D8TA,
Be careful. Your ignorance is showing. How pathetic that your command of the English language is so depraved, that you can't even express a thought without the use of expletives. You destroy your own credibility.
wholewheat
JoinedPosts by wholewheat
-
79
Nitpicking the JW Brotherhood
by IslandWoman inthe jw brotherhood is composed of people.
you know people right?
people are the ones we work with, the ones we live next to, the ones we share this planet with.
-
-
-
79
Nitpicking the JW Brotherhood
by IslandWoman inthe jw brotherhood is composed of people.
you know people right?
people are the ones we work with, the ones we live next to, the ones we share this planet with.
-
-
wholewheat
I agree with Island Woman. If you think about it, what makes up Jehovah's witnesses is the people, not the Governing Body. The Governing Body has made some bad calls, but it is very sad to see the brothers and sisters attacked and even hated because of the mistakes of a few men. I believe that the organization is on the defensive right now to save face, especially to protect the Governing Body. But the Governing Body are very elderly and I feel that in time with their passing on, the Society is going to 'loosen it's grip' over the brothers and sisters. The ex-JWs need to remember the good that worshipping Jehovah has brought to millions of brothers and sisters. I think that when all you do is harp on the bad, the good is completely forgotten. It's the brothers and sisters who love Jehovah and choose to live by His principals that reflect what this brotherhood is all about, not outdated theology and the imperfections of a few men.
-
43
This site is very misleading!!!
by IrishDancinJames inthis website is very misleading!
it says its for jehovahs witnesses, for brothers and sisters!!!
and this site is no such thing!
-
-
wholewheat
'This site seems to stay around...I wonder why?'
It's not because the Governing Body is checking in on a daily basis!
-
69
Can 'truth' change?
by wholewheat in.
in another thread i posted the following thought, but i wanted to post this for everyone to see and give their input.. the argument that 'truth' never changes holds no water.
according to random house webster's dictionary, 'truth' is defined as follows,"conformity with fact or reality".. the word 'conform' is defined as,"to bring into agreement".. if 'truth' never changes, then how can something taught in science that is considered to be 'exact', later be corrected by 'conforming with fact or reality so as to bring into agreement'?
-
-
wholewheat
Lisa,
That is very funny and I like to laugh. If the ex-JWs would spend more time answering the question instead of making fun of my moniker, we could have an interesting discussion. I am allowed to give my views, aren't I? I notice you love to spend lots and lots of time giving yours.
-
43
This site is very misleading!!!
by IrishDancinJames inthis website is very misleading!
it says its for jehovahs witnesses, for brothers and sisters!!!
and this site is no such thing!
-
-
wholewheat
D8,
You make a stupid statement and you made me laugh. I know you think you're funny and you are! LOL!! I bet you got the insider scoop, don't ya D8TA?? I bet you have secrete apostate friends who work with the Governing Body, don't ya?? Get a life, geek!!
-
43
This site is very misleading!!!
by IrishDancinJames inthis website is very misleading!
it says its for jehovahs witnesses, for brothers and sisters!!!
and this site is no such thing!
-
-
wholewheat
D8TA,
You are so full of yourself. Tell me, who in the Society waste their time on this board? Ray Franz won't even waste his time here and you are so stupid as to think that the Society is 'watching' this board! Man, you are a funny dude! LOL!
-
69
Can 'truth' change?
by wholewheat in.
in another thread i posted the following thought, but i wanted to post this for everyone to see and give their input.. the argument that 'truth' never changes holds no water.
according to random house webster's dictionary, 'truth' is defined as follows,"conformity with fact or reality".. the word 'conform' is defined as,"to bring into agreement".. if 'truth' never changes, then how can something taught in science that is considered to be 'exact', later be corrected by 'conforming with fact or reality so as to bring into agreement'?
-
-
wholewheat
Saint Satan,
What a name!! There is one problem with your observation, the apostles didn't have the complete Bible.
-
43
This site is very misleading!!!
by IrishDancinJames inthis website is very misleading!
it says its for jehovahs witnesses, for brothers and sisters!!!
and this site is no such thing!
-
-
wholewheat
The Society has never looked at this site! LOL!! You guys are dreaming!
-
18
Are you more interested now?
by In_between_days ini may be alone here, but are you more interested in jw docrines, change of docrines, watchtowers, km's and othe jw publications now that you are an ex member as opposed to when you were a witness?.
i realised this the other day, when i was cleaning out a wardrobe and there was a "knowledge" book, i got so excited and read the whole thing, looking up scriptures as i went when they were quoted.
(this was accompanied by a soundtrack of consistant scoffs, snorts and "what the hells".?").
-
-
wholewheat
In_between_days,
So you were never a witness? People that are worshippers of Jehovah love to study and do research.
-
69
Can 'truth' change?
by wholewheat in.
in another thread i posted the following thought, but i wanted to post this for everyone to see and give their input.. the argument that 'truth' never changes holds no water.
according to random house webster's dictionary, 'truth' is defined as follows,"conformity with fact or reality".. the word 'conform' is defined as,"to bring into agreement".. if 'truth' never changes, then how can something taught in science that is considered to be 'exact', later be corrected by 'conforming with fact or reality so as to bring into agreement'?
-
-
wholewheat
I haven't drifted away. I cannot spend as much time on the computer as I would like. I have noticed that different ones on this thread have varying viewpoints as to what science is. I use science, and especially Physics because it is so exacting, unlike Biology. And yet the laws in Physics are subject to change. The first century Christians were not all in agreement in regards as to what they each believed to be the definition of "Chritianity". Paul had his theology, James had his, and Peter and John had theirs. But they all had the 'truth'. How presice does truth 'have' to be? If the apostles had the 'truth' why did they have to debate the issue of circumcision? 'Truth' can be refined, just like gold, removing the impurities, until it is pure and undefiled. You all put too much emphasis on the Governing Body. I personally never give them a thought, I pray to Jehovah, not Albert Schroeder.