Posts by garyneal

175

Implications of gay marriage ruling

by Rattigan350 in

while many think that the ruling is good for the gays and their response is: how does that affect your marriage; then on the other side the religious people cry god and sinners.

but both are missing the forest through the trees.. the problem with the ruling is that which is discussed here so many times.

five unelected federal officials decided on policy for the whole country, running roughshod over every democratic principle.

garyneal

For instance, we can't make you less judgemental or ignorant.

Exhibit A, Miss Viviane. Can you be any less hateful or vitriolic?

175

Implications of gay marriage ruling

by Rattigan350 in

while many think that the ruling is good for the gays and their response is: how does that affect your marriage; then on the other side the religious people cry god and sinners.

but both are missing the forest through the trees.. the problem with the ruling is that which is discussed here so many times.

five unelected federal officials decided on policy for the whole country, running roughshod over every democratic principle.

Implications of gay marriage ruling

by Rattigan350 in

while many think that the ruling is good for the gays and their response is: how does that affect your marriage; then on the other side the religious people cry god and sinners.

but both are missing the forest through the trees.. the problem with the ruling is that which is discussed here so many times.

five unelected federal officials decided on policy for the whole country, running roughshod over every democratic principle.

garyneal

OrphanCrow:

Challenged, yes. I do agree that those should be challenged. I just see it devolve into mudslinging from some of the posters.

My opinions are mixed and while I am happy gays are now able to marry I find the way it went about becoming 'law' troubling. I guess the messiness of our system I suppose. I do see some valid points from the dissenters concerning the way this right was extended to all, that's all.

Carry on...

18

Anyone miss "Scholar" who used to post here? Found him!

by sir82 in

jw
friends

...in the jwtalk thread covering the september broadcast re: "generation".. http://jwtalk.net/forums/topic/22665-september-broadcast/page-5.

poor neil, he comes on this forum, he gets hammered.. goes on the virulently pro-jw forum, gets hammered.. you'd almost think he was a troll.....no, couldn't be..... .

garyneal

peper eliot said:

So, if brother Sanderson was anointed in 2000, even if he was baptized in 1975, he couldn't be a part of " this generation "

---

...and the cracks are beginning to appear.

18

Anyone miss "Scholar" who used to post here? Found him!

by sir82 in

jw
friends

...in the jwtalk thread covering the september broadcast re: "generation".. http://jwtalk.net/forums/topic/22665-september-broadcast/page-5.

poor neil, he comes on this forum, he gets hammered.. goes on the virulently pro-jw forum, gets hammered.. you'd almost think he was a troll.....no, couldn't be..... .

garyneal

JP Cook said:

No Neil, we're not going back to 1927! What Br. Splane explained about the Generation goes hand in hand with what is explained in the book "God's Kingdom Rules" on page 12. The graph is pretty clear. It is really a very simple concept. I think the reason folks have trouble with it is because they are reading too much in to it! If one is anointed before 1914 and saw the events at that time, as Br Franz did, they are part of the generation, then, those anointed after 1914 seeing these events occur, are still part of the generation. Using the example Br Splane used, any that were anointed and saw the events after 1914 while Br Franz was still alive are part of his (Br Franz) generation... those anointed before Br Franz died continue that generation even after Br Franz died. Any that were anointed after Br Franz death were not part of that generation.

----

This poor guy is defending the indefensible. His last statement will later stumble him when the generation teaching gets changed again which is inevitable. I almost feel sorry for people who try so hard to rationalize bull shit.

18

Anyone miss "Scholar" who used to post here? Found him!

by sir82 in

jw
friends

...in the jwtalk thread covering the september broadcast re: "generation".. http://jwtalk.net/forums/topic/22665-september-broadcast/page-5.

poor neil, he comes on this forum, he gets hammered.. goes on the virulently pro-jw forum, gets hammered.. you'd almost think he was a troll.....no, couldn't be..... .

garyneal

I was reading an exchange between scholar and myself last night.

Definitely miss him.

175

Implications of gay marriage ruling

by Rattigan350 in

while many think that the ruling is good for the gays and their response is: how does that affect your marriage; then on the other side the religious people cry god and sinners.

but both are missing the forest through the trees.. the problem with the ruling is that which is discussed here so many times.

five unelected federal officials decided on policy for the whole country, running roughshod over every democratic principle.

garyneal

And once again people who express a dissenting opinion on the gay marriage ruling is treated with disdain and like a pariah. I find the attitudes towards the dissenters appalling.

175

Implications of gay marriage ruling

by Rattigan350 in

while many think that the ruling is good for the gays and their response is: how does that affect your marriage; then on the other side the religious people cry god and sinners.

but both are missing the forest through the trees.. the problem with the ruling is that which is discussed here so many times.

five unelected federal officials decided on policy for the whole country, running roughshod over every democratic principle.

garyneal

So let's see...

Gay marriage is popular now so of course most would think that the ruling is a good thing.

...and those mean bigoted people who think marriage is between one man and one woman, well damn them to hell.

Me, I have mixed feelings. I think of my own interracial marriage and how it was illegal until the Loving vs Virginia (the state I live in) case went to the Supreme Court. It was a victory for marriages like mine that fit the one man one woman template but somehow blacks and whites could not mix.

That was then and 50 years later gays now have that privilege. Great for them and in fact I opposed anti gay marriage laws that were being trotted out over the past decade. Still, though, using the courts to make laws frightens me. When it is not politically correct to voice an opposing opinion it worries me that free speech is being trampled on.

43

Deconstructing Splanes 'Generation' explanation

by Splash in

at around 4 minutes into the september 2015 video splane said "for the man and the baby to be part of josephs generation they would have had to have lived at least some time during joseph's lifespan.".

this is the lynchpin of the wt argument, that two lives must overlap to be considered the same generation.. let's take an example of twins who are born just a few minutes apart.

obviously, these twins are the same generation as each other.

garyneal

Today's witnesses do not really care about generations and 1914. This whole overlapping thing, I think, is simply about keeping the older ones around until they die off. Then the teaching will be scrapped.

34

TV.JW.ORG (September 2015): Serving Single - Do not use JW dating sites!

by Designer Stubble in

around the 39:00 minute mark the focus shifts to a single sister who cannot find a mate.

at the 42:30 minute mark she states "i cannot believe it crossed my mind...to look on jw dating sites".

guess a new unwritten rule is added to the many oral traditions of these pharisees.

garyneal

Yeah Snakes,

Russian dating sites here. Didn't the Watchtower have some issues with Russia?

LOL