Posts by winstonchurchill

17

Illegals not allowed positions of responsibility?

by ElderEtta in

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> </w:compatibility> <w:browserlevel>microsoftinternetexplorer4</w:browserlevel> </w:worddocument> </xml><!

[endif][if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:latentstyles deflockedstate="false" latentstylecount="156"> </w:latentstyles> </xml><!

[endif]  [if gte mso 10]> <style> /* style definitions */ table.msonormaltable {mso-style-name:"table normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"times new roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif].

winstonchurchill

Well, I have to disgree here. There's enough real hypocrisy in the JW's organization, so don't start seeing ghosts.

1. Name ONE church that turns in illegal aliens to Law enforcement . Are you guys for turning us in a society of tattle-tales? If you hire a guy to do your lanscaping and you find out he's illegal, will you call the cops? You'd probaly at most dismiss him, or more probably, just not hire him again. Excuse me, but most of what has been posted here is nonsense.

2. Being subjet to civil goverments (Rom. 13) does not mean acting as law enoforcement agents. In the letter to Philemon, Paul talks about an escaped slave (a fairly serious crime in acient Rome). You can say that it was similar to being an illegal alien. Paul didn't turn him to authorities. He didn't have to; he wasn't part of the 'arm of law'

3. Baptims is a religious act, and there are no legal requirements. Stop mixing both concepts. By that token no church should baptize those who drive without a license, build a fence without a city permit, and so on.

4. The current JW's rule is that an illegal alien cannot hold congregation backed responsabilities; however, if they have come before CIS (formerly INS) to straighten their status and their case is assigned a number (thus showing that it will be considered), they can hold a named position, as they are not fugitives. If their case is denied by CIS, and their illegal status becomes permanent and without perspectives, they either lose their privileges (and proably get deported).

I disagree with a lot of stuff within the JW's and especially the WTS. But I really don't like this paranoia, where some members of this forum will practically denounce JW's for breathing.

10

elder

by Derde in

how many a minimum should be years to serve as the elder?.

.

winstonchurchill

Offcial rule for age is 25 Year old for Elder, 18 Years old for MS. You won't find it in writing, but it is there, on branch 'secret' manuals.

They make exceptions, like if the man is turning 25 in a few months (2 or 3). No expections with 18 for MS.

To be a MS you must have been baptised for over a year; thereafter, two years as a MS before being named elder.

If DF'd and reinstated, 5 years wait (and normally will be a MS first);

If reproved, Three years wait (and normally would be requested to be a MS for a while first.

50

You would not believe how my JW friends responded to Flippers' comments

by BonaFide in

jw
friends

so after the meeting yesterday we went for coffee, nice group.

two baptized more than 40 years, one baptized 20 years, one baptized 11 years, and one study that was invited.. someone had picked up the 6/15 wt so i said, "wow, what do you think about new light?

" they said, "what new light?

winstonchurchill

Some of us active JW's (more than you imagine) do get the 'new understandings' and its implications.

Most just aren't able because they are really dumb, intellectualy impiared, and others just don't wan to see it for reasons you have well explained above.

WTS is taking advantage of that, and they have learned form their previous fisacos, so they start with an obscure QFR (that most won't even read), then they put in ambiguous words in a study article, kind of hidden. (Some of you may remember that in the past when 'new light' was published they even put a special textbox at the beggining of the article saying: "There's new understanding here!"; not anymore).

Then comes a CO/DO at an assembly and presents that same information in a very sensationalistic way, twisting it to make it look like (a) we're closer to the end; and (b) FDS is soooooo wise, that everyone now 'understands' and applauds. If and when the 'new understanding' falls apart, WTS can always hide behind the fact that they never said there was a change.

Remember after '75 they never admitted to being wrong, only that "things were stated in a way that led some to have false expectations". So for them is not a matter of being right or wrong, but just avoiding being proven wrong.

102

Accidental Instantaneous Sex

by rebel8 in

jw
friends

the litter-ature over the years has teachings that imply jehovah's special people are all on the verge of having unplanned sex on a moment's notice, with anyone, at any time.. you must have a chaperone if you are to be alone with someone of the opposite sex, even briefly.. this applies to people of any ages.

you could be a 99-year-old raisin whose flagpole hasn't risen since rutherford was living in beth sarim, but you still shouldn't be alone with a pimply 16-year-old shy obese virgin who still plays with barbie dolls.

she's a seductress!

winstonchurchill

JWS: "Why not let couples be alone unchaperoned? You can ask them whether they had sex afterwards and if they say no and there weren't two witnesses to say otherwise, then you can be sure it didn't happen - just like the JW beliefs with pedophiles."

Touché!

All I'll add from a looooooot of cases I've dealt with, is that by the "chaperone rule" couples get used to never being alone, and when they happen to be alone (believe me, it'll happen) the situation is so new, so weird, so awkward, they don't know how to handle it, and it often leads them to do what they didn't intend to do initially. It's kind of and adrenaline rush that posseses them.

102

Accidental Instantaneous Sex

by rebel8 in

jw
friends

the litter-ature over the years has teachings that imply jehovah's special people are all on the verge of having unplanned sex on a moment's notice, with anyone, at any time.. you must have a chaperone if you are to be alone with someone of the opposite sex, even briefly.. this applies to people of any ages.

you could be a 99-year-old raisin whose flagpole hasn't risen since rutherford was living in beth sarim, but you still shouldn't be alone with a pimply 16-year-old shy obese virgin who still plays with barbie dolls.

she's a seductress!

winstonchurchill

"made the leaders responsible for keeping the congregation clean."

Last time I checked there are no leaders... Isn't Jesus our only leader?

But, anyway... please point me to the bible verse instructing the leaders to keep 24/7 watch on people to make sure they don't give in to temptation.

Yes, there are rules, and PERSONAL responsability.

What I've seen is four pages of people that by choice (not because they're under surveillance) can control their primal urges. So stop impliying that we are trying to glorify sexual inmorality. And if you re-read our posts you'll find no less than a dozen points you have not addressed. Talk about diverting!

Maybe you can't, and that's why you love being controlled and chaperoned. Maybe that's the conslusion here: that you are slave to your hormones.

102

Accidental Instantaneous Sex

by rebel8 in

jw
friends

the litter-ature over the years has teachings that imply jehovah's special people are all on the verge of having unplanned sex on a moment's notice, with anyone, at any time.. you must have a chaperone if you are to be alone with someone of the opposite sex, even briefly.. this applies to people of any ages.

you could be a 99-year-old raisin whose flagpole hasn't risen since rutherford was living in beth sarim, but you still shouldn't be alone with a pimply 16-year-old shy obese virgin who still plays with barbie dolls.

she's a seductress!

winstonchurchill

Well, I guess we'll have to avoid...

... being alone with cash at work, as we would give in to the uncontrollable urge of stealing.

... signing in 'Netflix', because we would rent porn.

... going to the bathroom without company as we would start masturbating

... having a roommate at Bethel, as we would give in to homosexual urges.

Reniaa, all due respect, you are disgusting! Thank God you are not in my congregation because probably you would drive me out.

102

Accidental Instantaneous Sex

by rebel8 in

jw
friends

the litter-ature over the years has teachings that imply jehovah's special people are all on the verge of having unplanned sex on a moment's notice, with anyone, at any time.. you must have a chaperone if you are to be alone with someone of the opposite sex, even briefly.. this applies to people of any ages.

you could be a 99-year-old raisin whose flagpole hasn't risen since rutherford was living in beth sarim, but you still shouldn't be alone with a pimply 16-year-old shy obese virgin who still plays with barbie dolls.

she's a seductress!

winstonchurchill

Robert7: "You control your own destiny, not the great surveillance camera in the sky."

Thanks Robert, you put in a phrase what I tried to in four paragraphs!

102

Accidental Instantaneous Sex

by rebel8 in

jw
friends

the litter-ature over the years has teachings that imply jehovah's special people are all on the verge of having unplanned sex on a moment's notice, with anyone, at any time.. you must have a chaperone if you are to be alone with someone of the opposite sex, even briefly.. this applies to people of any ages.

you could be a 99-year-old raisin whose flagpole hasn't risen since rutherford was living in beth sarim, but you still shouldn't be alone with a pimply 16-year-old shy obese virgin who still plays with barbie dolls.

she's a seductress!

winstonchurchill

Thanks for this post. For over 30 years I have been disgusted by the constant implications that we are uncontrollable animal and should always be on a leash. WTS extreme views on this matter has the very offensive implication that if left alone we'd immediately jump over each other and have sex.

We are often given the example of Joseph, but as per WTS rules will never be in such situation; we will never be able to excercise our free will and determination to be like Joseph, because we'd never be alone with the opposite sex.

And PLEASE Reniaa, don't come here telling me that Joseph's case was different, and quote some convenient verse, because I'll tell you about the time Judah f'd his daughter in law, thinking she was a prostitute and both were pronounced blessed. Or maybe I should read you the story of Amnon and Tamar, to learn a couple of things abount 'unintentional, accidental sex'.

I'm an active elder and I'm not arguing here for 'free love' and fortituous sex. But I believe in PERSONAL responsability, not in some control freaks telling you how close you can sit to the opposite sex. Your quote: "there is no need to throw them in the lion's den and say have fun", implies that I'm a sick bastard and the sister is a horny slut, and that by just sitting together in the same car will go on a fornicating rampage. Well, YOU ARE WRONG! We are decent god-fearing people who can restrain any primal impulse. And yes I can notice if she's hot and has nice tits, but that doesn't mean I'll grope her. I know better, not because I'm a witness, but because I'm a decent family man. That how I've managed for years to work very closely at my office with really attractive 'worldly' girls, staying alone, sometimes night shifts, having lunch together and being really friendly, and never have 'succumbed' in that 'Lion's den'.

Your condescending watchtowerish comments make me sick!

And BTW, the rules have not worked that well when you consider that witnesses have been doing it like bunnies, with 50,000+ df'd per year mostly for fornicating. Add to that the surprisngly high amount of kids 'doing it' but not reporting it.

17

Is The WT A Religion Or a Business?

by Bangalore in

jw
friends

many claim that the watchtower organization is a business disguised as a religion?

is this the most accurate way to describe it?

or would you say it is a religious institution with some corporate or business strategies thrown in?.

winstonchurchill

Business got in the way of religion.

Not different from any other major religion (probable exception: some orange-robe monks in tibet).

Thay started a religion, started to organize to be able to operate, and the means got in the way of the ends. Always been like that, always will be.

52

Family Worship Night Rule.....

by sweet pea in

.

i have it on good authority that at the recent circuit assembly it was announced from the platform that there had been reports of groups of families and friends getting together to study on family worship night and that this was not to continue as fwn is for families only and not for other brothers and sisters to get involved in.. oh, and if you live alone, then you have to study on your own, you alone are your family, you are not to join anyone else's fwn (although i'm sure they didn't mean you couldn't join your blood family's fwn....).

the level of control never ceases to amaze me...... .

winstonchurchill

Ocassionally = As often as the elders feel like it

I love it when they come up with these stupid limitations. This is the kind of stuff that gets people upset and start looking the org. under a negative light.

In our cong. a few do the family thing, basically studying next sundays WT. There have been talks of getting together to do it and eat something afterwards.

BTW, has anyone else noticed that in the past few years the WT cites less and less form outside sources, and when they do, they use a generic reference (like: 'a famous biblist...' or 'a renowned encyclopedia'). I think they don't want people to go directly to those sources. They could get ideas. In the past they referred to "McClinton & Strong", "Expositive dictionary by W.E. Vine", and so on. May of us know of such books because of how often they were cited by WT. Then we started investigating and seeing the not-too-convenient-for-WTS stuff.