sd-7

Joined

• started 290 topics
• posted 3,788 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by sd-7

• 
  15

  I'm late to the party on this Gog of Magog change...

  by sd-7 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  so this may 2015 study edition...i know you guys have talked about it already, but wow.

  this is classic.

  mostly i like to revel in the presentation of these changes.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  sd-7

  Oubliette, I think I must have been reading the Simplified Edition. I hadn't meant to click on that one, but apparently I must have. Sorry about that.

  --sd-7
• 
  42

  Convention Cartoon

  by freemindfade in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  so last night they played the convention cartoon.

  there were a few laughs from the audience, overall though people seemed a little taken aback and tight lipped.

  like no one gushed about it afterwards, no applause, just like it was nothing new at all.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  sd-7

  Okay, finally got around to watching this video. The intended audience is clearly adults, right? I mean, right? It's a clever way to get the information across without boring people to death with an entire Service Meeting part on it, so I'll credit them on that. (They'll still have that boring Service Meeting part, I'm sure.)

  But the implications here--so they expect JWs to dress as if they're literally at the convention the entire time?? Ha ha! I never did that. It's freaking a hundred degrees outside and I'm going to sit around in my dress clothes all night after I sat around in them all day? HA HA HA HA HA! Go flock yourself. You have no Biblical basis for those orders, so I felt perfectly free to ignore them even as a JW. Oh, and remember the day's text this week about God being impartial and seeing more than the outward appearance? So much for that!

  Still trying to figure out who would want to be waiting outside the convention at 7:50 a.m. After driving half the day to get there, I'd be lucky to wake up before 7, much less be there before 8.

  Sadly, I actually did enjoy the program when I believed in it--though I found certain things they said to be a bit extreme--but the process of getting there made the whole thing a pain in the behind. I was always too tired to enjoy it anyway. I did occasionally notice when they cut and paste whole paragraphs straight from Watchtower articles. Why not just reread the old magazines and save your money?

  Well, thanks for sharing it. It's nothing worth commenting much on, the cartoon, I mean. I actually think it's better than how they usually present this same information every flocking year.

  --sd-7
• 
  27

  Assembly Survival Kit

  by pronomono in

  1. social
  2. humour

  so, i've got the assembly tomorrow, or so the wife says.

  i should have bought this in preparation..... .

  http://cdn.blessthisstuff.com/imagens/stuff/gentlemans-survival-kit-2.jpg.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  sd-7

  I found that a good pair of Skullcandy headphones and an iPod mini were suitable entertainment for three days of convention. Of course I'm already out, so...it may be that you would have trouble getting away with that if you're still in. Thankfully, I will not be attending this year, so...it all works out nicely.

  If all else fails, you can always just pick a Bible book and read it just so you actually learn something about the Bible while you're there...ha!

  --sd-7
• 
  88

  Why JW marriage is a huge problem for the organization.

  by kneehighmiah in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the difficulty of finding a marriage mate is well known for sisters.

  but i would say it's hard for brothers also.

  i was talking to a jw last night.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  sd-7

  I don't think there was ever a lack of attractive JW women in my area. Nor do I think that's that much of a problem throughout the group. The problem to me was just the difficulty of dating itself. Being under a microscope from elders to the gossip hounds. How can anyone have a meaningful relationship that grows into marriage under circumstances like that? You'll find out almost nothing about the person until after you're married, and since it gets suspicious if you date too long, it's a no-win situation.

  The other thing is that beauty is subjective. When I first started dating the woman who is now my wife, my brother said to me that she wasn't even all that attractive. Well, I'm not sure who he was looking at, but I think she's gorgeous and even five years later I love looking at her, even with no makeup and snoring in the bed. So to me, she's beautiful.

  It's just statistically improbable that out of eight million people, there's a lack of attractive women of marriage age. I'd say you just have to look around, meet more people.

  --sd-7
• 
  32

  Conventions, Kingdom Halls, Relief Funds, and Other Financial Scams and Schemes of Jehovah’s Witnesses

  by Watchtower-Free in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  a few seconds ago this hit the net todayhttp://jwvictims.org/conventions-kingdom-halls-relief-funds-and-other-financial-scams-and-schemes-of-jehovahs-witnesses/.

  conventions, kingdom halls, relief funds, and other financial scams and schemes of jehovahs witnesses.

  jehovahs witnesses often note that at their meetings (like church services), they dont pass a collection plate.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  sd-7

  It could be wishful thinking that Sam Herd got that Rolex as a gift. Without asking him, we'd have no way of knowing. But the fact is, at the very least he must have some very rich friends. But no, they're making some serious cake, apparently, and I recall Ray Franz saying that GB members would take vacations that the ordinary JW can only dream of.

  But that's a very good article. Bravo.

  --sd-7
• 
  15

  I'm late to the party on this Gog of Magog change...

  by sd-7 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  so this may 2015 study edition...i know you guys have talked about it already, but wow.

  this is classic.

  mostly i like to revel in the presentation of these changes.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  sd-7

  So this May 2015 Study Edition...I know you guys have talked about it already, but wow. This is classic. Mostly I like to revel in the presentation of these changes. The wording is so classic WT.

  "For many years, our publications have explained that the name Gog of Magog refers to Satan after he was thrown out of heaven." So if anything went wrong, it was the publications' fault, not ours. Those books just got up and wrote themselves.

  Blah blah, "So we understood that Gog must be another name for Satan. However, there were some problems with this explanation."

  Let's read that again. "However, there were some problems with this explanation." Imagine saying that to someone in the congregation. That's the quickest way to end up in front of three elders. Also, THE PROBLEM IS IT'S WRONG! Just say it! It was wrong. I think it's just, the way they go about explaining the problems, it really makes it sound like the earlier understanding was written by complete idiots. I won't comment on that, nor do I need to. I'll let the Watchtower do so:

  "But how could Satan, who is an invisible spirit creature, be eaten by birds and wild beasts? How could he be buried on earth? The Bible clearly shows that Satan will be thrown into the abyss for 1,000 years. He will not be eaten or buried."

  "But if Satan is Gog, this means that Satan would have to mislead himself."

  Only the Watchtower writers could be guilty of such horrible use of logic and actually throw people out of the congregation who see "problems with this explanation."

  It further underscores the fact that they have no idea how to understand the Bible. You can pick just one of any number of Bible verses and, searching their publications, you could find three or more different "explanations" for the same verse, all contradictory, all written by the same divinely chosen 'faithful slave'. Matthew 24:34, Matthew 24:45-47, Romans 13--multiple explanations for just a handful of verses. If they don't understand these--as is abundantly evident by their constantly finding "problems" with their own prior explanations--then we have little reason to believe there are no problems with their explanations of the thousands of other Bible verses they claim to know the truth about.

  I also just have to marvel at just how many changes have been made in the past 10-15 years. Thanks for the timely reminder to avoid the girl-on-girl porn, by the way. I've had to turn off or skip so many episodes of 'Game of Thrones', you know? Anyway, I hope you've got better things to do on a Saturday than read this. If you did, though, thanks for reading.

  --sd-7
• 
  8

  Today's text--Jehovah, the 'Impartial' God

  by sd-7 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  "jehovah your god...treats none with partiality."--deut.

  10:17.. "impartiality is one of jehovah's endearing qualities.

  " <--yes, between that and his tendency towards genocidal warfare, i don't know what makes me love him more.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  sd-7

  "Jehovah your God...treats none with partiality."--Deut. 10:17.

  "Impartiality is one of Jehovah's endearing qualities." <--Yes, between that and his tendency towards genocidal warfare, I don't know what makes me love him more.

  "What does it mean to be impartial? It involves being fair, free from having or showing bias or favoritism." Fair. Like condemning an entire race to death for the actions of two people. Letting people beat and murder your favorite son to save the same aforementioned race from your own punishment!

  Free from showing bias. Like not preferring one nation over all others for the majority of human history, for instance.

  So...I'm trying to figure out how exactly Jehovah even remotely fits this definition.

  "Hence, one who is impartial will pay due regard, not to an individual's outward appearance or circumstances, but to his or her character as a person." <--So can we explain again why wearing a sportcoat and slacks at a meeting if you have a talk is generally frowned upon by people imitating the 'impartial' God? Or why women shouldn't wear pants? For the same reasons said God doesn't qualify as impartial. He's not, and they're not.

  Fair. Like forbidding any audio or video recording of judicial committees held in secret, for example.

  I could go on, but it's clear that neither the Watchtower nor their god can be properly called impartial.

  --sd-7
• 
  53

  questions

  by DanielC in

  1. social
  2. relationships

  i've been dating a jw girl for about 4 years and we've recently had a lot of issues with the fact that her family doesn't like that i'm not a jw.

  i've been looking into the religion and am interested in it.

  but is it wrong to join just so i don't lose her?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  sd-7

  You might want to look up the posts by a member here SD7 and take what he did as an object lesson.

  --So I have become "a proverbial taunt and a saying"! I've finally made the big leagues, boys!

  --sd-7

  P.S. Out4good4 is right. It'd make for good reading--no, GREAT reading, I promise. You'll vomit rainbows, man! RAINBOWS!
• 
  30

  Would you give your life for those that shun you?

  by Esse quam videri in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  'no one has greater love than this, that someone would lay down his life for his friends.'.

  many have been hurt by the practice of shunning.

  family members, [former?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  sd-7

  How would I even be around to give my life for theirs--they're shunning me, remember? So the answer is: that's either impossible or improbable. If by some chance the scenario arose, well, the truthful answer is: no more or less than I would give my life for anyone else. And I wouldn't give my life for most people. So probably not.

  --sd-7
• 
  48

  May’s ‘study WT’ admits having taught “far-fetched” ideas

  by wheelwithinwheel in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  not on the front page, not in the study articles, but carefully camouflaged in the questions from readers on page 18 (watchtower march 15, 2015).

  you can bet most jws wont even read it..

  there is no apology...just the usual excuses..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  sd-7

  This article will have no meaning to most JWs other than a curious sort of history. Its implications, however, are potentially HUGE. I'm talking practically any of the various teachings they've held to, including 1914, could be demolished by the very argument they're using here.

  After all, given that the Bible doesn't clearly identify the Kingdom/God's sovereignty as an antitype of the giant tree in Nebuchadnezzar's dream, we need not conclude that the seven times were anything but a lesson to humble Nebuchadnezzar. Of course they'll never use the argument this way, but they could. It gives them an out, and all they have to do is use it whenever the right time for it (ie. when it's most useful to their purposes) arrives.

  The curious thing is, that while they specifically mention some examples of antitypes they used, they DO NOT include references/footnotes to the overwhelming majority of the articles they mentioned. (So the average JW is not going to bother trying to look them up.) Instead of going into detail about what the Watchtower articles specifically said, they preferred to use outlandish examples from Origen, Jerome, etc. People who were NOT Jehovah's Witnesses, who were members of 'Christendom'. Given that such men's ideas would be considered as decidedly false, that tells you a lot about how such 'antityping', to coin a word, is being viewed here.

  And it goes even deeper than that. Not limiting a particular story's meaning to just the anointed also potentially paves the way--at least in theory--for making major changes to this two-class system. The great crowd are already domestics, a place previously held by anointed. This could--could--be used to justify some other imaginary 'privilege' being assigned to the great crowd, like actually considering them as 'God's children' as well, for once. Not likely, but still possible.

  So rather than admitting their own teachings were "far-fetched", they use that term about Christendom's writers (the aforemention Origen/Jerome/etc.), thus deftly avoiding calling attention to their own religion's obviously outlandish teachings. It was a bait and switch. They were talking about their own literature, but then changed the subject under examination to false religious teachers. If you're paying attention, though, this can be summed up by saying "Fred Franz was a false religious teacher, and that's why we don't teach what he taught anymore." Fascinating. It's a great read, if you're up for a laugh.

  Wow. Times really are a-changin' in Watchtowerville. These guys might even approach the same zip code as admitting a mistake one day. ... Naaah!

  --sd-7