I love to underline.
LOL! And who doesn't, really? Some people actually used rulers all the time. I preferred to have my lines a little squiggly.
--sd-7
the program for the 2013 convention series has been drawn to my attention.
here is a link to it.... http://www.jw.org/download/?fileformat=pdf&output=html&pub=co-pgm13&langwritten=e&option=trgchlzrqvnyvrxf&txtcmslang=e.
there is a saturday morning symposium on "apostates.
I love to underline.
LOL! And who doesn't, really? Some people actually used rulers all the time. I preferred to have my lines a little squiggly.
--sd-7
"we never make assertions, miss taggart.
that is the moral crime peculiar to our enemies.
we do not tell--we show.
"We never make assertions, Miss Taggart. That is the moral crime peculiar to our enemies. We do not tell--we show. We do not claim--we prove. It is not your obedience that we seek to win, but your rational conviction. You have seen all the elements of our secret. The conclusion is now yours to draw--we can help you to name it, but not to accept it--the sight, the knowledge and the acceptance, must be yours."
--Hugh Akston, from 'Atlas Shrugged' by Ayn Rand.
And that ultimately sums it up. I have no need to assert any position of authority or repeatedly demand that people obey me. I just want to present the proof and let a person think about that proof and decide what they will.
I don't want JWs to obey or follow me. They don't even have to listen, if they don't want to. I wonder if they can say the same thing about the 'faithful slave'?
--sd-7
the program for the 2013 convention series has been drawn to my attention.
here is a link to it.... http://www.jw.org/download/?fileformat=pdf&output=html&pub=co-pgm13&langwritten=e&option=trgchlzrqvnyvrxf&txtcmslang=e.
there is a saturday morning symposium on "apostates.
Well, this is the usual thing, isn't it? One isolated verse after another. On the plus side, no coherent, detailed argument will be given during that part--warnings not to listen to 'apostates' and name-calling will be the order of the day. This, if anything, is good for us, as it will impress upon the minds of the audience that we are dangerous in some undefined way. For the thinkers among them, this will stick, and maybe it won't matter today. But on the day when they're at their wit's end, they'll remember the fear as I did, and decide to open the door they were warned not to open.
On the other hand, it will enable them to continue their abusive speech. To paraphrase Awake!, a good educator presents both sides of an argument and encourages discussion. Propagandists hammer hard on their point of view and discourage discussion. I, on the other hand, totally recommend for people to read The Watchtower in its full context and determine for themselves whether the writers of its contents are good educators, propagandists, or somewhere in-between.
--sd-7
hi folks.
that's right, the new june 15th 2013 study edition is out now on this link.... http://download.jw.org/files/media_magazines/28/w_e_20130615.pdf.
the following quote caught my eye, from the final study article on page 28.... .
IS IT proper to disfellowship? Yes, as we have just seen in the above article, God put out of his congregation those that were opposed to him and that were corrupt. He disfellowshiped them. He got rid of them, and he advises us to do so with such persons.--The Watchtower, March 1, 1952, page 137.
hi folks.
that's right, the new june 15th 2013 study edition is out now on this link.... http://download.jw.org/files/media_magazines/28/w_e_20130615.pdf.
the following quote caught my eye, from the final study article on page 28.... .
I was reminded of an old article from the '50s I read, that highlights just how sick this concept was. Here's the March 1, 1952 WT, page 134, paragraph 8--now this is how JWs are viewing someone who is DF'd, this hasn't changed, really:
Such an individual has no place in the clean organization or congregation of God. He should go back to the wicked group that he once came from and die with that wicked group with Satan’s organization.
"Go back and die". There you have it.
--sd-7
hi folks.
that's right, the new june 15th 2013 study edition is out now on this link.... http://download.jw.org/files/media_magazines/28/w_e_20130615.pdf.
the following quote caught my eye, from the final study article on page 28.... .
You know what? Somebody just spoke that into the speakwrite, man. 'Robert' probably doesn't even exist. Why else recycle the same exact experience from last year? It makes no sense otherwise. They should have literally thousands of these stories to draw from. Why use the same one?
--sd-7
hi folks.
that's right, the new june 15th 2013 study edition is out now on this link.... http://download.jw.org/files/media_magazines/28/w_e_20130615.pdf.
the following quote caught my eye, from the final study article on page 28.... .
LOL! They directly recycled that! Ha ha ha! This is from last frakking year!
--sd-7
hi folks.
the new june 15th watchtower is now on jw.org in case you are interested!
here is the link... http://download.jw.org/files/media_magazines/28/w_e_20130615.pdf.
That one gave me a much-needed belly laugh. Ha ha ha!
Yeah, they'll be reeeal impartial, until he says he won't shave his beard.
--sd-7
conan o'brian doing a funny skit about jws:.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=el-wufuzagc.
I like the fact that they were apparently offering the Study Edition. Looks like somebody did their homework....
--sd-7
i think it a very real possiblity:.
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/07/local/la-me-church-files-20130108.
judge orders archdiocese to restore names in abuse filesthe public's right to know how the church handled molestation allegations outweighs officials' privacy rights, court rules.q: haven't several states extended the statutes of limitation in response to the abuse scandal?.
Ultimately it is not the men themselves who have the real power, but rather the ideas. As long as millions still believe the ideas, each one of them could preserve it.
--sd-7