Posts by GLTirebiter

Elders get confessed tosummon the acccused to a mandatory interrogation, priests get confessed to voluntarily--they have no power to compel a confession.

Elders enjoy privileged information which is known to multiple elders on the judicial council and to witnesses who testify before the council, which becomes fodder for gossip when an announcement is made to the congregation; priests enjoy privileged information known only to them and the penitent, and they are forbidden to reveal even the existance of such information to anybody (even if their silence means going to prison).

Elders get orders from Bethel as spelled out in the top-secret elders manual and letters from HQ that most members are forbidden to see; priests get orders from published encyclical letters and the code of canon law, available for anybody to see and read (clergy, layman, and non-Catholic alike)--the same rules which apply to all members of the Church, including the Vatican.

78

6/15 WT - WT Society can Run it's Business - but JW's Can't Have their Own

by flipper in

jw
friends

in the typical do as we say , not as we do type mentality - the wt society puts forth in this current wt study article ( jw's only wt ) - that it's not " advisable " or " reasonable " for jehovah's witnesses to seek entering their own business ventures , or further themselves by getting a college education, or even have a career - due to the imminent coming of the alleged " end of the system " or alleged " paradise " .

the guilt and control used here is ridiculous.

in the article titled , " why put jehovah's service first ?

GLTirebiter

If it wasn't for Brothers starting up contracting, excavating, construction, plumbing and electrical businesses--where else could they go to find free skilled labor for the quick-builds?

21

Why You Shouldn't care about offending Jehovah's Witnesses

by Dogpatch in

why you shouldn't care about .

offending jehovah's witnesses .

[partial quote, please read the whole article with pictures].

GLTirebiter

I just think non-jws don't really understand what and why jws believe what they do. I think there is a lot of mind-reading going on by non-jws, ineffective explanations by jws, and a school administration that is afraid of lawsuits.

Lack of comprehension and fear of lawsuits are some reason people fear giving offense. In addiiton, non-JWs usually don't realize that JWs tend to not put much stock in the opinions "worldly" people hold of their religion.

While religious differences don't upset them (disagreement only convinces them that they're right and you're wrong), it's a mistake to think they are just as mentally tough in matters beyond religion. In my experience (limited, I admit) Witnesses often are more vulnerable than average in areas outside the WT umbrella. Perhaps that's compensation, because exerting so much emotional strength in one area of their life leaves little for anything else. Perhaps it's because the trained, reflex responses to any criticism of the WT religion blocks any real comprehension of an opposing view. Or perhaps it's because high-control groups like the WT tend to attact, and especially to retain, vulnerable souls hungry for the security of the group, and those members will guard that security at almost any cost.

22

A question for Roman Catholics ...

by talesin in

jw
friends

i attended a funeral on the weekend, and my friend asked me to go up with her for the wafer (no disrespect intended, i'm not sure of the correct term to use).

she is rc herself, but was shy to walk up alone - it was a large funeral.. .

i did not, because i have been told in the past that it would be very disrespectful.

GLTirebiter

She said that it was considered okay for a baptized person (of any faith, as long as you had been baptized by 'someone') to do so, RC or not.

While some Catholics (including some heterodox priests) consider it OK, that is not the official position. Because the Church considers Eastern (Orthodox) churchs to have valid sacraments, their members can partake of Catholic sacraments if acceptable to both sects. Protestants, however, are not considered to have valid sacraments, so their members cannot participate in Catholic communion. The official Church policy is in Articles 1399-1400 of the Catechism:

The Eastern churches that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church celebrate the Eucharist with great love. "These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments, above all - by apostolic succession - the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy." A certain communion in sacris, and so in the Eucharist, "given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged."

Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, "have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders. It is for this reason that Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible for the Catholic Church. However these ecclesial communities, "when they commemorate the Lord's death and resurrection in the Holy Supper . . . profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and await his coming in glory."

since wine is expensive and may lead to abuse by alcoholics, only the priest follows that part of the ceremony in some Churches.

Laity receiving consecrated unleavened bread alone was the practice for a long time, but you jump to conclusions about the reason for that. It was mostly a matter of practicality: how much wine would be needed, how many priests and deacons were available to distribute communion, and how long it would take. Depending on the diocese and parish, lay persons would receive consecrated wine on special occassions, such as the bride and groom at their nuptial mass. Most churches today are not standing-room-only, but that was the case until a few decades ago. Since 1969, the Church also apponts lay "Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist" to assist the priest and deacon with communion when necessary (with the present-day shortage of clergy, that means most of the time).

Under Catholic doctrine, it makes no difference: the complete Eucharist is present in the Host as well as the chalice.

The other thing was women who were divorced (I don't know about men but would guess the same). They were not allowed to receive communion. Because divorce was not acceptable.

It applies equally to man and woman alike, but the statement above is too general and requires clarification. Those who have been in a valid marriage, then divorce, and then marry another are not eligible to receive communion. Marriage to another is the main issue. From Catechism Article 1650 [emphasis added]:

Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ - "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery" The Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God's law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists.

And from Articles 2382-2384 [emphasis added]:

Between the baptized, "a ratified and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death."

The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law. If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.

... Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery

61

I made it!! I'm just so freaking happy!!!

by Rocky_Girl in

jw
friends

as some of you know, i started college 5 years ago for the first time at age 27. i had been out of the "truth" for 9 years at that time, but had just broken free of the mentality.

well, on saturday i walked across the stage with the 130th graduating class at rocky mountain college!.

after 5 years of working several jobs, taking care of two little boys as a single mom, and trying to get the most out of my college experience, i earned my master of accountancy, bachelor of science in business management, and minors in writing and organizational leadership.

GLTirebiter

Bachelor's and Master's degrees in just five years, you must have been working hard. I'm glad it's paid off for you. Congratulations!

33

Homeopathy - Interesting Case in Australia

by cantleave in

as i expect many of you can guess, i am very sceptical about unproven medical techniques, and find some of the claims made by homeopathic medicine quite ludicrous.

when i was a witness i saw lots of faith in "alternative" medicine, so long as it didn't border on anything to do with demunz, it was probably being promoted by some crank pot sister.

i would be interested in what opinions you guys and gals have.. anyway here's the article.. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news-old/watchdog-blast-homeopathy-site-over-whooping-cough/story-fn3dxity-1226346266370.

GLTirebiter

With homeopathy, a small amount of herb is diluted with alcohol or water, to the point where the mixture is so dilute that there is not likely to be a single atom of the herb in a bottle of homeopathic medicine

Sixty years ago Martin Gardner discussed this in "Medical Cults", chapter 16 of Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science:

Hahnemann [1755-1843, originator of homepathy] believed that as the drug became less "material" it gained "spiritual" curative powers, and in many cases recommended diluting until not a single molecule of the original substance remained! This produced remedies of extremely high potency. Moreover, the doctor believed, the full effect of such medicine may not be manifested until thirty days after being taken...

Wrangling among homeopaths over the exact nature of the "homeopathic dose" soon split the movement into two factions--the purists who followed Hahnemann, and the "low potency" men who thought it of value to preserve at least some of the original compound, even though only a few molecules. Modern purists have discarded Hahnemann's "spiritual" effects for mysterious "radiations" which remain after the material substance has vanished, and which have a physical basis not yet understood...

(OT but also of interest: chapter 15 is about "The Great Pyramid" and discusses the teachings of some guy named Russell.)

82

What Are Some Musical Groups And/Or Songs That Everybody Liked But You?

by minimus in

jw
friends

i never loved the beatles.

i especially didn't care all that much for john lennon.. bob dylan, i never got his appeal!.

any songs that just didn't do anything for you?.

GLTirebiter

I'll answer in one word: Disco!

17

What is the Gospel of JW's in a Nutshell?

by Perry in

let the honest-hearted person compare the kind of preaching of the gospel of the kingdom done by the religious systems of christendom during all the centuries with that done by jehovahs witnesses since the end of world war i in 1918. they are not one and the same kind.

that of jehovahs witnesses is really gospel, or good news, as of gods heavenly kingdom that was established by the enthronement of his son jesus christ at the end of the gentile times in 1914.

- (luke 21:24) the watchtower 5/1/81 p. 17 par.

GLTirebiter

"Only 144,000 go to heaven. All the positions were filled before you were born. If you spend your entire life doing exactly what we say, maybe you can win a spot on the waiting list. And if you don't, you're toast at Armageddon--which will be really soon."

Good news, indeed!

66

I went to the Watchtower Study with the "Selma and Steve" article today, and....

by cedars in

jw
friends

no, i didn't really - but i'm anxious to hear from anyone who did!!.

what happened after the paragraph was read?

did anyone try to denounce abusing one's spouse under any circumstances, or were most answers supportive of the "advice" given to selma, i.e.

GLTirebiter

No report from Serenity yet? She must have went out to eat after the meeting with "the friends".

I'm hoping none of the elders saw her texting and grabbed the phone!