Posts by nelim

27

Unbelievable! Is this even allowed? Two elders from my hall RANDOMLY stopped by my apartment!

by macys in

jw
friends

ok wow.

i am really really pissed.

i had to really hold back and bite my tongue.

nelim

I'm wondering... are you afraid of the elders? I guess not really if you have woken up, but also yes in the sense that you want to be reinstated. Therefore be liked to some degree by them. Perhaps just view them as (random) other human beings. They call on you, but you don't have to let them in. Just thank them for their invitation to the memorial (remember it's one of their duties). Remember they have as much authority as you give them.

None of the elders ever invited me to the memorial, should I feel happy or sad? I'm not sure :D

23

If your Absence doesn't affect them, then your Presence never mattered!

by stuckinarut2 in

what a powerful quote!.

"if your absence doesn't affect them, then your presence never mattered.".

how true!

nelim

Ehm, maybe your absence does affect them, but it's just that they won't let you know? Reminder, this is a cult... ;)

116

News Flash: New Reveal Article

by Sugar Shane in

less than an hour old:.

https://www.revealnews.org/blog/how-child-sex-abusers-get-reinstated-as-jehovahs-witnesses/.

nelim

Wrong!!! take a course on ethics."You are not reading" (to quote Marvin Shilmer.)
It is not your business or the business of Caesar to impose morality upon the church.

Why do you respond to "ethical responsibility" by using arguments from the legal system? Ethics are separate, and that's why jwfacts explicitly mentions them separately ("ethical and in some places, legal responsibility" to report). You may argue the government cannot force the church to do something, but ethics goes beyond legal and is about "how should we (any person) act?" Answer: help prevent further abuse where possible by reporting abusers to the police.

3

Abraham's offspring

by nelim in

interesting in a new video on tv jw org "edward aljian: an important reminder", from 6 minutes onwards.

he asks a question about abraham: "couldn't jehovah have spared abraham a lot of grief by telling the promised offspring would be by sara?".

jehovah only disclosed this when ishmael was in his early teens.

nelim

Interesting in a new video on tv jw org "Edward Aljian: An Important Reminder", from 6 minutes onwards. He asks a question about Abraham: "Couldn't Jehovah have spared Abraham a lot of grief by telling the promised offspring would be by Sara?"

Jehovah only disclosed this when Ishmael was in his early teens. "Couldn't Jehovah have intervened when Sara began to offer Hagar as a concubine for Abraham?" (Because after this there was jealousy between Sara and Hagar).

Now what is the simplest answer? If Jehovah is a loving, caring God, he would recognize the situation and intervene. He didn't. So either he is not caring or he doesn't exist at all. Unsurprisingly, this is not the conclusion Edward draws :D

His "answer"? It's not really an answer to the original question "Could Jehovah have spared...", because answer to that is simple: Yes he could have spared him a lot of trouble. No, Edward goes on that Jehovah's communication with Abraham was not about "sparing Abraham from difficulties". No these communications were about "furthering developing Jehovah's purpose."

So we did we learn today? Jehovah is a selfish God, he doesn't care about his (human) friends. (What an honor to be called "Jehovah's friend", right??). So spiritually uplifting and refreshing.

"Abraham had to live as best they could with the decisions they've made." OH you mean just like if God would not have existed...? Go on...

"Abraham's role did not exempt him from suffering, it meant just the opposite, remaining faithful to Jehovah despite the suffering." First, these are not opposites at all. Second, what good is such a friend? Imagine having your friend say: "Your role is remain my friend even though I'm not helping you when I could."

"Jehovah treasured their integrity." Ahhh gives me such a warm feeling! Thank you!

26

Evidence of Human Activity in Northern Siberia 45,000 years ago.

by fulltimestudent in

this information makes the biblical dating of human origins a sad joke.

quote: " when they dated the remains, the researchers got another surprise: the mammoth died 45,000 years ago.

that means that humans lived in the arctic more than 10,000 years earlier than scientists believed, according to a new study.

nelim

I think you should also have quoted the following (at the start), because in your citation it is not obvious anymore what links humans to this 45,000 year old mammoth. Humans must have been alive back then and there because the corpse shows signs that it has been killed by humans. Here you go:

Scientists excavating the well-preserved creature determined that it had been killed by humans: Its eye sockets, ribs, and jaw had been battered, apparently by spears, and one spear-point had left a dent in its cheekbone—perhaps a missed blow aimed at the base of its trunk.

8

MY Bethel Experience Part 17

by new boy in

more "odds and ends".

i liked lyman swingle (governing body member)......he was from alabama, he knew how to curse at the right time.

i think, that’s why i went to him, when i was having so much trouble with my future wife’s parents.

nelim

"...without brains..."? Almost at the end.

But...but... Mr Jackson said the GB likes to have input for them! How is this possible? ;)

5

Addressing life's big questions

by nelim in

something else i noticed in the awake 2016.2 magazine: very interesting that on page 6 and 7 "life's big questions" they basically pose two:1. science ... cannot define sexual morality.2.

science ... cannot make moral decisions on the embryo’s right to life.but actually, science can: it's called ethics, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ethics.

kant introduced some interesting concepts how to think about what should be morally right, see deontology.more interesting though for me here is why these two?

nelim

Something else I noticed in the Awake 2016.2 magazine: very interesting that on page 6 and 7 "Life's big questions" they basically pose two:

1. SCIENCE ... cannot define sexual morality.
2. SCIENCE ... cannot make moral decisions on the embryo’s right to life.

But actually, science can: it's called Ethics, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics. Kant introduced some interesting concepts how to think about what should be morally right, see Deontology.

More interesting though for me here is why these two? It seems to me that these two are among the most controversial of JWs versus the rest of the world, so to speak.

1. RELIGION ... wants control over intimate relationships
2. RELIGION ... wants as many members as possible.

22

Awake 2016.2 experience

by nelim in

hi all, what do you think about the experience on page 4 of 2016.2 awake?.

maria, who is one of jehovah’s witnesses, was publicly insulted by a prejudiced woman, who caused quite a commotion.

but instead of retaliating, maria calmly continued on her way.

nelim

Hi all, what do you think about the experience on page 4 of 2016.2 awake?

Maria, who is one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, was publicly insulted by a prejudiced woman, who caused quite a commotion. But instead of retaliating, Maria calmly continued on her way. The other woman then felt bad about her behavior and sought out the Witnesses. About a month later, when she finally saw Maria again, ....

What are the odds for this woman to "seek" out the Witnesses specifically? Wouldn't she look for Maria only, and then still, would she look for her at all? What are the odds of meeting again anyway? And did she know that Maria was a JW? It says "Maria ... continued on her way" so it was not the literature stand situation for example. Maybe in field service, but that's not often a "public insult" kind of situation. More at someone's door. But then she wouldn't see Maria again one month later (or this territory has really high rate of turnover).

But after this it becomes even funny:

Moreover, she correctly discerned that Maria’s mildness and self-control reflected
her religious beliefs.

Would anyone really "correctly discern" that religious beliefs motivates such "self-control"?

The result? The once prejudiced woman and five members of her family decided to study the Bible with Jehovah’s Witnesses.

And of course, a new bible study. Is it really Bible wisdom that one shouldn't start shouting back when insulted? Keeping one's dignity is hardly biblical wisdom.

Or am I making more of this than it is?

13

The book of Ruth... destroys the bible

by HowTheBibleWasCreated in

lets pretend two things:.

1. god (yhwh) exists.

2. the bible is his word.. now we follow genesis to judges ok... judges resets at chaper 17-21 but for the purposes od this posts lets ignore that.... ruth we are told lives in the time of the judges... ok no problem/ until the end.

nelim

I'd say the ancestry of Matthew destroys the bible.... 3 * 13 generations? (Adam -> Abraham -> David -> Jesus). Very nice "coincidence", 13 generations each, and the last jump is like 1000 years, very very unlikely; that results in too high average age for all those mothers. There are more problems.

6

My Bethel Experience Part 9

by new boy in

the worst thing, someone could call you at bethel, was a "jack.

" as in "that guy is a real jack, he doesn't work at all".

the other term not used very much anymore, was "pot licker" used basically the same way.

nelim

Would it happen that if someone had a grudge against another, they would slip some porn magazines or so into their rooms? Or am I thinking too evil here?