I was reading an exchange between scholar and myself last night.
Definitely miss him.
...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..... .
I was reading an exchange between scholar and myself last night.
Definitely miss him.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah Snakes,
Russian dating sites here. Didn't the Watchtower have some issues with Russia?
LOL
ok here is my 2 cents they are getting complaints concerning the drum beat that goes we are in the last hour of last min bla bla bla and people are tired and want system to end so if the system is ended sooon then why are there new partakers assuming that most have the actually calling.
so now we have a problem how do we fix it?
simple just say those new annointed are not part of this generation so now if we appoint younger guys to gb not to worry there not a part of this generation.
a lot of people, ex-jws, believers and unbelievers alike, think that jw's are just a somewhat kooky brand of christianity.
is it possible to "try and follow jesus" and not be christian?
what exactly makes someone a christian?
do you ever wonder why out of all the witnesses, you are the one that woke up?
i wonder many times why me.
i know many men and women that are much, much better persons than me; either they are much smarter, more humble, kinder, more successful, or just better persons all around.
"They said they joined the UN for a library card, so that's it."
Uh huh, and my wife join the YMCA for gym membership. The point is, the WTS can get its information without having to ride the wild beast just as my wife can get a workout without associating with the harlot.
omg...what a waste of a day.....my wife is in full cult mode.
we had one chair seperating us in the bleachers.
we did not talk on the way to and on the way from.
Rock hard seats, no room to move...
Maybe someone should sell butt scratchers at these events.
as i understand it, covenant marriages are available in a few states.
they are a supersonic, superfine version of conservative marriage.
it's harder to divorce--it has to be with certain causes or agreement of both spouses.. covenant marriages have been criticized by human rights advocates as a potential tool for abusive spouses to restrict the escape of their victims.. in at least one state, the couple must receive premarital counseling and the signature of the counselor before obtaining a covenant marriage.
I can see both good and bad in these type of marriages.
The marriage institution as a whole is a huge gamble for both spouses but especially for men. Some statistics I've heard thrown around are something like 50% of marriages ending in divorce, 70% of divorces initiated by women, and the majority of the reasons given by these women are "I'm no longer satisfied with him." Not abuse, not even irreconcilable differences. Therefore he gets booted out of his house, loses access to his kids, and has to pay child support until the kids turn 18 and, in some cases, lifelong alimony to the spouse.
That said, no fault divorces do offer protection for the spouses who find themselves in a bad marriage and want out and covenant marriages can be viewed as a potential return to the pre-no fault divorce days where spouses (usually women) find themselves trap in an bad marriage. However, I agree with JeffT that these type of marriages would be annulled by a good lawyer who will undoubtedly find a legal work around that will be set as precedent.
My answer is to simply do away with the whole institution of marriage as a state institution. Let the individual churches perform marriages as each of them sees fit but only allow for private contracts between individuals that are enforceable similar to other types of private contracts. Since these marriage contracts care more about the property than the marriage (whether private or state imposed) such a marriage license is really nothing more than a piece of paper that has nothing to do with life long commitment between the two parties.
To answer your question, I'm not aware of any dubs who signed up for it and I doubt a practical thinking dub would sign up for it. I see this as something that the more conservative fundamentalist evangelical Christians would sign up for, particularly those who are part of the quiverful movement.