Ohh... I bet Sam Herd has a wonderful lesbian porn collection to be that vehement on the subject.
It is important to know one's enemies, after all...
lesbian couple that has a child decides that they want to be one of jehovahs witnesses?
really think about this for a second.. what will they do then.. option 1: will they tell them that they have to get a divorce and ignore the scriptural counsel of jehovah hating a divorcing?
will they say that it was never valid anyway in the eyes of jehovah?
Ohh... I bet Sam Herd has a wonderful lesbian porn collection to be that vehement on the subject.
It is important to know one's enemies, after all...
lesbian couple that has a child decides that they want to be one of jehovahs witnesses?
really think about this for a second.. what will they do then.. option 1: will they tell them that they have to get a divorce and ignore the scriptural counsel of jehovah hating a divorcing?
will they say that it was never valid anyway in the eyes of jehovah?
Yes, I know they would say something along those lines, Quendi. I was just wondering what family they would say the child belongs to if s/he had been raised by both mothers since birth. I mean, isn't every child part of a family, even if it's a single-parent family? It seems quite obvious that whatever the semantics, they are breaking up the family. I guess they would view it no differently than a man and woman living together who had children, who were not "scripturally free" to remarry. It's probably no more than an academic question anyway. I really doubt there are many homosexual people who have taken their relationship to the point of getting legally married that covert to JW (or any fundie, anti-gay church for that matter).
so as some of you already may know, i have stopped going to meetings for good and have nothing to do with wbts anymore...did not write a letter of disassociation because i dont believe an organization should spiritually execute me for rejecting men's tradition and false doctrine...some of you may recall i spoke to my wife and are in good terms, even though she's still an active jw.
my parents are both active jw's...when i visited them yesterday, they clearly did not expect me to tell them i had left the "org"...to my huge surprise, after i explained to them i had found ttatt (truth about the truth) and gave compelling evidence of my reasoning, and using the scriptures, they totally sided with me...i was dumbfounded...one of my parents even brought up ray franz and his book coc....i was like wtf??.
they told me all of these years they never had the guts to say anything about the hypocrisy in this org and they were glad that i as their son was able to step up and believe what is right and what is on the bible...they re-assured their love to me and they were happy i had found happiness in jesus christ and the need to have a personal relationship with him and not through a man made organization.... i totally did not expect this response from my parents...but it just leaves me to think that there are thousands of active jw's out there feeling the same way and don't have the courage to step up to the org...still don't know what they are going to do, but i got the feeling they will do the same eventually and move on from the wbts.... have a great week everyone.
Awesome to hear that, nolongerconfused! It took a lot of courage to go to your parents with this, not knowing how they would respond. How active are they?
lesbian couple that has a child decides that they want to be one of jehovahs witnesses?
really think about this for a second.. what will they do then.. option 1: will they tell them that they have to get a divorce and ignore the scriptural counsel of jehovah hating a divorcing?
will they say that it was never valid anyway in the eyes of jehovah?
I think the more interesting question would be what would happen if just one spouse wanted to be a witness and the other didn't. Certainly the interested spouse wouldn't be allowed to be an unbaptized publisher or get baptized unless they left their legal spouse. So much for JWs allegedly not breaking up families.
there was a conti that was a do in my circuit a few years ago.
who are the conti's that everyone is talking about?
?.
What was yout DO Conti's first name? We had a CO with that name (actually spelled "Conte", but pronounced the same as "Conti") a while back but I can't remember his first name. Actually he was pretty old and this was 15 years ago so I wonder if he's still around.
i'm 19, and i'm still currently a jw.
i guess i'm a born-in, or whatever you guys call it.
i've had some serious issues with the faith at the moment, and sexuality is a huge part.
LOL at nowwhat... people who hate gays love to use 1COR6:9 as a crutch to justify their hatred. People like him used to use the bible to justify slavery until the mid 19th century. It was official teaching of many American churches. After all, 1 Tim 6:1 says "all who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered."
They freely admit that some scriptures are given more weight than others... you know, the golden rule is more important than the one about slavery and women covering their heads in church, but the one about homosexuality is of course in the former group. Young people like us, magotan, will probably live to see the day when this nonsense is just a curiosity of history.
hi guys.
richard e. kelly has kindly contributed a great article to jwsurvey.org on the link below.... http://jwsurvey.org/child-abuse-2/bo-juel-jensen-could-he-be-watchtowers-worst-nightmare.
richard tells the story of bo juel jensen, an ex-witness who has been doing marvellous work in raising awareness of watchtower child abuse mishandling in norway.. as with most child abuse victims, bo's story is a disturbing one.
@ Weana: Your basic premise is true, but even in the legal systems you are describing, the Prosecutor will have to drop a case if the witnesses refuse to testify and there is no other corroborating evidence. In the U.S., for example, a witness can be made to testify but prosecutors are generally reluctant to force sexual assault victims to testify against their will. Usually parental permission is needed in order for a child to testify. While I don't know all of the details of Bo's case, it might well be that it wasn't so much that the parents "dropped the charges" as much as they told the police/prosecution that they were not going to allow their child to testify.
i'm 19, and i'm still currently a jw.
i guess i'm a born-in, or whatever you guys call it.
i've had some serious issues with the faith at the moment, and sexuality is a huge part.
Welcome! I know it seems daunting but many have made it out, only to find life is not pointless in "Satan's system", as they like to label the non-JW world (e.g., regular people). One family that I know where the parents were JWs for 30+ years and had lots of witness relatives ended up having a child who was gay. They were not the kind of family that you would expect to leave "the truth." But the entire family - parents and all of the children, most of whom were adults at the time - all left together. I don't know that the gay child was 100% of the reason but I believe they genuinely believed their child did not choose to be that way as some kind of "unscriptural" decision or something, and they couldn't accept that they were supposed to condemn their own kid. I'm not saying this will happen with your family - in fact I'm sure it's the exception - but you never know.
last year, in the ongoing victoria, australia case, the watchtower lawyers stated in court that the "faithful and discreet slave" does not exist.
it is merely a "theological arrangement".
this was obviously an attempt to get those responsible at the top of the corporation "off the hook".. now the wtbts says explicitly that the fds are the same as the governing body of eight men in brooklyn.. does this mean that the australian courts can attempt to subpoena these eight men, as the charges are against (among others) the fds and the gb?.
I suspect the case is not going anywhere. Wasn't the case dismissed by the government, and then the same group came back with essentially the same case?
http://io9.com/345728/geneticists-discover-a-way-to-extend-lifespans-to-800-years.
just yeast so far.
i don't quite get why they want to test it on ecuadorians but maybe they sub for lab rats these days.. in addition, if you're interested in not dying, there's c60 in olive oil.
That article in the link is over 5 years old. If anything big came out of the tests, I assume we would have heard about sometime since then. I don't doubt that something like this might be possible some day, but I think it's a long way off. The problem is that almost all funding for R&D, both government and private, is earmarked toward research on specific diseases and not old age in general.