Posts by Flowerpetal

54

I'm a newbie too

by Flowerpetal in

jw
friends

i just registered just today.

i am not a dissenter from jws--still an active member but i have an open mind and willing to listen to all who post here.

there have been some questions bugging me lately that have caused me to wonder about certain scriptures pertaining to being "born again.

Ok here is what I think: Jesus was very broad in making his statement to Nicodemus about being born-again. It simply includes being born of water (as in baptism) and spirit (aren't we told that all JWs have the holy spirit--as much as the anointed do?) And at baptismal talks, the candidates are told that from that day on, they are ordained ministers being ordained by God. Doesn't that include some holy spirit there?

OTOH, Paul, I believe is narrowing this down to a specific part of being born again, because his points were for those who had received a heavenly calling as adopted sons of God. That would be the anointed. Whatever I understand, from the Insight book, on this subject about the anointed having righteousness imputed to them, yadda, yadda, yadda, I hear the same thing from born-again Christians.

However, this one particular scripture really drives home the point for me and I feel the society should address it:
1 John 5:1 "Everyone believing that Jesus is the Christ has been born from God, and everyone who loves the one that caused to be born loves him who has been born from that one."

So by stating that only the anointed are born-again, the society is implying that the great crowd hate and disbelieve in Jesus and his Father. I don't like that implication and I think it needs to be addressed by them soon.

54

I'm a newbie too

by Flowerpetal in

jw
friends

i just registered just today.

i am not a dissenter from jws--still an active member but i have an open mind and willing to listen to all who post here.

there have been some questions bugging me lately that have caused me to wonder about certain scriptures pertaining to being "born again.

Flowerpetal

Dedalus,
You are hysterical! Thanks for the chuckle!

---
In time the savage bull doth bear the yoke -- Much Ado About Nothing (Shakespeare)

3

Subliminal Messages?

by d0rkyd00d in

the posts on the previous topic brought this question to my mind.

a while back, i was looking at a website that had so called "proof" of subliminal pictures.

what i liked most about the site was it debated the topic from both sides, supporting the subliminal pictures and then chopping it down, leaving you, the reader, to make the decision.

Flowerpetal

Speaking of illustrations (pictures) in the society's publications, what do you all think of this scripture--and should the society's artists depict Jesus this way?

Leviticus 18:27 "You must not cut YOUR sidelocks short around, and you must not destroy the extremity of your beard."

In time the savage bull doth bear the yoke -- Much Ado About Nothing (Shakespeare)

40

Where do they sit in your hall?

by ns7 in

jw
friends

what i find bemusing is, if there are any disfellowshipped ones in your hall they have to sit at the back.

now without getting into the merits/rights/wrongs of whether this should be still acceptable, where do they sit in your hall?

you see i seem to remember that they would sit on the back row, come in quietly just after the song and prayer and leave at the end just as quick.

Flowerpetal

No DA, I don't have a *reading comprehension* problem. I took your post to *imply* that in some congregations this is the way df'd persons are treated. So pardon me, that in my reply, my *language* was a little different, I still understood what you were saying.
And if you had noticed my other reply to Joel Bear, I mentioned that I smile at all df'd persons if they are looking my way. Some avoid eye contact--period. So if Joel had been in my cong, I would have smiled.

Now as far as being around the WTB&TS, as a baptized person, it has been 41 years for me. I am 53 years old and was a child of a JW mother and a Roman Catholic father, who never practiced his religion.
My mom was a witness when I was born.

And if I had to do it all over again, I wouldn't get baptized so early in life.

FP

40

Where do they sit in your hall?

by ns7 in

jw
friends

what i find bemusing is, if there are any disfellowshipped ones in your hall they have to sit at the back.

now without getting into the merits/rights/wrongs of whether this should be still acceptable, where do they sit in your hall?

you see i seem to remember that they would sit on the back row, come in quietly just after the song and prayer and leave at the end just as quick.

Flowerpetal

Joel, I would have smiled at you. I smile at all df'd persons of the ones who look my way. Some don't.

As far as these other stories of some congs not regarding df'd people as persons and not being allowed to contribute money to the hall, that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard! I'm not arguing that it hasn't happened, but what are some of these elders, etc. thinking???

I guess I would have to say I am fortunate to be in cong where our elders are loving. I used to see one elder talk to a df'd person on a regular basis as an encouragement to him.

FP

40

Where do they sit in your hall?

by ns7 in

jw
friends

what i find bemusing is, if there are any disfellowshipped ones in your hall they have to sit at the back.

now without getting into the merits/rights/wrongs of whether this should be still acceptable, where do they sit in your hall?

you see i seem to remember that they would sit on the back row, come in quietly just after the song and prayer and leave at the end just as quick.

Flowerpetal

Greetings all
What I find bemusing is, if there are any disfellowshipped ones in your hall they have to sit at the back. Now without getting into the merits/rights/wrongs of whether this should be still acceptable, where do they sit in your hall?
You see I seem to remember that they would sit on the back row, come in quietly just after the song and prayer and leave at the end just as quick. There would be this unwritten rule that some may sit there. But what I have noticed in my hall and in neighbouring congregations is that they will sit along a row of chairs placed along the back wall, usually where an attendants sits. This sends messages to all those in the cong who are there, a very subtle message (I don’t think) that we have the spiritual unclean with us. Even if they have family they can’t seem to sit discreetly at the back.
Where did this stupid rule come in?
It just seems that if any did want any to return we seem to excel at making them jump through hoops, just so that they can show this humbly, repentant attitude.
-----

Well at my hall, there was a d'fd person who would sit in the front. Nobody asked him to sit somewhere else. In another case, a d'fd bro, sat in the back room(2nd school where there was a speaker and windows).. It was by his choice. But after a while, he was asked by an elder to sit in the main part of the hall, which he did, but it was his choice to sit in the back row. There is now a d'fd young lady who still lives at home with her JW parents and a baby, and they all sit together. They have always sat about the 3rd or 4th row from the back, even before she was d'fd. So they sit in the same place now.

I guess each cong is different, bu I never was in a cong, where dfd ones were ordered around. And not allowed to stand for the songs???? Never heard nor seen that before!

15

Apostates Never Never Never Will Be Slaves.

by Englishman in

jw
friends

a few months ago, our old chum rick started a thread on h20 about what would happen to some apostates after armageddon.. according to his reasoning, jw apostates, that is to say persons who had only turned against the wtbts and not against jehovah, these ones would survive the great battle and then become personal slaves to the goody two-shoes dubs who sailed through armageddon with first-class honours.

apostate duties would include the renovating of fine stately homes such as sandringham or balmoral, so that all of the very fine fellows in watchtowerland could relax in comfort from their pre-geddon labours, and enjoy being waited on hand and foot by people such as, er well, you tell me!.

so, i was just wondering, if rick is right in what he says, whom would i like to be a slave to?

Flowerpetal

expat>>A can think of quite a few people I would be a willing slave to. Funnily enough, they're all women (in their reinvigorated new system youth). Sophia Loren springs to mind. Hedy Lamarr too.
Anyway, as far as I know there is absolutely no basis in any WT writings for JW's to believe in this new world slavery thing.

Gina Lollobrigida as well. Marilyn Monroe, Raquel Welch.....
-----
Now I don't know if you are a Star Trek fan (the old series) but I seem to remember an episode where women ruled the planet and the men called them the "givers of pain and delight," because they had this device on them; all they had to do was push a button! So....I'd be careful wishing for women to be masters! LOL

16

Just looking for answers.

by Texasbred in

jw
friends

unfortunately, i'm not quite sure what my questions are.

my first post was in the "dating..." forum, if anyone's interested.. the biggest problem i have is my complete ignorance concerning jw's and their beliefs/ practices.

the research i've done has provided only polar opposite views, either jw is the way or it's a cult and it's wrong.

Flowerpetal

If you want objective, let's try this. If you become a JW you will not celebrate the following: Christmas, New Years, St. Valentine's Day, the Fourth of July, Thanksgiving, or any birthdays. You should not see your friends and family on any of these occasions.
--------
Hold on! First off this person is not going to become a JW. And if he were, he would be shown why JWs don't celebrate holidays thru a Bible study. HOWEVER, JWs are not prevented from seeing friends and family on holidays if that is the only time they can visit with them. How many families do you know of anyway, that hold hands around the Christmas tree and sing songs? Mostly they are gatherings for dinner. Going out on New Year's---who wants to? Too many crazies out there for me! I used to watch Guy Lombardo when I could stay up! LOL

54

I'm a newbie too

by Flowerpetal in

jw
friends

i just registered just today.

i am not a dissenter from jws--still an active member but i have an open mind and willing to listen to all who post here.

there have been some questions bugging me lately that have caused me to wonder about certain scriptures pertaining to being "born again.

Flowerpetal

Hello all!
I just registered just today. I am not a dissenter from JWs--still an active member but I have an open mind and willing to listen to all who post here. There have been some questions bugging me lately that have caused me to wonder about certain scriptures pertaining to being "born again." I post on a JW board on AOL, which I have been doing for about 4 years and of course a lot of born-again Christians inhabit that messaage board. I see them stating things about being born again that we have been taught applies to the 144,000...but..I find myself disagreeing with Jws and them, and really listening to the words of Jesus. I believe Jesus' teachings are complete and nothing should have been added to them--yet it seems the apostle Paul has, OR he has made very specific some aspects of what it means to be a Christian. I just thought it would be neat to discuss this.

FP

35

What Do Un-Believers Not Believe?

by mensa163 in

one of the things that used to annoy me in the new testament was the "believe in jesus" message.

any explainations seemed fuzzy at best so i decided to take a run at it from behind and find the definintion of an un-believer.here is what i came up with and i welcome other opinions.

many of the people around jesus were jews, they walked with him, talked with him, listened to his teachings and witnessed his miracles.

Flowerpetal

Stephen asked about Luke being the only one to record Jesus' conversation with the evildoer. Yet Luke was not there. John was there but never mentioned it. That is a question that has been crossing my mind lately. Should it be there in the first place?

Could it have been inserted later in some texts as a way to promote an unbiblical doctrine? Thus the controversy over the comma?