Posts by Paralipomenon

11

New theory on GB or the mysterious people who profit from all the money going to the WT

by EndofMysteries in

with all the money grabs and shady things going on, you wonder how can they actually believe they are representing god and even believe in god and still be doing these things.. then i thought, what if a trend started awhile back, people who gave up everything and got high in the org, but also since they got high up, they were privy and learned things that convinced them it was a lie.

now if they remained believers, they may end up like ray franz, a true believer wouldn't want to deceive people seeking god, they would be afraid of god's wrath.. since as is shown on this board many also become athiests, some could have become so while still in and in high ranks.

at this point they think of their options, a. leave, screwed, welfare, older they are the harder to adjust and everybody turns on them or b. kind of shady but the org and everyone put them in this position and they will turn on them in a heartbeat with no remorse so he is going to beat them to it and insure the rest of his/their lives are well taken care of and going to get rich off it.. so those higher ups who turn athiest opt for option b since they don't believe in any god and since the whole org will turn on them for disagreeing and not believing and leave them with nothing, they will instead keep working their way up, start companies for the things wt already buys, turn it into a big cash cow for themselves.

Paralipomenon

From what I understand the GB have been traveling more and more in the past 5 years giving special talks. They are put up at 5 star hotels and fly first class where I am sure they enjoy expensive meals.

They have unlimited expense accounts.

But that isn't the reason to stay, they have power. It is a creepy macabre celebrity but they have no education, a lackluster life, but are treated like rock stars where ever they go.

They don' t need to do hard work, they just sit around and bark orders in between luxury vacations.

I wouldn't be surprised if they farm contracts out to family members where they can with a nice healthy kick back to their personal accounts.

70

DINOSAURS - What do Jehovah's Witnesses Believe?

by Bloody Hotdogs! in

as part of my deconversion catharsis, i have been building a(nother) website to highlight some of the more ridiculous jw beliefs.

im a looong way from done, but i wanted some early feedback on one article: dinosaurs.

http://www.jwbeliefs.com/dinosaurs/.

Paralipomenon

rawr

26

Any elders out there? How to Local needs talks work?

by Letts Party in

so a local needs talk was lovingly given at our hall last week that i'm positive targeted me specifically.

it had to do with missing meetings for work.

they even had a demo on what we should do if our boss asks us to stay overtime on a meeting night (basically say "no" and risk losing your great job which you have no desire whatsoever to lose)... so i'm aware that there's a sort of protocol the elders follow when someone in the hall needs to work on something.

Paralipomenon

Local needs is a "marking talk". They have observed behavior in the congregation that while they can't outright punish them for, but still want to tighten the thumb screws.

Mostly "conscience matters".

So while not saying the person's name directly, they will identify "bad" behavior and give specific examples meant to shame an individual and at that point the elders are to shun the person that was marked. After a local needs talk, the congregation is to look to see who was marked and shun them. When the person falls into place with proper behavior, the elders will make a display of going up and gretting the marked individual and that is a sign for the congregation that they can resume association with them again.

Quote from the super secret elder book 'o death:

Marking Disorderly Ones
1. At times it may be necessary to mark those who display a flagrant disregard for theocratic order though not practicing a grave sin that would result in judicial action. (w99 7/15 pp. 29-31) This could include such things as being grossly lazy or critical or being a profitless talker who is a constant 'meddler with what does not concern him.' (2 Thess. 3:11) It may involve one who schemes to take material advantage of others, indulges in entertainment that is clearly improper, or dates when not legally or Scripturally free.-od p. 150-151.

2. If the disorderly conduct is generally unknown to others and poses no threat to their spiritual wellbeing, usually it is best to handle things through admorution and counsel. The elders should not be hasty in giving a warning talk. However! if the individual does not see the error of his way but continues to be an unwholesome influence} a warning talk may be given to the congregation.-2 Thess. 3:6, 14, 15; w99 7/15 pp. 29-31; w85 4/15 pp. 30-31.

• Example-mark for dating an "unbeliever":
The elders should first counsel and try to help a disorderly one. If a person persists in a way that is disturbing and that has the potential
for spreading, they may conclude that there would be reason for a warning talk to be given to the congregation.-2 Cor. 6:14; 2 Thess. 3:11,
14; w99 7/15 p. 3l.

• It may be that an individual is dating not an actual (unbeliever' but an unbaptized publisher. In such cases a warning talk may not be needed,
depending on the circumstances, on the attitude of the Christian, on the level of disturbance to the congregation, and other factors. Nonetheless, if he is dating with a view to marrying someone who is unbaptized, he is not obeying the Bible's counsel at 1 Corinthians 7:39 to marry "only in the Lord/' and loving counsel should be given. Elders will use reasonableness and discernment in determining whether a particular situation is suffidently serious and disturbing to require a warning talk. -od pp. IS0-1S1; w04 7/1 pp. 30-31.

3. If the disorderly one becomes ashamed of his ways and is moved to change, then as elders of the congregation see the adjustment, they can individually decide to end the limitation they have put on personally sodalizing with him. This will indicate to the congregation that he is no longer marked.

95

Michael Brown verdict discussion policy - take II

by Simon in

i had originally thought that making the rules clear about what was and wasn't going to be allowed when discussing the michael brown verdict that we'd be able to avoid some of the unpleasantness that surrounded the subsequent trayvon martin trial discussions.. michael brown verdict discussion policy.

i had hoped that once the evidence came out there would not be as many people promoting opinions that contradicted it.

unfortunately, that appears to have been naive of me.

Paralipomenon

Reviewed much of the facts of the case and really I feel that it was excessive force on the part of the police officer. To say the handling of the crime scene was botched would be a massive understatement.

The first responding officer didn't take a recorded statement or even take notes.

The on site forensic scientist didn't bring their tools to do accurate measurements

The gun and clothes of the officer were cleaned before they were submitted for evidence.

Eyewitness accounts were all over the map mainly due to race tensions. Some accounts were embellished or proven to be fabrications.

I agree with the verdict though, there was just not enough evidence to levy charges. However, I would dispute Simon's original post on this thread. This decision was just not to charge him with anything. It merely said that there was not enough evidence to charge him with a crime at this time. It doesn't not make him innocent as he can be charged again at any time.

I feel race came into play after the shooting. I do agree though that if this case had been any other racial matchup with identical circumstances, it wouldn't have even been considered by news agencies.

551

Officer Wilson not indicted in killing of Michael Brown

by Simon in

after a thorough investigation and weighing of the evidence the grand jury has decided not to indict the officer.. the reaction so far seems as predicted - people refuse to accept that the result represents justice despite claims that is what they wanted.. there is now violence and vandalism, including gunshots.

let's hope the police contain the troublemakers.. .

Paralipomenon

also like to add that it is exceedingly difficult to find media reports giving all the facts rather than selective edits. Does anyone have a link to the trial manuscript?

551

Officer Wilson not indicted in killing of Michael Brown

by Simon in

after a thorough investigation and weighing of the evidence the grand jury has decided not to indict the officer.. the reaction so far seems as predicted - people refuse to accept that the result represents justice despite claims that is what they wanted.. there is now violence and vandalism, including gunshots.

let's hope the police contain the troublemakers.. .

Paralipomenon

Reading through the facts now.

I can understand why he wasn't indicted. The eye witness testimony is all over the map. The jury needed to weigh facts and there is very little in this case.

Wilson's account of the case doesn't make a lot of sense, but then again, it is his word against that of a dead man. Witnesses saying he was surrendering and others say that he was charging.

Given the testimony is all over the map, the facts that make the most sense is that Michael Brown was mouthing off to the cop and struck him. I don't think he went for the officer's gun. If you are inclined to shoot someone, you likely would have your own gun with you. The shot fired in the car is confusing. I can't find it anywhere, but if Michael had his hand on the holster, wouldn't there be prints?

After the shot is fired both took off running, that is a constant. With more shots fired, what doesn't make sense to me is that if you are running away with bullets behind you, what makes you turn around and attack? Charing someone firing shots at you is about the worst possible decision a person could make.

I don't think Wilson intended to go out and kill him so a murder charge is out of the question, I do think he was mad at being disrespected and used excessive force on firing on someone that hadn't shown any weapon. Still processing testimony, but when Brown turned around, did Wilson shout any commands for him to stop and give himself up?

Looking for more details here if people wouldn't mind filling me in, but I think it was excessive force, but don't believe racism was a motivation for it.

254

Michael Brown verdict discussion policy

by Simon in

it's likely that the grand jury verdict on the michael brown incident will be released in the coming days or weeks.. i've no doubt many people are going to feel strongly about things whatever the verdict is.. whatever the outcome though, here's what's not going to happen:.

we're not going to put up with inflamatory language and comments designed to rile others up.

be respectful.. we will not allow accusations of racism simply because some have a view of the verdict that contradicts others.. there will not be invented evidence or claims being repeated - if it's been falsely reported or debunked then it's off limits.. it's not going to be an opportunity for people to air past gripes over past discussions.. if you feel that you cannot discuss the subject in a rational way then it may be better to simply avoid any topics on the matter.. please try to be objective and respectful if you do decide to comment and not keen to take offense.

Paralipomenon

To be quite honest, I know nothing about his case. I rather glaze over media hyped cases as they are unlikely to be accurately reported on by any news agency.

60

Elders are going to the CO on me

by cognac in

jw
friends

i celebrated halloween and my birthday and the elders have been told.

husband told the elders i've called the religion a cult.

they said i'm "heading down a road to be an apostate.

Paralipomenon

Just be careful, part of the meeting might be a way for them to build a case against you and blindside you with a divorce. The Watchtower has been known to provide legal support in divorce hearings where religion is the basis.

They might be trying to lure you into a false sense of security.

7

JW`s claim to follow 1st Century christians ,identifying them as true christians distinguishing them from false christians of christendom.

by smiddy in

they critisize the dress code of modern society , that may be permitted at a church of christendom , jeans , slacks worn by women , denim skirts worn by women ,spanx worn by women who have been exercising ,jogging shoes , no tie`s worn by men , beards on men , long hair by men, sandals ,thongs, flipflops , and i`m sure their are many more you can think of .. none of these dress codes/styles are tolerated at jehovahs witness meetings , if you try turning up in any of this attire you will be counselled to change your ways after a few of your attempts.. so if they have a problem which they do , why dont they instruct the faithfull to truly follow the 1st century christians by wearing the traditional dress that was worn in bible times , for men and women .

meh-eel .. why dont they allow men to have beards and long hair and sandals that was a requirement for gaining approval of god in the first century.. the fact of the matter is they give lip service to following the first century christians , however the reality , is they dont.. smiddy.

.

Paralipomenon

When they bring that up, I innocently ask them how long the first century model lasted before becoming corrupted by apostasy. After they answer, I ask, 'so you base your leadership model on something that almost immediately failed and turned away from God"?

They don't appreciate that.

17

I cant access my proper account. HELP SIMON!

by TimothyTr in

just a message to say that i have not been able to access my proper account for a long time now.

the account is under timothyt.

i go to log in and it just wont let me.

Paralipomenon

I can't access either of my old accounts, they were "Trevor" and "Linda".

Any help woul be appreciated.