"18. After having reviewed the merits of loyalty
versus the consequences of disloyalty, what is
your resolve?"
Boy, is that a loaded question?!?!
That's not even twisting one's arm; it's a flatout being held at a gun point
the april 2012 wt study article has some of the most strongly worded statements about contact with disfellowshipped family members.. page 12, paragraph 17: -.
good that can come when a family loyally.
upholds jehovahs decree not to associate.
"18. After having reviewed the merits of loyalty
versus the consequences of disloyalty, what is
your resolve?"
Boy, is that a loaded question?!?!
That's not even twisting one's arm; it's a flatout being held at a gun point
Dude is about to have dinner...
He better shave before giving advice or be called to the back room...
the april 2012 wt study article has some of the most strongly worded statements about contact with disfellowshipped family members.. page 12, paragraph 17: -.
good that can come when a family loyally.
upholds jehovahs decree not to associate.
"...A young man had been disfellowshipped
for over ten years, during which time his
father, mother, and four brothers “quit
mixing in company” with him. At times,
he tried to involve himself in their activities,
but to their credit, each member
of the family was steadfast in not
having any contact with him."
A very sinister thought is woven in the quote above. The way I read this is: "Prepare to cut off your flesh and blood for DECADES, if we say so! The fach that they hurt, should have no effect on you"
By assigning a specific (painfully long) amount of time, the borg is trying to warn strongly anyone on the inside about to make a move.
Far, far, far cry from the teachings of Jesus....
the april 2012 wt study article has some of the most strongly worded statements about contact with disfellowshipped family members.. page 12, paragraph 17: -.
good that can come when a family loyally.
upholds jehovahs decree not to associate.
Also, note in the preceding paragraph:
"...REMAIN LOYAL TO JEHOVAH
16 There are members of the congregation
who committed serious sins and
who were reproved “with severity, that
they may be healthy in the faith.” (Titus
1:13) For some, their conduct has
required that they be disfellowshipped.
For “those who have been trained by it,”
the discipline has helped them to become
spiritually restored. (Heb. 12:11)
What if we have a relative or a close
friend who is disfellowshipped? Now
our loyalty is on the line, not to that
person, but to God. Jehovah is watching
us to see whether we will abide by
his command not to have contact with
anyone (emphasys NOT mine) who is disfellowshipped.—Read
1 Corinthians 5:11-13."
Tell me, why do they need to point special attention to "anyone"? And "Jehovah is watching us" WTF, like a prison guard, not like the loving father he is supposed to be...
There are more gems in there. Poor drones are in for a rough ride.
i recieved a letter today and it reads:.
sister jennifer b****,.
we request your presence for a judical hearing.
Tongue-in-cheek, sinis. All good
i recieved a letter today and it reads:.
sister jennifer b****,.
we request your presence for a judical hearing.
...."If i were you, I would dick with them"...^^
Perhaps physically impossible and likely ethically undesireable for a lady, I guess....
This is in no way to "stumble" you, OP; please go at them full force. Just thought the choice of words was interesting.
i'm not sure if any of you will remember but i posted on here six months ago about a correspondence i was having with my dad, an elder, about who would die in armageddon.
i was asking some tough questions about children being killed in armageddon and i could tell he uncomfortable with the answers he was giving.. i drafted an email in resposne to his email but in the end i decided not to send it in the interest of maintaining friendly relations.. .
last week, out of the blue, my dad sent an email link to the february 2012 watchtower article about armageddon and said it would answer some of my questions.. here is my response which is a critique of the feb 2012 wt article and some of the broader ethics concerning 'armageddon'.
....for example he tells me earnestly that there is no heirarchy in the Watchtower and that all JWs are considered equal. I think he actually believes things like this when he says it.
Really? Ask him then to give his elders book for binding to a sister in good standing. Equal, my a$$...
[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:officedocumentsettings> <o:allowpng /> </o:officedocumentsettings> </xml><!
[endif][if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:trackmoves /> <w:trackformatting /> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:donotpromoteqf /> <w:lidthemeother>en-us</w:lidthemeother> <w:lidthemeasian>x-none</w:lidthemeasian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>x-none</w:lidthemecomplexscript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark /> <w:enableopentypekerning /> <w:dontflipmirrorindents /> <w:overridetablestylehps /> <w:usefelayout /> </w:compatibility> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont m:val="cambria math" /> <m:brkbin m:val="before" /> <m:brkbinsub m:val="--" /> <m:smallfrac m:val="off" /> <m:dispdef /> <m:lmargin m:val="0" /> <m:rmargin m:val="0" /> <m:defjc m:val="centergroup" /> <m:wrapindent m:val="1440" /> <m:intlim m:val="subsup" /> <m:narylim m:val="undovr" /> </m:mathpr></w:worddocument> </xml><!
[endif][if gte mso 10]> <mce:style><!
Terry,
Your expanded example is somewhat similar to what I have tried to use for reasoning with family (to no avail )
Yan Bibiyan is a Medical Doctor.
Says who?
Says in this book :"The medical studies of Yan Bibiyan", written by, ahem, Yan Bibiyan.
Well, if it was written by Yan Bibiyan, MD, it has to be true.
This borders more on "Begging the Question" but it has the same effect....
a lot of the glaring distortions of common sense inherent in jehovah's witness mainstream thought flowed from the erratic legalist mindset of.
judge joe rutherford.. rutherford served for awhile as a prosecutor in a district attorney's office.. his view of "getting the job done" consisted of hammering away at an "enemy" with a litany of bullet points.. his theological mindset was hardly any different!.
look at the legal terms that seeped in to jw everyday parlance.. .
Terry, great thread!
I do not want to derail it in any way, but couldn't help noticing the year 1937 and the significant event of the "First blood bank on a large scale established at Cook County Hospital".
Is this a positive or a negative development, according to WT teachings at that time? It is followed (separated by one entry) by the 1945 "The Watchtower exposed blood transfusion"