Boy, some of those fat sisters and brothers need to lose some weight or they'll be breaking the law!
LOL
I wouldn't picket the KH...I'm too lazy. Besides, you can wait for them to come to your house and pounce on them there...or not.
stated here is some of the law of the land, both federal and of the state of california (the bold and italics are my emphasis):.
** 1. what is the freedom of access to clinic entrances act (face)?
the freedom of access to clinic entrances act -- often abbreviated as face or facea -- is a united states law protecting reproductive health service facilities and their staff and patients from violent threats, assault, vandalism, and blockade.
Boy, some of those fat sisters and brothers need to lose some weight or they'll be breaking the law!
LOL
I wouldn't picket the KH...I'm too lazy. Besides, you can wait for them to come to your house and pounce on them there...or not.
.
.
i'm one of the few jws that freely admit our faults and mistakes.. let's compare notes!.
I'm part of the human race now.
Yeah, it's not easy, but it's easier for me than being a Witness ever was.
My only thought that comes out of 36 years of association is that Witnesses aren't any different than anyone else, except for the odd rituals and separatism that is demanded by the Faithful and Discreet Slave.
I don't think I was ever really convinced that all they believe comes from the Bible or that the Bible was infallible, even after much in depth study. In fact, the more in depth study I did, the less I was convinced. I was never gung ho about Field Service or meetings or assemblies, but converted because it was demanded by my mother, who was previously agnostic and irreligious but went nutso over the JWs at some point and demanded that we all go along with it when I was about 12. I didn't mind studying, as I'm rather bookish, but it still never made complete sense to me and I finally quit saying that after I got enough diapproving looks as a teenager, because I wanted to fit in somewhere. I got baptized at 15 to please my parents and JW friends, because by then, they were the only friends I had.
Individually, I have no more against a JW than I have against anyone else, there's no reason for me to feel that way; except for the JWs who individually insulted and demeaned me, but I've taken care of that. I just asked them to leave my home.
i cannot take credit for any of the gems below but i did want to polish and organize them.
much of the information was borrowed from this thread.
if you can come up with any more, please post them.. the bible does not ban birthdays.
Cake...cake is the best reason for anything.
how to construct a creationist/theistic argument - by ben spencer.
step 1. come up with a supposed self-apparent, universal, unbreakable, and yet ultimately unprovable "law".. for example:.
all effects require a cause.
Supernatural (as defined as anything that is outside the "natural" which is one of the most vague words in the dictionary) doesn't fit the definition of a Biblical God, though. Supernatural=/=Intelligent Superhuman Being.
jehovah's ruling kingdom.
jehovahs way of governing (3).
jehovah's ruling kingdom?
So, human rule has failed because it has failed to provide utopia, as defined by the WTS?
Boy, their view of what is paradise for humans is just....scary. Every time I read it again, I get freaked out again.
Nice of Jehovah to set the Israelites up for failure like that, but hey...that's his MO, he did the same thing to Adam and Eve.
Nice god you have there, WTS.
i'm not sure if it's just denial on a lot of people's part, but the reason the jws doctrine is so wacky and controlling is because they are among the few religions that really try to follow the bible!.
the bible is the culprit here in actuality, but even after someone has "wizened up" to the misguided teachings of jehovah's witnesses they still hold the bible as inspired word of god.. why don't you believe that the governing body was chosen as the faithful and discreet slave in 1918?
because the only real evidence to that fact is that they say so.
Is that a requirement?
Witnesses aren't in any way mainstream Christianity, by their own admission. Some people want to see if mainstream Christian religions have anything to offer, I suppose.
Um if we weren't ex JWs, we'd be at the meeting praising the WTS like all the other JWs.
"Bashing" implies the things we claim are untrue or unfounded. You'll have to investigate further to verify if the things said here that show the WTS in a poor light are true or not.
If even one bit of it is true, don't you owe it to yourself to find out?
glutton...fails to show love for jehovah.
is food a big thing in his life?
if in the presence of others, does he selfishly ignore their needs and take more than his fair share?
Well, I'm a big person who at 190 lbs is thin enough, no one would call me "fat" at that weight, or ever has. I'm quite tall and yes, large boned, although that expression kind of cracks me up because of how it's abused. On charts, my ideal weight at my height and bone structure is 175 lbs. I wear a size 12/14 at that weight, which means I haven't shopped at the jr size rack since 4th grade.
But, I have to wear men's wrist watches and gloves because my hands and wrists are that big and I wear a size ten shoe. It's okay, I have a daughter who is 6 ft, and wears size 12 shoes. She's skinny at 190 lbs. I mean, SKINNY, although she is quite bosomy. All the women in our family are, no flat chests.
We don't all come from the petite doll factory, I guess.
My husband is almost 7 feet tall, and weighs about 370, so our kids didn't have a chance to be petite. My son is 17 and is 6'4" and growing, size 14 shoes.
My maternal grandmother was my size, and she had a younger sister who was 5'11". My paternal grandmother was also a big lady, also my size, about 5'9". Both my grandmothers married guys around their same height and weight. LOL
The big in our families mostly comes through my two very tall and voluptuous grandmothers, though, I'm sure.
been wondering if the jw's are still told to not see them.
seems like i haven't seen or heard anything like that in a few years.. .
I've noticed that movies and TV are violent and sexual because humans are.
Sorry, but if you're making a move or TV series about cops in a major city and there's never any violent acts by criminals, how realistic is that going to be?
If you're making a romantic movie about two adults and no one ever seems to do anything but hold hands and skip about, then it's also pretty unrealistic. I don't mean that you have to be showing or writing explicit sexual acts or body parts flying off all the time, but life has some sex and violence in it sometimes.
Being even an amateur writer, I can tell you it's pretty damn hard to write a story that has absolutely no sex or violence in it if you're going into historical events, personal stories or people's lives in any depth at all.
I think the word "gratuitous" applies, and that's also subjective. Gratuitous means just thrown into a story for shock effect, the plot or story can be told without it.
I'm not a big fan of gratuitous sex or violence unless I know up front that it's the point of the thing in and of itself. Erotica is written for the purpose of entertaining a person with sexual situations and descriptions, for instance. Tell me it's that up front and I know what I'm getting into.
The JWs are living in a fantasy world, deliberately. They don't want any of the realities of this world impinging on their lives, and seem to like to pretend that no one has sex in the realm of fiction, or is involved in a violent situation, either by choice or otherwise.
been wondering if the jw's are still told to not see them.
seems like i haven't seen or heard anything like that in a few years.. .
The rating system is really kind of screwy too. If you're watching a scene where a martial artist throws a knife at someone, it's PG-13, but if you use a Chinese throwing star, for some reason it becomes an R rating.
If two people are making out and kiss and the woman removes her blouse and you see her naked back, it's PG-13. Fade to black. If two women and a man are making out and kiss, it's still PG-13. If the two women kiss, even if one removes her blouse and is nude from the back or side, it's PG-13 as long as you don't see a nipple.
But, if the man takes off his shirt, and you see a woman's nipple or both woman's nipple, same scene, it's rated R all of a sudden. So, what a director will do to keep a PG-13 rating is simply have the man unbutton his shirt rather than completely remove it, and the women cover their nipples with a carefully draped arm or hand, or some article of clothing. Then, you can do that threesome making out scene all you want.
Male frontal nudity almost always gets you an NC-17 if it's in a sexual situation. A man just walking naked in the distance is still an R, barely. Female frontal nudity in a sexual situation is a mere R, because female frontal nudity isn't deemed "aggressively sexual" by the ratings board.
It's all very um...illogical, when you read the little things that get you from PG-13 to R, then from R to NC-17.
OH, and you can't show actual acts of sex, especially showing an erect penis, without a triple X rating in America and a zillion legal disclaimers that are supposed to guarantee that no one under 18 will ever see it....right.