i give the movie a 6.5 score.
the scenery was wonderful, but the plot was not zipped up well.
it sort of follows the story-line of "dances with wolves", but in space.. .
A JW shouldn't see Avatar:
1) Those almost Three Hours could be devoted to the Ministry or Familiy worhsip
2) Those $12 should go to the World Wide Work
3) They blue guys are Cat-Like, and Cats were worhsiped by Egyptians
4) Being together three hours in a dark enviroment could lead to incidental sex between non married couples
the photo on page 26. she noticed it and was wondering before i even brought it to her attention.. why is it ok for the jw posing as the "worldly person" to wear a cross necklace?
aren't jws suppose to destroy their crosses prior to becoming a jw no matter the monetary or sentimental value?
why can the watchtower keep cross necklaces on hand as props?
In Richard Nixon's words: " When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal".
Typical case of double standard
zoiks inspired this thread when he mentioned this book elsewhere.. i have read other threads on this forum about it, but i always enjoy the fresh insight on here.. commentary on the letter of james was always my favorite book from wtbs, partly because i love the book of james, but also because it was one of the books that dealt with more practical christian living than constant wt doctrine.. i mentioned to a number of people that i loved that book, and got a few comments of "well, you know that book was written by an apostate.".
it didnt take me long to do a little math - that book came out i believe in 1979/1980, right around the time of the great purge.
how could someone write such an excellent book and then be branded an apostate just a few months later???.
Choosing the Best Way of Life was written by Reinhard Lengtat, not Ed Dunlap
Thanks, Benny. You are right.
jw's reject christmas because of its pagan origins.
it's not what it meant to people in the distant past that matters but what it means to us living today.
does anyone today visit a person's house see a christmas tree and think oooh he must be a pagan.
It's amazing how emotions and bias get in the way of reasoning so quickly.
1) Banning Christmas because it's a birthday is stupid. I have stated many times here I see no scriptural basis for the ban on birthday celebrations.
2) The pagan-origin reason is crap as many of you have well pointed.
3) The World-is controlled-by-Satan reason is also BS (By that token JW's shouldn't watch the SuperBowl or the World Cup, or watch TV)
But my reason for not celebrating Christmas is not that it's a birthday, or pagan or worldly: It's because Jesus WAS NOT born on Dec 25th. Period! The reason behind Christmas is Jesus' birth. If you don't believe the Bible, why would you want to celebrate his birth? And if you do accept the Bible you have to admit he was not born on such date.
I'm no JW apologist (hard to swallow, i know, since I'm an active JW), but I think JW's have a solid, reasonable cause for not celebrating christmas. But by giving lame, weak and stupid reasons (like the three I listed above) WTS has weakened the real reason.
zoiks inspired this thread when he mentioned this book elsewhere.. i have read other threads on this forum about it, but i always enjoy the fresh insight on here.. commentary on the letter of james was always my favorite book from wtbs, partly because i love the book of james, but also because it was one of the books that dealt with more practical christian living than constant wt doctrine.. i mentioned to a number of people that i loved that book, and got a few comments of "well, you know that book was written by an apostate.".
it didnt take me long to do a little math - that book came out i believe in 1979/1980, right around the time of the great purge.
how could someone write such an excellent book and then be branded an apostate just a few months later???.
JWoods: 100% agreed. You confirm what I thought. It was always obvious to me it he (as many others) had growing doubts. And yes, it comes across as very honorable and loyal not to let those doubts show in the books. That speaks volumes of him.
That's my point: The books don't reflect a comma of 'apostate thinking'; they quarantined those two excellent books only because Dunlap wrote them. In my view they were not written by an apostate, but by a sincere JW wth doubts.
Ans yes, they are different because they are so non-WT. I'm convinced most JW's really enjoy the "the-end-is-near" "Satan-is-bad-God-is-Good" "do-more" "We-are-good" "the-rest-of-the-world-is-evil" Koolaid.
zoiks inspired this thread when he mentioned this book elsewhere.. i have read other threads on this forum about it, but i always enjoy the fresh insight on here.. commentary on the letter of james was always my favorite book from wtbs, partly because i love the book of james, but also because it was one of the books that dealt with more practical christian living than constant wt doctrine.. i mentioned to a number of people that i loved that book, and got a few comments of "well, you know that book was written by an apostate.".
it didnt take me long to do a little math - that book came out i believe in 1979/1980, right around the time of the great purge.
how could someone write such an excellent book and then be branded an apostate just a few months later???.
'Written by an apostate"... Dunlap was a JW when he wrote them. if he became an 'apostate' later that's different.
By that standard we could say that Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon were also written by an apostate.
The three best all time books WT ever published were "Comentary-James", "Choosing the best way of life" (Both by Ed Dunlap) and "All scriptures" by David Ianelli. In my view they are great because they reflect Bible's wisdom without prejudice, and don't deal with doctrines (espcially not with WT doctrine).
They are deemed as 'apostate' by some out of ignorance; there's not a single line in those two books contrarian to WT teachings (as I said, they don't deal that much with doctrine in the first place). As far as I know there was only one sentence in the James book that could be interpreted as saying "all christians have heavenly hope (and not only 144,000). WTS 'clarified' that in a QFR in 1980, saying that the word 'annointed' should have been inserted to avoid confusion.
we had a few that would start coughing if someone wore a fragrance.
they would make a big deal about anyone wearing cologne and say such ones were not loving and considerate.
some elders would recommend that witnesses should not wear any cologne or perfume, if they loved their brother or sister.
Chikpea, I know about allergies, respiratory distress and Anaphylaxis. My 6 Year old doesn't go anywhere without his Epi-Pen.
My point is problems must be resolved on a case by case basis, and not with general "across the board" rules.
First because they step on onther people's rights. But mainly because they are no good!
If you tell 200 people in a congregation "Do not wear perfume out of consideration for so and so who has severe allergies" that's fine. I would do it. But you cannot ban perfume because someone gets a runny nose because of someone's perfume/makeup/clothes/shampoo.
All it will take is ONE visitor, ONE person who doesn't know and comes in stinking some cheap cologne, and there goes the rule. That's why I find very stupid the rule of not wearing perfume to assemblies. 5,000 people get together of which 2,000 are not JW or didn't read the Kingdom Ministry, and WILL use products that will trigger allergies. So we better take care of ourselves and our loved ones, and stop relying on other people's sense of consideration.
we had a few that would start coughing if someone wore a fragrance.
they would make a big deal about anyone wearing cologne and say such ones were not loving and considerate.
some elders would recommend that witnesses should not wear any cologne or perfume, if they loved their brother or sister.
Hell, NO!
I have my own allergies. Sometimes a sister sitting in front of me stinks 'Pantene'. If my allergies are on, I might have to change seats or just go stand in the back for a while. She has the right to wash her hair . Are we banning shampoo, conditioner, deodorant and baby lotion? Some time ago a friend's daughter's allergies were triggered by the make up of a sister who gave her a kiss. Are we baning make up?
I'm all for being considered, but we have become to politically correct. We have to watch out for every detail not to offend others and step on their rights. At this pace we will have to stop doing absolutely everything. How do alergic people (me being one) do when they go to a mall, or to see a movie, or ride the subway? Are we banning perfume for good?
It infuriates me every year when the "Ministry" rolls out the list of rules and 'suggestions' for District Assembly, including "Do not wear perfume". Well, that is not their damn business.
You are allergic? Well, deal with it! I have a word for you (and for me): Zyrtec.
this is a true story, more than 10 years ago, i went to the memorial and there was a very hot bible student female.
we met each other, she gave me her phone number.
.
Mag, if what they did to you is not in the top ten of all time, it's really close! Those bastards!
so it appears that jws are letting their freaky side come out on fb for everyone to see.. there was talk on the ca yesterday strongly warning all true lovers of jehovah to delete their fb accounts.
the talk was solely about fb.
the speaker mentioned that jws are associating with people that would not associate with in real life, often using the excuse that the person is a relative.
I'm fairly certain that the various "prohibitions" on certain "acts" in the bedroom are widely ignored by a large percentage of the R&F.
Guilty!
