Posts by dust

28

Comments You Will Not Hear at the 6-10-07 WT Study (God's Word Guide)

by blondie in

indeed, when we read the bible and let it guide .

q8) what scriptural principles help us to reason on the matter of associations?.

god's word be a lamp to our foot.

dust

Quote:
On one occasion, Jesus stated: "You are my friends if you do what I am commanding you." (John 15:14) True, you may get along well with a particular workmate. But ask yourself: `Is this person willing to do what Jesus commands?
End of quote.

And what did Jesus command in John 15? He commanded people to love, and if necessary give their lives for their friends. If a workmate is willing to do this (also cf. Rom 2:14-16), then how can that possibly be a problem?

On the other hand, when a JW shuns a DF'd person, it is to save his/her own life at Armageddon, isn't it? It's important not to demonstrate TOO MUCH love, obviously. (John 15:13)

(Why does the context in the Bible so often say something else than the Watchtower?)

80

One night stands

by Crumpet in

how do you stand on one night stands?

and why?

i was really against them and said i never would again.

dust

If you've already tried, then you are probably right that he is slightly crazy (or in love or something, men in love are often quite silly).

But let me tell you a completely unrelated anecdote on how difficult it can be for a man to understand a woman. There was this woman once. We had been in the same town and were going home in the same direction, though she would leave the train before me. Now, there were two trains, and she said: "Only the second train goes to your town. I'll take that one and join you! Of course I will!" And so she did.

A couple of months later she complained to a common friend of ours that this silly dust didn't understand that she really wanted to take the first train and be alone. Stupid, stupid man.

I think, though, that your man is even more stupid. :)

80

One night stands

by Crumpet in

how do you stand on one night stands?

and why?

i was really against them and said i never would again.

dust

If he calls or texts again, maybe he will understand if you actually tell him that you don't want any contact with him.

50

No lit for ex-jws, big A coming in June, apostate warning--what's going on?

by rebel8 in

jw
friends

there are 3 current threads that say these very things.

(ok, the one about armageddon says it will come within days or weeks--not months--so that means june 2007.

seems to me this is whipping up into a paranoia bigger than the 1980s apostate scare, bigger than they've ever seen before.

dust

According to the House of Yahweh, the big A will indeed come in June. On the 12th of June, in fact. And they must be right, cause they use God's name, they have their own Bible translation which is the most accurate there is, they are mentioned in Bible prophecies, only members of this organisation will be saved, AND they have patented the next Temple. :)

http://yahweh.com/
http://www.yahweh.com/TemplePage/Temple.html
http://www.yisraylhawkins.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Yahweh

24

A Gem from the new book "COME BE MY FOLLOWER"

by bennyk in

i've only skimmed the book, but this is a keeper:.

he [jesus] is certainly angry at all those religious organizations that falsely claim to represent him.

--p. 185, par.

dust

"He [Jesus] is certainly angry at all those religious organizations that falsely claim to represent him. --p. 185, par. 10"

Mark 9:38-40, NWT:
38 John said to him: "Teacher, we saw a certain man expelling demons by the use of your name and we tried to prevent him, because he was not accompanying us." 39 But Jesus said: "Do not try to prevent him, for there is no one that will do a powerful work on the basis of my name that will quickly be able to revile me; 40 for he that is not against us is for us.

22

Misquoting Jesus-a must read

by dawg in

i've read comments from those of you that still cling to the bible stating that there's no merit in the di vinci code's claim concerning the conference in nicea in 325. we all know that book is fiction but like all great fiction, there's some truth behind the story.

some of you have made statements that the nt was actually written by the apostles, which i refuted, and after asking for and not reciveing information from you believers any bible scholars anywhere that would go on record saying they believed the nt was in fact written by the apostles; i decided to researcht he subject on my own.

i could find no scholars that believed the apostles wrote the nt; as a matter of fact, they all said the apostles couldn't have written them.

dust

Ehrman's book is what we could call "an academic discipline made understandable". The principle of "the less understandable text-variant is probably more original than a more understandable text-variant" can be hard to grasp for an average JW, even if it is explained ("corrections" have made the text easier to understand, which means that the less understantable variants are more original). But then it could be an idea to mention that also the NW translation applies these principles, cf. the wording in Acts 17:4 (also commented in the book): Some text variants talk about "the principal women", others talk about "the wives of the principal men". At that time it would be hard to imagine "principle women", so we must assume that this is the original wording. And indeed, also the NW translation uses "the pinciple women".

Of course this undermines any "we need to change the wording and add a few [brackets] in our NW translation to make the meaning of the text more available"...

19

April 1st 2007 WT pounds 1918/1919!

by cultswatter in

as if the poor dubs did not know already that jesus approved of the wts in 1919 sheesh!!!!.

this magazine is relentless though - it pounds the 1918/19 dates over and over.

both study articles are promo pieces for the fds theoarchy.

dust

I know what happened in 1934.

In 1933 Adolf Hitler was made Chancellor, in 1934 he was made dictator, and the Reichswehr (army) swore an oath to him. In other words, in 1934 a nation swore an oath to Satan's foremost representative: a Catholic!

Now, from 1914 to 1919 there are five years. Five years from 1934 is 1939. In 1939 WW2 started! Obviously the Society was selected in conjunction with the outbreak of the war, as this was the only organisation that would know how to behave. And the fact that the Society procalimed prior to this that they had already been chosen, proves that the Society is a prophet that foresaw the future.

22

Which God are you? [Fluff]

by Sirona in

jw
friends

quiz - which god are you?

http://www.abc.net.au/arts/wingedsandals/make_do/quiz/default.htm.

my result:.

dust

You are Dionysus, god of wine and theatre.
You are fun-loving and a little crazy.

Watta...

64

Are Interracial RelationshipsA Taboo Subject?

by The wanderer in

jw
friends

are interracial relationshipsa taboo subject?the exposure to individuals of other racial backgrounds was helpful in my past .

jehovahs witness life to see past racial prejudice.

i am grateful for the exposure.

dust

Race is a man-made taxonomy that observes some randomly chosen properties of the human body, skin colour being the most prominent one. As such, a "mixed race" is only a "race" that can be defined linguistically by means of two or more external points of reference. If those man-made reference points are ignored, the "mixed race" would only be "another race", based on the combination of genetic properties. If the reference points are changed, what is called "race" today could instead be classified as "mixed race".

An example, through the times skin colour and shape of nose have been important characteristics in determining race.

Race 1 is characerised by the combination of the genetic proterties skin colour A + nose shape C.
Race 2 is characerised by the combination of the genetic proterties skin colour A + nose shape D.
Race 3 is characerised by the combination of the genetic proterties skin colour B + nose shape C.
Race 4 is characerised by the combination of the genetic proterties skin colour B + nose shape D.

So is race 1 a separate race, or is it a "mix" of races 2 and 3?

If race 1 (A+C) is a mix of race 2 (skin A) and race 3 (nose C), then logically race 2 is also a mix of races 1 (skin A) and race 4 (nose D). Which makes race 1 a mix of a mix with itself as a component.

So, we have to decide whether the points of reference ("proper races") should be the two genetic combinations 1 and 4, or the two genetic combinations 2 and 3. This choice is a random one. Which makes the classification into "races" and "mixed races" also a random classificaton.

64

Are Interracial RelationshipsA Taboo Subject?

by The wanderer in

jw
friends

are interracial relationshipsa taboo subject?the exposure to individuals of other racial backgrounds was helpful in my past .

jehovahs witness life to see past racial prejudice.

i am grateful for the exposure.

dust

I tend to say that I belong to the race called Homo Sapiens, and I would definitely not like to marry a Homo Neanderthalis. So I married another Homo Sapiens, and I have to admit that the colour of eyes, hair or skin wasn't important at all. (I've seen reports somewhere that the genetic variation is larger within a group of persons with the same skin colour than is the difference between the average 'white' and the average 'black' person.)

Why are people so focused on skin colour anyways? Lactose tolerance/intolerance should logically have the potential to be a more decisive factor, considering the consequences in the kitchen. 'Do not marry a person with another level of lactose (in)tolerance, it's against the principles of nature.' Now, THAT would be something, wouldn't it.

But a thing that I have never understood, is this -- I don't know if this really is the situation over there in America, but this is at least what I've seen in a couple of American soap operas here in Europe: If an American is the owner of a skin that is not completely palish pink (also called 'white' for some mysterious reason), then the person is called 'black'. Why isn't it the other way around, that if a person's skin isn't completely black, then the person be called 'white'?