitch, and badmouth my pastor and my church and beliefs, in general.
after the older guy did that, i stood up and left.
8 months passed, and i ran him to him again at a superstore last week, spewing his same crap.
Only the most intelligent jws will ever be able to get out. Stupid and half-smart people are usually lost for life.
I really beginnning to see the truth of that statement. My elder buddy is a pretty smart guy, who can't refute, (and even agrees with), most of what I tell him, yet still he would rather "just wait on Jehovah".
Very, very sad.
j
i was reading a little coc last night where ray f. disusses the witch hunt at bethel that resulted in all the oustings.
as i read the doctrines that he questioned, (not judging him right or wrong), i noticed that he was questioning some of the fundamental beliefs of the wt.
ie: gov.
I dunno, W.Once. What I do know is that the GB, (as individual members), do hold to individual ideas. If those ideas never get voted in, that does not necessairly mean that they change their minds as individuals. I stated here before, that I knew Dan Sydlik somewhat, and I can say FOR SURE, that he had his own ideas about some/many things. The rest of the GB are not going to "go after" a member for holding those ideas, so as long the opposing idea is kept a "personal" view. I didn't get the impression that Ray was particularly open about his views, outside of a small circle, perhaps, so maybe he was truly shocked by the reaction he received by the rest of the GB.
j
it seems like the witnesses are going to be told that they they now can take blood---at least some of it!
i asked my mom a few minutes ago if she would take blood fractions and she said "no!".
i gave her a head's up on what to expect from the new km.
The blood mess is so unreasonable---who could ever figure it out on their own??
The simple answer is it can't be figured out, regardless of age.
However, one SHOULD be able to figure out the WTS is full of shit on this one.
j
i have just put together a table with percentages that highlights quite simply what a jw can and can not have.
the wts does not present it in this simple format, as graphically it is quite obvious how senseless their stand is.
.
"When making such decisions, consider the following questions. Am I aware that refusing all blood fractions means that I will not accept some medications, such as certain ones that fight viruses and disease or that help blood to clot in order to stop bleeding. Could I explain to a physician why I reject or accept the use of certian blood fractions?"
They are throwing it all back on the publisher like they have always done. Bastards!!!!!!!
Yeah, makes me angry too.
j
could this article be a protection for the borg against the tort of misrepresentation?
all of a sudden, they seem to want to be sure and inform the dubs about all of their options.
also, it is interesting that the consequences of the refusal of each fraction is explained more openly than i have ever seen before.. what do you think?.
The recent changes, (confusion), in the blood doctrine was definately one of the things that got me thinking all was not well in dub land before I left. I didn't see how anyone could possibly make an informed decision based on the information provided. The truth is, you can't. Most of what is considered a "conscience" decision is no less blood than blood itself, (i.e. contains red, white blood cells, or plasma). There is an obvious contradiction here, and the WTS has managed to work themselves into a corner with this one.
j
no hype - no rumor please.. anyone who still goes to the hall might hear something during the announcements.
i will be going myself and will be sure to report back what is said, if anything.. from channelc.. .
http://www.channelc.org/cgi-bin/eboard30/index.cgi.
Well, I remember at one of the New York 8 day assemblies, they announced that some of the "Princes" would be there and everyone was so anticipating and excited. Turned out to be the Elders were the Princes. What a disappointment.
Welcome!
It those types of announcements that we really all should have done a double take on years ago. Amazing.
j
old dawkins is on the rampage again.
.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/5372458.stm.
The thing is this, something I noticed about him, is that he really has a contempt for the belief in god.
I wouldn't call it contempt. What he does have is a very enthusiastic take on what he does believe. I read The Blind Watchmaker a short time ago, and liked his approach very much. He has a way of "selling" evolution that most dry science text books just don't have. I just received my copy of The God Delusion today. So far, it's a good read.
j
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?'.
In my experience, the whole no premarital sex thing the WT advocates CAUSES more problems in a marriage than it solves.
j
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.
While I certainly can understand the society's attempts to maintain basic human rights for thier position, and while I don't neccesarily view this as "fornication", the double standard here is another example of what is considered OK for the org, but not for the r&f, as individuals. It would be frowned upon, at best, to join a "human rights" organization of sorts by the r&f witness. At worst, one COULD be df'd for what really would be defined as involvement with an interfaith movement. The same standards should apply to the organization. But sadly, they don't.
j
i can see how someone could be agnostic in their view.
who knows, who cares?
thinking that perhaps "god" is just a spiritual santa claus for people who are afraid of death, etc..... but atheism?
This argument largely depends on semantics, and how one defines the terms "atheist" and "agnostic". If traditional definitions are applied, that is, Atheist: One who does not believe in a god, (gods), as for the lack of emperical evidence to prove a god's existence; and Agnostic: One who doesn't know if a god exists or not, or doesn't care; then I would consider myself an atheist. However, most people don't adhere to the "traditional" definitions of these terms.
To most people, agnostic simply means to not know if THEY believe in a god or not. The concept of god cannot be proven or disproven. Emperical evidence cannot "prove" any such thing either way. A person who calls himself "agnostic", often consdiers other factors than simple emperical lines of evidence. These are usually not very well defined, and vary from person to person. If I were to use this line of reasoning, I would call myself an agnostic, if, for no other reason, it leaves the door somewhat ajar to other possibilities that science alone has not yet considered.
j
