djeggnog

Joined

• started 0 topics
• posted 660 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by djeggnog

• 
  48

  12% of JWs Think Gay Is OK? Really?

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i was reading pat buchanan's book, "suicide of a superpower".

  on page 71, he speaks about the growing acceptance of homosexuality amidst religions.

  he claims that 12% of jw's think gay behavior is ok.. really?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @metatron:

  djeggnog, your lengthy post appears full of confused , rambling thought.

  Ok.

  First, I see no evidence that Pat Buchanan sees Witnesses as a mainstream group since he seems to mention the organization as a more extreme example, along with Mormons and their higher admitted acceptance. It would be good if you read the book.

  Let me quote here what you said in your first paragraph on page 1, and then tell what it was that prompted me to post a response, ok?

  (@metatron:)

  I was reading Pat Buchanan's book, "Suicide of a Superpower". On page 71, he speaks about the growing acceptance of homosexuality amidst religions. He claims that 12% of JW's think gay behavior is OK.

  I have no way of knowing if this figure of 12% was an accurate one, but I thought it suspect, and, if true, it could only have been based on a poll taken by folks identifying themselves as Jehovah's Witnesses when Jehovah's Witnesses do not participate in such polls. This figure could mean that out of 1,000 people polled, 120 of those people -- or 12% -- told the pollster that they as Jehovah's Witnesses thought homosexuality -- "gay behavior" -- to be ok with them. This poll may have been based on a smaller sampling, where 12 out of 100 people polled indicated how they thought "gay behavior" to be ok. It could also be that as few as 49 people were polled, and 6 out of 49 -- 12% -- indicated to the pollster that they, as Jehovah's Witnesses, considered gay behavior to be acceptable to them.

  Now statistics are interesting creatures, since one could extrapolate using such a number that out of 7.3 million Witnesses in the world, 876,000 of them didn't agree with the Bible's view on fornication, that is to say, homosexuality, for what the Bible specifically condemns is fornication. Even if it were true that 6 people out of 49, 12 people out of 100, or 120 people out of 1,000, were to have provided such an opinion, I cannot imagine some 876,000 people out of 7.3 million being of such an opinion as to the Bible's position on fornication.

  Second, "He" didn't conduct a poll. He was quoting someone else who conducted the poll - whose answers evidently contradict the Watchtower's command not to cooperate with surveys, as contained in a BOE letter and KM instruction.

  Why would it matter if the poll was conducted by Pat Buchanan or by his baby brother? What I understood from your post was that on page 71 of Buchanan's book, "Suicide of a Superpower," he claimed -- and I'm quoting you here -- "that 12% of JW's think gay behavior if OK."

  I don't know anything at all about who conducted the poll from which this 12% figure came, or on what this 12% figure is based, but based on what you wrote in your message, I decided to post a comment challenging the veracity of the statement you indicated was made in Buchanan's book.

  You have no proof of any assertion that Witnesses would or would not answer such a survey, especially given that large numbers of Witnesses ignore MANY commands from the GB currently ( such as 'Please contribute' or 'Don't save seats' or 'Stay off Facebook' or 'Attend Meetings')

  I feel as if I am speaking to a child here -- I hope I'm not! -- and I don't care if you feel insulted by my having just said this to you, but the fact that you posted a message to challenge my "assertion" that Witnesses would not answer such a survey is quite telling. The only thing I challenged was the 12% figure that you wrote in your message was given in Buchanan's book. Jehovah God didn't make human beings either animals or robots that we should be trained to respond obediently to every command we are given. No, but man was made in God's image and likeness, made with the ability to think, to reason, to decide whether we are going to do something or not to do that something, since we were all made with something called "free will."

  Do you really consider it to be a sin to save seats when you are told by someone not to do so? Do you really consider it to be a sin to visit a web site like JWN, where both active and inactive Witnesses -- some of them apostates and some of them "conscious" and in fade, some of them alone or confused or angry with an elder or with the way in which the representative body of elders handled an issue, some of them angry because an elder told them that they would be there for them to handle a matter related to the use of blood following an accident and because the elder was a no-show, they now fear God's retribution because the doctors "forced" a blood transfusion on their child, and some other angry that the representative body of elders took sides against them when investigating a matter, and some of them who have never been Witnesses at all, but who may have studied the Bible with one of them -- also visit quite frequently?

  If you don't want to do what the elders might ask you to do, if you don't wish to follow the guidelines provided in our literature with respect to social networking sites like this one or Facebook, if you would rather save seats for your family when you are attending a convention or other large gathering, whatever the reason, in Christ you are free to do whatever it is you decide to do. You may not be an elder or you may never be an elder, but in Christ you are just as free to make your own choices as any elder, who are provided as gifts to provide spiritual help to those in the flock that need or request their help, and are just as equal to you and to those in the congregation that may have only just gotten baptized.

  Now let me quote here what you said in your second paragraph on page 1, and then tell what it was that prompted me to post a response, ok?

  (@metatron:)

  Really? And where are these self identified Jehovah's Witnesses who think that gay is OK? Is the Governing Body worried about this ? California congregations, I'll bet.

  I wanted to disabuse you of the notion that this 12% of the "self identified Jehovah's Witnesses" you mentioned that thought fornication ("gay behavior") to be ok were "California congregations," since I'm in California and I think this number to be bogus, inaccurate, perhaps spun by Buchanan to meet his agenda. You said you thought I was "confused, rambling" in what I wrote, and you are entitled to think what you like, but hopefully you'll realize at some point that I wasn't just speaking to you, @metatron, but what I posted was for the reading consumption of everyone that should come upon and read your thread on JWN, including the lurkers, and not those that should read this thread today, but those who should read this thread months or years from now. In closing, I'm going to wax something here in the next four (4) paragraphs:

  Let's just say that I've grown accustomed to speaking to large groups of people on the 'net, and unlike you and many others here on JWN, I don't view admonitions or even the suggestions that someone might give me as commands that would constitute sins were I to decide to ignore one or more of them as you seem to view all such. If you prefer to argue with me, that's fine, but I'm smarter than that and I won't do it. I may have had one or two vigorous debates on JWN, but I believe everyone on JWN deserves respect even if we should disagree and I give it to everyone. But read what things I've written and you'll see I'm firm; I will never "sugarcoat" that which does not merit such.

  Many of the folks here have been benched or are voluntarily sitting on the bench, but you have a "leg-up" on everyone else in the world in having heard the truth, so you're in the game. We're teammates really, but some of you have sustained an injury, so you are not able to play at present. Some of you were fleshly Christians when you were "in" and many of you continue to be "fleshly" in your viewpoints, but maybe you know that it is not possible to reinstate someone that wasn't in the game. Only those that were actually in the game can be removed from the injured list if their injury heals satisfactorily and get off that bench. Note that I don't say, "Don't save seats" or "Stay off Facebook," but what I do say is, "Get Back into the Game."

  I don't know what brought you to JWN; maybe you came here to vent about the governing body (who soon will not be there for anyone, just the elders, and maybe only you will be there for you and your family as the great tribulation approaches), maybe you came here hoping to find others that would commiserate with you in some way. I'm here to speak to the many lurkers that read the threads here on JWN, who may be on the proverbial fence and having doubts about their faith. Ask around: I don't have a secret agenda, and I speak to you now as an adult, and not as a child:

  You see, as a mature adult, I have learned not only how to make decisions, but, as a mature adult in Christ, I have learned a long time ago that I have the freedom to do all things despite what things someone else's conscience won't permit them to do. Some elders can be bullies at times, but you give to them the power to impose their own will on you, since you have a Bible the same as they, don't you? and if you've both read and studied the Bible, you know that these were not placed in any of the congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses to bully anyone, do you not?

  @EmptyInside:

  When I was still an active [Witness, I] realized it wasn't a choice. I used to cringe when other Witnesses made derogatory remarks.

  But if you're gay, why did you cringe? I don't think being gay to have involved a choice on your part to be such; I don't think being a alcoholic involved a choice made by someone to be such either. But everyone that comes to Christ must choose to put away those things that he does not accept, and if you're not ready to do this, you cannot be compelled by someone else to come to Christ, but you must come to him voluntarily, willingly.

  I guess my liberal views finally opened my eyes about the religion.

  Now Witnesses are human beings though, and just like there are some things that people do that might make you cringe -- maybe you observe someone using one of the tables across from where you are sitting at McDonald's as they change a baby's diaper and the sight of this causes you to cringe when you are trying to eat -- some Witnesses have biases that have made them bigots when it comes to homosexuality, and you will just have to accept that we all have things on which we need to work. Those derogatory remarks come from bigotry and they indicate a lack of 'neighbor love' on the part of those making them. But you know what?

  There are those who are gay that attend many of the meetings at our Kingdom Halls and even the bigoted wonders we have in our midst have learned how to greet by name these gay men and lesbians. I don't what your "liberal views" have to do with Christianity, but I do know that it's hard enough trying to change our own behavior, so why concern yourself with trying to change the behavior of other people. Being gay may not be a choice, but deciding that you will have sexual relations with someone to whom you're not married is a choice. I would like to 'open your eyes' as to this, @EmptyInside: You can attend our meetings and you don't have to offer up an explanation as to any of the things you might do in your personal life to anyone; let those Witnesses sneer, but it's up to you to keep growing in knowledge of God and Christ as you work out your own salvation.

  @djeggnog
• 
  48

  12% of JWs Think Gay Is OK? Really?

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i was reading pat buchanan's book, "suicide of a superpower".

  on page 71, he speaks about the growing acceptance of homosexuality amidst religions.

  he claims that 12% of jw's think gay behavior is ok.. really?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @metatron wrote:

  I was reading Pat Buchanan's book, "Suicide of a Superpower". On page 71, he speaks about the growing acceptance of homosexuality amidst religions. He claims that 12% of JW's think gay behavior is OK.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  Pat Buchanan is a Catholic that ... used to know that Jehovah's Witnesses didn't vote or participate in political polls, which is the only sure way that he could possibly have been able to come up with such as figure as 12%.

  @Anony Mous wrote:

  WTF are you smoking DJ, you contradicted yourself here first but you should understand that Pat has a lot more knowledge about these things than a random person off the street....

  This was my point; he should know that Jehovah's Witnesses could not have participated in such a poll since we are politically neutral. @metatron had quoted something from Buchanan's book, so I was merely making an observation.

  Voting is not a way of knowing anything because [voting] does not include religion.

  Actually, I referred to both voting and polling, and the Catholic women I mentioned were polled by some organization and apparently "some 58% of them support a requirement that health insurance plans should provide preventive services, including contraception,"

  One of the ways is to have a population of a couple of thousand random people polled about a bunch of things that include but are not limited to their self-identified religion, sexual orientation.

  The truth is I know how the world works, especially how the polls are done here in the US. You mention of computers made me smile, because I knew you weren't talking about mainframes, keypunch cards or dumb terminals that were used at one time to process such data. I don't know for sure, but from reading your response, it's possible that I may be much older than you are and perhaps more experienced in life than you are. This doesn't mean I am wiser than you, but it's possible I could be that, too.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  Whether the number should be 2% or 50% of those identifying themselves as Jehovah's Witnesses that thought gay behavior to be ok is really not the point....

  @Anony Mous wrote:

  That is the whole point. It shows that the GB is losing control over their general population of JW's and there are a heck of a lot more doubters and fakers than we think in the org.

  Jehovah's Witnesses are organized under a rubric just as are those associated with the Catholic faith, Buchanan's faith. Out of 7.3 million Witnesses in the world, there may, in fact, be only about one third that are really Jehovah's Witnesses. Bible Students. Kingdom Proclaimers that are sincerely interested in the salvation of themselves and other people. I'm not about to preach to you, @Anony Mous; I mean, what would be the point of trying to engage you on a spiritual level? But many people responded favorably to the things that Jesus said and taught, but since the days of the apostles until now, many more people have responded favorably to the things that they heard Jesus say and taught by sharing what they learned with others.

  I know you know all of this already, but I'm just seeking to make one small point here. Days are coming when the remaining two-thirds may fall away, many of whom will be family members, will go back to the things that they had left behind and it will become rough for that one third. The organized preaching work will end and we are now preparing ourselves for a time when the governing body and the organization we knew will be no more as the great tribulation approaches.

  You don't think about such things, but I imagine that things will become worse during the great tribulation for Jehovah's Witnesses than they had ever been just as they were in the days leading up to Jerusalem's destruction by the Romans in 70 AD. This one third will all recognize where we are in the stream of time and not one of these will doubt nor fake their dismay as we become gripped with anxiety as our trials begin, when the governments of the world seek to make us break faith with our God and in Christ our savior. Most of those within this same one-third will be numbered among the survivors of Armageddon.

  As for the two-thirds, they never came to understand the seriousness of preparing for the tribulation that is coming, but the one third understood that as soon as the nations began to declare "Peace and security!" our deliverance would immediately follow along with our regrets that the two-thirds became naysayers or made a promise to return upon their achievement of a particular goal, only to discover that the proverbial door had been shut to them and no formal organized arrangement to which they can return. This is one of the things I think about most and so I give no thought at all to "the "doubters and fakers," but I say to them the only thing I can say: Ciao.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  [S]ome 58% of [Catholic women] support a requirement that health insurance plans should provide preventive services, including contraception, which includes birth control, despite the resolute teachings against the use of contraception by church leaders, and some 98% of Catholic women polled have admitted using birth control.

  @Anony Mous wrote:

  Catholics don't get shunned for taking birth control.

  No one likes to be ignored, so being shunned is going to be unpleasant, especially if a close family member is doing the shunning when they join unrelated Witnesses in shunning the disfellowshipped family member even though they are often in the best position to (maybe) help the errant one to see the need to repent. But I wasn't suggesting here that Catholics are ever excommunicated for taking birth control pills.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  [This] is something that fathers, like myself, didn't know and needed to learn like everyone else that were of the belief that birth control pills only served one purpose.

  @Anony Mous wrote:

  What rock have you been living under for the last 30 years? I learned that in high school and that was about 20 years ago. You could also ask doctors or look it up on the internet (or encyclopedia) before making your conclusions

  I am, first, a man, and second, a father, and with me being a man, I didn't become interested in birth control until my teenager daughter needed birth control pills and not because she was sexually active. You are a woman and perhaps a mother as well, and you learned about these things when you were attending high school "about 20 years ago." Again, it's obvious that you're younger than me; you had the internet, but there was no internet when I attended high school, but despite this handicap, I managed to crawl out from under my rock with the help of my wife and the courage of my daughter in telling me that she needed birth control pills.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  Unreasonable suspicions, malicious gossip and, yes, the occasional witch hunts prompted by unwarranted speculation and ignorance by well-meaning elders are fewer in congregations having informed elders with one or more teenage daughters in the family.

  @Anony Mous wrote:

  That only happens among high-control cults. Those are not well-meaning elders if they prompt for speculation and witch hunts based on what someone takes as medicine.

  Assuming you're right about my being a member of a cult, what's so tough for you to accept about my being in a cult? A cult is an exclusive system of religious beliefs and practices, which would indict every Christian denomination that exists in the world. Some of these cults employ many rituals in their religious practices as well. While you would use the word "cult" as a pejorative, the point I want to make here is that the word "cult" would aptly describe every Christian denomination on the planet since all Christian denominations are each of them exclusive systems that are distinctly different from other denominations, with each having their own religious beliefs and practices, and the "high-control cults" are particularly interesting, especially the ones that regularly dole out the kool-aid to its members. I'm fine with being referred to as being a member of a cult, which word is synonymically the same as the word "denomination."

  As far as the elders are concerned, they are imperfect and many of them don't know a whole lot about birth control pills. We will likely publish an article on the many other uses of the birth control pill, since, in our literature, our articles have only discussed the use of birth control pills for contraception, but never for the myriads of reasons women, young and old, use them today. I wouldn't ever blame someone for not knowing things that they just didn't know.

  Perhaps you had in the past expected the elders in your congregation to be more spiritual-minded than you, but I have very often found this to not be the case. Some of them have misused their authority over some in the congregation as well as over their wives and children, and were deleted as such after several years of such misuse. Waiting on Jehovah, which means to wait until one of the elders inside or outside the congregation should step in to correct the situation, has come to be viewed as a "Hail Mary" because the needed changes never seem to come, but it may take up to five years, even ten years, but change eventually does come.

  No one's perfect, no even you, and no one can live up anyone's ideal as to how a spiritually mature man -- an elder -- ought to conduct himself. How often have you been disappointed in yourself, or in other's imperfections? Why exempt the elders when they are more likely to reveal the many imperfections they have to so many in the congregation, due to the fact that they deal with so many more people in the congregation than you do? Put any elder under a microscope, and if they aren't the kind that do most things in stealth, but more openly, you will have much to gossip about for many years, and if you are admonished to put all such gossip away from you and you persist, discipline is warranted even if you should want a slap on the wrist for making a fuss and don't want to be shunned for awhile.

  Why does there need to be such control in the first place? This only goes to show something is not normal and morally wrong among JW's in general.

  Every school I've attended is controlled by a school board of some kind. A single school board might control 20 or more schools in a particular district or city for which it provides organization and oversight. Each school governed by this school board is staffed by teachers and administrative staff, as well as other employees (e.g., janitors, cafeteria workers, and so forth). Grades are recorded and sent from each of these schools to the school board itself, and matters involving the students and faculty are typically handled by the school board.

  With over 105,000 congregations for which the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses provides oversight though 118 branch offices, each congregation needs to be organized for the preaching work we do since we must produce and distribute literature in 236 lands and islands of the sea to help each congregation serve the territories to which they have been assigned. Without such control, without such organization, we would be less efficient and there would be much chaos with everyone doing their own thing.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  At any rate, Jehovah's Witnesses don't do polls

  @Anony Mous wrote:

  Obviously they do. They just don't tell people like you.

  Ok.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  they ... have to be "reminded" to turn in their field service reports every month.

  @Anony Mous wrote:

  Why the high pressure and control to account for someone's actions? Can't you see there is something going wrong that you have to account for your hours to a religious organization, organizations that are supposed to better someone and make them feel good?

  Jehovah's organization isn't set up to make anyone feel good. It is set up to proclaim the good news of the kingdom of God that was preached by Jesus and his apostles during the first century AD, as well as to proclaim the good news of the established kingdom of God as well as to warn others as to the coming "day of vengeance on the part of our God" so that they will be prepared spiritually for what's coming. The field service reports help certain departments to know what literature needs to be printed and how best to use what resources we have to address the local needs of the people to whom we preach anywhere in the world.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  We mark these off as publishers, which, of course, decreases the number of Kingdom proclaimers, but allows us to focus on helping new ones to become better ministers to all....

  @Anony Mous wrote:

  That's the new attitude towards those that are weak in the faith? Where do you follow Jesus' command to leave behind the 99 sheep to go look for 1? That is the most callous comment I've ever heard an elder make

  You here refer to Jesus' words at Luke 15:4-7. We have always endeavored to make assessment of those with whom we are studying the Bible after about six months, because we do not wish to waste time with anyone that doesn't appreciate the seriousness of the message we preach. If any baptized brother or sister in the congregation should be weak in their faith, they know that they should reach out to a mature brother or sister in the congregation or reach out to one of the elders so that someone may be assigned to study with them as to those matters that may be adversely affecting their faith. We should not be intruding into anyone's personal life, since it is our endeavor to build others up spiritually.

  While elders are there to give special attention to those in the congregation that need it, they are not mind-readers, and if we should learn that one of the sheep should stray by making questionable decisions that has impacted them spiritually or if one should become infirm so that they may not be able to attend meetings for several months, we would do what we can to help the person stay abreast of the spiritual things being discussed at the meetings. But if anyone should decide that they are no longer interested in serving Jehovah by their conduct, we cannot help someone that doesn't want to be helped, and so, in that case, we will use our time to concentrate on the spiritual needs of the "99."

  @djeggnog wrote:

  If anyone claiming to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses should not be politically neutral in such matters, or should have his or her own "gospel," where he or she bashes or treats anyone either disrespectfully or with contempt because someone is "gay," such persons would be disqualified from recognition as Jehovah's Witnesses no matter what the percentage, and no such person can be counted as a publisher as long as such a person demonstrates a bias against those for whom Christ died on the basis of someone's race, sexual preference, etc.

  @Anony Mous wrote:

  Again, why the control over someone's personal ideas and attitudes? The matter is also not political, it's biological. Being gay or accepting someone for who they are is normal behavior. Something's seriously wrong with you if you think otherwise.

  You cannot be one of Jehovah's Witnesses and not be politically neutral. To engage in spiritual adultery would constitute unfaithfulness to God and dishonor to our king, the Lord Jesus Christ, and contrary to what you believe, gay marriage -- the issue to which I was referring -- is a political issue. What I was saying is that because Jehovah's Witnesses have no opinion on the issue of whether gay marriage should be approved or disapproved, we would not bash or treat anyone disrespectfully or with contempt because they were "gay." You cannot be one of Jehovah's Witnesses or an unbaptized publisher of the kingdom of God and a bigot. I am neither qualified nor prepared to discuss with you what is normal behavior and what isn't normal behavior for anyone, and, in Christ, I don't need to know such things to fully accomplish my ministry.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  but we take no position on any of the world's political affairs, because Jehovah's Witnesses are still 100% neutral.

  @Anony Mous wrote:

  Everyone does take a position regardless of what they might think. To deny yourself this is called cognitive dissonance. JW's are not 100% neutral as has become very clear from these and other polls (such as those from the Pew forum). I was a JW for almost 30 years and was never 100% politically neutral and there was none that was ever neutral. But then again, this is not a political issue as much as it is an issue to accept someone who is different from you.

  Accepting someone that might behave differently from me is rather easy for me; I love talking to people, no matter what their background, ancestry or race or sexual orientation. As I told you, I do not take a position on any of the world's political affairs. This might be hard for some to do, but not hard at all for me to do. I take positions on many things on a variety of topics, but, like I said, when it comes to political issues, I'm 100% neutral.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  Buchanan claims Jehovah's Witnesses are 12% "ok" with gay behavior, but what politically active Witness did Buchanan poll? In a 2-1 decision, the Ninth Circuit struck down the gay-marriage ban in California called "Proposition 8, "ruling that the Prop 8 ban against same-sex couples marrying to be unconstitutional, thus removing the ban, but electing not to touch the larger question of whether gay marriage is legal under the California Constitution. But this development is not our business; we have no opinion.

  @Anony Mous wrote:

  You don't have to be politically active to be polled in a sociological study. The question about accepting others for who they are is not political in nature, it's a natural socialogical question and we should wonder why anyone does NOT accept someone who is gay into their midst. Where did Jesus say to shun the gays? Or shun anyone at all?

  @metatron made reference to something in Buchanan's book about "growing acceptance of homosexuality amidst religions," but I wasn't addressing that issue at all. I merely point out that he could not have gotten that 12% number by polling Jehovah's Witnesses, since we don not participate in anything of a political nature, like polls. Also, I should point out that I don't care what you think to be true: I'm telling you that I don't shun gays and neither do Jehovah's Witnesses

  Again, bullshit, cognitive dissonance. Everybody has an opinion on everything.

  As far as the ruling in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, Jehovah's Witnesses wouldn't have an opinion since we don't have anything at all to do with voting or ballot propositions. It is what it is.

  Most JW's don't have their OWN opinions, they have the opinion of the 7 blind men that lead them in darkness, which you could be quite accurate by saying the JW's have no opinions, they are blinded slaves.

  Jehovah's Witnesses have opined that because they are like Christ in being no part of world that we would not lend our opinion to whatever any of the governments of the world might be doing, except where what these governments are doing might impact our brothers and sisters living under such governments and affect the work that we, as Christians, are obliged to do.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  [I]f nothing at all were to happen after two weeks, California would then be able to resume the issuance of marriage licenses to gay couples desirous of solemnizing their coupleship/partnership through marriage.... Like all Jehovah's Witnesses in the world, the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses has no opinion either.

  @Anony Mous wrote:

  If they have no opinion then they will allow gay marriages in their kingdom halls I suppose? You are full of it DJ, you have no idea what you just wrote. You are spewing the GB propaganda that JW's have no opinions and are strictly neutral which has been disproven over time (see the UN [debacle, their repeated involvement with the courts etc.)

  Jehovah's Witnesses do not perform gay marriages in any of our Kingdom Halls. The idea of presiding over such an event in God's spiritual temple is repugnant to me and would be repugnant to all Jehovah's Witnesses. I was merely saying that you would find that none of Jehovah's Witnesses in the world, including our Governing Body, would have an opinion as to whether the government should marry same-sex couples. Unbelievers can do what they wish outside of God's congregation.

  As far as NGOs are concerned, Jehovah's Witnesses need to make certain compromises from time to time about which you might hear, but not really understand the reasons why these compromises are made, but our registering with the UN gives us the right to appeal to the UN when need be should the human rights of our brothers and sisters be denied in any UN member state over which the UN holds sway and does not violate our Christian neutrality or alter our neutral stance.

  Just as we would not want to consign any of our brothers and sisters to many years of incarceration or even a premature death, draft age young men here in the US would register for selective service, but they were conscientious objectors and resolved to remain neutral. We do not wish to consign any of our brothers and sisters to criminal penalties for failing to register with the Selective Service, for their registration does not violate their Christian neutrality nor does such a compromise alter their neutral stance.

  Obviously you have formed an opinion because you are compelled to answer on the subject. Your opinions may be formed by the GB which say "no gays" like they said "no blacks" in the past. They'll come around in a couple of decades. But to say they are neutral on the subject (which means they would accept gays or leave it up as a "[conscience] matter") is false.

  Ok.

  @djeggnog
• 
  48

  12% of JWs Think Gay Is OK? Really?

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i was reading pat buchanan's book, "suicide of a superpower".

  on page 71, he speaks about the growing acceptance of homosexuality amidst religions.

  he claims that 12% of jw's think gay behavior is ok.. really?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  metatron:

  I was reading Pat Buchanan's book, "Suicide of a Superpower". On page 71, he speaks about the growing acceptance of homosexuality amidst religions. He claims that 12% of JW's think gay behavior is OK. Pat Buchanan is a Catholic that evidently is of the belief that Jehovah's Witnesses are a part of mainstream Christianity, which is odd since Buchanan used to know that Jehovah's Witnesses didn't vote or participate in political polls, which is the only sure way that he could possibly have been able to come up with such as figure as 12%. Whether the number should be 2% or 50% of those identifying themselves as Jehovah's Witnesses that thought gay behavior to be ok is really not the point, for of all of the Catholic women polled, some 58% of them support a requirement that health insurance plans should provide preventive services, including contraception, which includes birth control, despite the resolute teachings against the use of contraception by church leaders, and some 98% of Catholic women polled have admitted using birth control. Speaking of birth control, I might digress here a bit to point out that women with polycystic ovarian syndrome have an increased risk of endometrial cancer, ovarian cancer and cysts, as well as an increased risk of strokes and heart attacks, which is why younger women that are not sexually active (unmarried Jehovah's Witnesses, for example) use birth control pills every month. They also use them as a way to regulate their periods, which is something that fathers, like myself, didn't know and needed to learn like everyone else that were of the belief that birth control pills only served one purpose. Menstrual cramps, menstrual bleeding, mood swings (PMS), estrogen production, acne are relieved by those that are able to use birth control pills (although not all women can). Unreasonable suspicions, malicious gossip and, yes, the occasional witch hunts prompted by unwarranted speculation and ignorance by well-meaning elders are fewer in congregations having informed elders with one or more teenage daughters in the family. At any rate, Jehovah's Witnesses don't do polls, but they would be the ones that are actively engaged in the work of Kingdom preaching; they are not the ones that claim to be Jehovah's Witnesses, but who have to be "reminded" to turn in their field service reports every month. We mark these off as publishers, which, of course, decreases the number of Kingdom proclaimers, but allows us to focus on helping new ones to become better ministers to all, regardless of someone's sexual orientation, regardless of what the law might be for same-sex couples living in Massachusetts, DC, Washington or California. If anyone claiming to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses should not be politically neutral in such matters, or should have his or her own "gospel," where he or she bashes or treats anyone either disrespectfully or with contempt because someone is "gay," such persons would be disqualified from recognition as Jehovah's Witnesses no matter what the percentage, and no such person can be counted as a publisher as long as such a person demonstrates a bias against those for whom Christ died on the basis of someone's race, sexual preference, etc. Jehovah's Witnesses do need to stay abreast of what things are going on in the world if we want to be more effective as ministers, but we take no position on any of the world's political affairs, because Jehovah's Witnesses are still 100% neutral. Really? And where are these self identified Jehovah's Witnesses who think that gay is OK? Is the Governing Body worried about this ? California congregations, I'll bet. That's a good question you just posed. Buchanan claims Jehovah's Witnesses are 12% "ok" with gay behavior, but what politically active Witness did Buchanan poll? In a 2-1 decision, the Ninth Circuit struck down the gay-marriage ban in California called "Proposition 8, " ruling that the Prop 8 ban against same-sex couples marrying to be unconstitutional, thus removing the ban, but electing not to touch the larger question of whether gay marriage is legal under the California Constitution. But this development is not our business; we have no opinion. Of course, it follows that there will be at least two weeks before same-sex marriages can resume in California, in order to give the losing side time to seek a rehearing in the Ninth Circuit, which is likely, or to file an appeal in the US Supreme Court, which the SCOTUS might refuse to hear, which is also likely. Since the California Supreme Court cannot make laws -- only the California Legislature can do that -- before Prop 8 was passed, the Court had ruled that you cannot treat gay couples as if they were second-class citizens, which is what gave rise to Prop 8 in the first place, so that a provision was added to the California Constitution making it unconstitutional for anyone but a man and a woman to marry in the state of California. The effect of this ruling by the Ninth Circuit this past Tuesday (February 7, 2012) now that this provision added to the California Constitution is now gone is that if nothing at all were to happen after two weeks, California would then be able to resume the issuance of marriage licenses to gay couples desirous of solemnizing their coupleship/partnership through marriage, but why pick on the Witnesses in California? Like all Jehovah's Witnesses in the world, the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses has no opinion either. @djeggnog [posted from my iPad using Atomic Web with "Browser Identified As" setting of "Internet Explorer 8," and not "Default - Mobile Safari"]
• 
  52

  now wat??

  by xtreemlyconfused17 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  aloha everyone...................please do help if u can.

  hope u dont get bored reading this quite long text

  i'l soon be 17, i'm an unbaptized publisher, but innactive (havent gone door to door)for more than a year, but still very strict with our organisation's standards (lyk no teenage dating).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @diamondiiz:

  While JW will warn you against research and give you ridiculous answers like Jerusalem being destroyed in 607 because 537-70=607 you owe it to yourself to do actual research what history and archeology shows. You owe it to yourself to research what Russell taught regards to 606 and why did he teach 606 was Jerusalem's destruction because it had nothing to do with Jews returning to Israel but rather that Cyrus conquered Babylon in 536BC. Do your research without fear.

  This is a stupid thing for you to say. I said nothing about the Jews returning to Israel in 537 BC. Whatever became of the whole of Israel, the Jews returned the land of Judea -- Judea not BIG Israel (relatively speaking). You might do well to get yourself a map of this region, for it was to this small 50 mile x 30 mile (80 km x 50 km) portion of what used to be a part of Israel, called "Judea," that the former Babylonian exiles returned. This province, along with that of the provinces of Galilee, Perea and Samaria, was called "Palestine," and this region, which came under the control of the Roman government, is where together Jesus and his apostles preached (except for Samaria).

  You here have advised this young man "to research what Russell taught," but Russell's chronology, which was repeated by Rutherford, was overruled by Knorr in 1943 with the release of the book, The Truth Shall Make You Free, which explains how it was that Russell had reckoned in his chronology that there were "five hundred eighty" years until Solomon became the king of Israel in his reading of 1 Kings 6:1, how he had viewed the "four hundred eighty" years stated in this verse to have been a copyist error, and so included an additional 100 years in his chronology, thus calculating Adam's creation to be in 4128 BC and, allowing an arbitrary two years for sin's entrance, went on to determine the year 1874 AD as marking the end of 6,000 years of mankind's existence on earth.

  Russell's chronology allowed for a zero year, when such didn't exist, so that The Truth Shall Make You Free book not only did away with the inclusion of such and with this arbitrary two years, which moved his chronology from 4128 BC to 4126 BC, but also subtracted another 100 years from Russell's chronology, moving 4126 BC to 4026 BC. Then another adjustment needed to be made for our reading of Genesis 7:6 was in error in that we considered Noah to have been "six hundred years old," but when compared to what Genesis 7:11 states, which refers to Noah's "six hundredth year," we have instead an ordinal number, meaning that Noah was 599 years old and approaching his 600th birthday when the global deluge began, thus the need to subtract one more year from our Bible chronology moving 4026 BC to 4025 BC. What @xtreemlyconfused17 should fear is listening to you distort what things I said to him.

  ps. Don't let anyone tell you, you're too young to understand. Watchtower is deceitful and it trains [its] followers to be stupid, that's one reason why higher education is looked down upon.

  If I am someone that has had a college education and has earned a degree, does this mean in your opinion that someone whose education was limited to high school makes them for this reason inadequate to discuss this topic? I'm going to assume here that you have yourself obtained a college education because I don't want to hear any excuses from you as to why you cannot comprehend what I'm saying to you here. I never said to @xtreemlyconfused17 that he's "too young to understand" what things he has been taught by Jehovah's Witnesses. I never suggested to the young man that he should not consider higher education, which in my opinion would qualify him to earn an income exceeding that of a high school graduate should he decide to marry and have one or more children.

  Many Jehovah's Witnesses today are in the pioneer work, but it's clear me to me that in the early 70s, some didn't much care about themselves or their families, since they knew that their circumstances wouldn't permit them to get married, let alone have children, with only a high school diploma, if they even had one, and yet some didn't really listen, and heard what they only wanted to hear, namely, that 'the year 1975 is approaching and this system of things is fast coming to an end, and so, if one's circumstances permit it, wouldn't it be better to enter the full time ministry?'

  Of course, no one knew the day or hour, but no attention at all was given by some Jehovah's Witnesses to their doing the necessary things that would enable one to raise a family should Armageddon not come as soon as we had hoped, and so if one had never completed high school, or never earned a college degree, we would have married people earning only what people with no diploma or people with no college degree could earn in order to take care of four, five, six ... children. Ridiculous, yes, but these all had to learn the hard way the meaning of the words "if one's circumstances permit it," and the folly of getting so emotionally caught up due to speculation over dates.

  Now those who got their high school diplomas and those that earned a college degrees did better income-wise than those that did not think these things to be very important, but some did return to school and learned a skill and some others went on to earn a degree and they are doing a little better now. If you were one of those that looked down upon higher education, then what else can I say; in hindsight, you realize that you were foolish. But no one is trained to be stupid; in fact, many Jehovah's Witnesses today have worked as doctors and lawyers for 30, 40, 50 years or more.

  You're not 10 anymore, you can figure things out if you simple research. One thing you'll notice ex-JW will encourage you to research, and think, to examine what historians and archeologists have found while witnesses won't.

  The OP is 16 years old and I happen to think research to be a good thing. I don't believe you would find too many Jehovah's Witnesses begrudging anyone from doing research, and the distribution of the Watchtower Library on cdrom encourages research, since many of the articles include references and footnotes to historical sources for those desirous of obtaining more detail than provided in the cdrom itself. What you might consider to be "research" may not be viewed as such by others, for you are not just referring to what historians or archaeologists have written, no, but you are referring to the mouthings of folks that have never attended college and may not have even completed high school, that they themselves to be more qualified to teach things about what Jehovah's Witnesses teach, which isn't research at all. It's bad-mouthing us for the things we teach with which you don't agree. How do you figure that someone that comes to a website and reads such dissenting views constitute "research" into that which is of historical or archaeological interest?

  @xtreemlyconfused17:

  its Tanzania in East Africa

  Ok, thanks.

  U havent encouraged me to do more research

  Neither have I discouraged you from doing so.

  u [advised] me to not answer the PMs

  Yes, I did, for a PM is like entering a private room with someone where no one else can observe what's taking place in it, and with your being only 16 years old, I'm sure it is improper for you to be having a private discussion with an adult that you do not know, which is not unlike getting into a car with a stranger just because he asked you to do so. The internet is not safe.

  and u just sound like my mum, 'i'm TOO young'.

  Well, at 16 years old, you're not an adult, and to put this in another way: You're probably too young to be getting baptized while there are those that would disagree with me and allow a 10-, 11- or 12-year old to get baptized, when a 10-, 11- or 12-year-old is too young in my opinion to dedicate themselves to make up their bed when they get up in the morning. Perhaps your mother knows why you have not yet been baptized, but I've got children older than you are, so I speak from experience when I say that based upon what you have said here, you are too young to be baptized and become one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

  And if i'm not a witness y do the elders call me to ask for reports?

  If anyone is approved as an unbaptized publisher, he or she would be expected to report the time spent in the ministry the same as those who are baptized publishers, but someone that refers to an unbaptized publisher as "brother" or "sister" in the congregation is according you with honor, for only baptized publishers would deservedly be called "brother" or "sister," for only baptized publishers are considered to be Jehovah's Witnesses. For one thing, if the need arises for you to receive discipline by the elders, you can neither be reproved or disfellowshipped, since while Jehovah's Witnesses can be reproved or disfellowshipped, unbaptized publishers cannot because they are not Jehovah's Witnesses.

  are what they're saying all lies???

  Bible study involving not just studying the Bible, but doing research in order to prove to yourself what is or isn't true. You must prove the truth to yourself; no one can do this for you.

  thanx for the answers to my questions but thats the problem, giving me [answers] with [reference] to watchtower publications only

  You asked me three (3) questions:

  (1) [D]o the anointed around the world communicate?

  (2) [Which] is the most correct year for the fall of Jerusalem?

  (3) Where Paul's letters inspired by the holy spirit?

  I have been one of Jehovah's Witnesses for many years, so I didn't need to use Watchtower publications to answer any of these questions. I learned the answers to things questions many years ago, but it is true that I learned many of the things I believe today from having consulted Watchtower publications many years ago.

  (n am [not allowed] to look for more info on other [sources])

  You certainly would do well to consult as many external sources as you feel you need to determine the answer to whatever question you might have.

  n i dont think i'm too young to reason

  I think your ability to reason is not as sound as it will be when you are a few years older than you are at the moment. You cannot really believe that you are competent enough to make adult decisions when you probably have never earned enough money to be able to take care of yourself in the way that your mother takes care of you now, and you certainly aren't old enough to know how you would be able to marry someone and raise children. Your ability to reason will improve over time as you grow in maturity, but at your age, I think you would do well to concentrate on education and on learning how to spell words better and how to communicate better.

  I'm sending u a PM thou djeggnog doesnt [approve] of it

  It's not only that I don't approve of you sending anyone a PM, but I just don't think it appropriate for a child to be communicating on the internet with an adult that claims to be an elder, as if a mere claim is sufficient reason to disregard the guidelines that outline what is appropriate for an elder, since I can think of not a single reason why any elder would want to converse with a child that is not his own in secret, either at the elder's home or via a PM here on the internet, and without having first obtained the consent of at least one of that child's parents. I do think it to be improper for any adult to sequester himself or herself with a child that is not his or her own child, and so, contrary to what you might think, it is this of which I don't approve. You are a child.

  @djeggnog
• 
  52

  now wat??

  by xtreemlyconfused17 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  aloha everyone...................please do help if u can.

  hope u dont get bored reading this quite long text

  i'l soon be 17, i'm an unbaptized publisher, but innactive (havent gone door to door)for more than a year, but still very strict with our organisation's standards (lyk no teenage dating).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @xtreemlyconfused17:

  aloha everyone

  You mentioned "Tanzania"? I assume you didn't mean to write "Tarzana," as in Tarzana, California. Where exactly is Tanzania? Are you in Eastern Africa?

  please do help if u can.

  I'll try.

  [I'll] soon be 17, i'm an unbaptized publisher, but [inactive] (havent gone door to door)for more than a year, but still very strict with Our organisation's standards (lyk no teenage dating).

  You're 16 years old and because you've not been baptized, which means that you are not yet become one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

  recently i've been discoverin lotta shit. One minute u feel lyk in heaven, soo peaceful, from the bad guys, having wonderful hopes..........then the other u find out that ur under d devils seat himself!!!!! N the 'wonderful hopes'?? Perished in thin air. Its freakin scarey if u were a '[zealous]' JW so these two weeks i've been going through 'big [daddy's' forbidden] materials....a.k.a 'apostates' sites.

  I don't see the issue. In my opinion, at 16 years of age, you aren't old enough to be able to comprehend many of the things that you might read on the internet, so I wouldn't be surprised over someone your age becoming confused after they had read some of the things that have been uploaded to certain websites about the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses, some of these uploaded items having been uploaded by apostates, some of these items uploaded by folks that have become just as confused as you have become, and who have becoming stumbled over their not having been given satisfactory answers to their questions.

  It was very shocking for me i cant explain. This unusual fear just grew in me and i [really] have trouble sleeping at nite. I once woke up in d [middle] of the night crying and my mom had to work things out. I told her about [what] i've been reading, about the ex-bethelites experiences, ex-elders, d [disfellowshipped]

  While many of the folks that were formerly Jehovah's Witnesses had formerly served at Bethel, were formerly elders, former circuit overseers and former pioneers, none of those disfellowshipped from Jehovah's organization were unbaptized publishers like yourself, but perhaps you now have come to realize that you aren't ready to ready to digest the disparate viewpoints of disfellowshipped Jehovah's Witnesses, since evidently you are more accustomed to listening to the viewpoints of active Jehovah's Witnesses. Whatever it is you should decide to do, if you aren't ready to learn what others confused ones and those who have been disfellowshipped are saying about Jehovah's organization and the things that Jehovah's Witnesses teach, then you would be ill-advised to be reading the messages on JWN, no matter what your age,

  n i knew what to expect from her as i'm a JW too........mum was like 'u know we are not [supposed] to read anything involved with the apostates, y did u?

  No, as an unbaptized publisher, you are not yet one of Jehovah's Witnesses, but, in my opinion, your mother was correct to tell you that you should avoid reading things that have been uploaded to websites by former Jehovah's Witnesses, who are now apostates. You may not agree with what your mother said, but I agree with her.

  I should take ur phone from u. Just look at urself now' i was very emotional at the time so that was it with mum. so i had found out this Barbara Anderson.....this Fred Franz........these sites where ex bethelites talked of their 'very sad and unfair' experiences

  I'm familiar with Barbara Anderson's work, but you mentioned Fred Franz: Did you mean "Fred Franz," or did you have in mind Ray Franz?

  the 'forever changing doctrines'........the 1914 fiction.........the apostle Pauls 'personal opinions guiding christians' (WHICH IS D BIGGEST BLOW TO ME cuz thats like the foundation of everything)................ ITS MINDBLOWING!!!!!

  I'm pretty sure that the apostle Paul didn't write his own personal opinions, but wrote what things we read today in the Bible because he was moved by God's holy spirit to write those 14 books that he is credited with writing in the Bible. However, Jehovah's organization is a progressive organization, and whether you had heard this said before or not, I will just say that the doctrines that Jehovah's Witnesses teach are not static, but are subject to change as we make adjustments in our viewpoint.

  Like, for example, @xtreemlyconfused17, how many people do you know today that still refer to Pluto as if it were a planet? Before February 18, 1930, Pluto was reckoned as "Planet X," but this astronomical knowledge wasn't static data, for on August 23, 2006, the International Astronomical Union voted in the Prague to strip Pluto of its status as a planet, people have a progressive understanding of Pluto, and so, as our knowledge of the universe increased, we have came to refer to Pluto as a "dwarf planet."

  So whereas the world reckoned Mars, Venus, Earth, Mercury, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto ("My Very Educated Mother Just Sent Us Nine Pizzas") to be planets, there has been a change in astronomical dogma so that after August 23, 2006, these nine planets became eight planets ("My Very Elderly Mother Just Sits Up Nights"). Things that Jehovah's Witnesses might think to be static may have to change as our knowledge of the Bible increases or, to put this in another way, 'as the light gets lighter.' Christendom's doctrines like its teaching of the trinity is static, but the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses are dynamic as we gain a progressive understanding of the Bible, for example as to the generation of the sign to which Jesus referred at Matthew 24:34, which Jehovah's Witnesses used to refer to as "the generation of 1914."

  No one is required to accept the adjustments made to the doctrines preached by Jehovah's Witnesses; in fact, many of the people to whom Jehovah's Witnesses have never heard or learned what Jehovah's Witnesses believe. It is only those Jehovah's Witnesses that have had to make adjustments to how we understood certain Bible doctrines that seem to be the ones resistant to making these necessary changes and some of them have left our ranks due to their unwillingness to accept our new understanding of the these Bible doctrines, which is their right to do.

  I had rested my [everything] on this 'Gods Organisation'!!! I aaaalways dreamnt of having kids......raising them to be one of Jahs people......NOW WAT??? I Cannot think of any other religion i could raise my kids in!!! N I SOOO DNT WANT TO BE A PAGAN.........SO NOW WAT???? [At least] now my [conscience] will let me [marry] a non-JW (n definately not turn down teen dates offers [anymore] lol)...........but then where will i be going for worship? [At least] just on Sundays???

  You should really have been rested your hope on Jehovah God, not on God's organization. Be that as it may, there is no command in the Bible that says, "Thou shalt not marry a non-Jehovah's Witnesses." But there is a kindly admonition in the Bible, penned by the apostle Paul, that if a Christian should decide to marry, he or she they should do so "only in the Lord," but I'm sure you would have learned this already. There is no reason that you should ignore the counsel that you heard regarding teen dating, because if such dating should lead to your becoming a teen father, it will be too late at the time to have paid heed to the counsel that you will have ignored, so you would be wise to don't do it.

  It's more likely than not that should you have any children of your own, they will follow your example and not be taught by Jehovah, and their future prospects for life would be dim because of the decision that you yourself made to leave off from actively association with Jehovah's organization. If now, after reading something on some website written by a stranger that is in conflict with what you learned in association with Jehovah's Witnesses, your conscience permits you to marry someone that is not one of Jehovah's Witnesses, then the risks inherent in your not marrying "only in the Lord" would be your own.

  I do wonder though why it is you would trust a stranger to have your best interests at heart, but if you are allowed, at 16 years old, to make your own decisions, then I suppose it is your right, no matter what I might think about your posting messages to JWM, to decide against your own best interests, @xtreemlyconfused17.

  I still [believe] in lots of WT teachings............BUT I HAAVE TO BUILD A FOUNDATION FOR MY FUTURE.......but i just dont 'fully' trust the WT anymore so i was seeking advice. What did u do?? If u left the organisation [where] did u go to?? Anybody my age mates in here?? What r u going to do??

  There are no children actively posting messages here on JWN, but some have in the past posted messages to this website; most of the people that post to JWN are adults, so if someone here should send you a personal message, which some might call a "PM," don't read it, but if you should decide to read the PM, it would not be wise to give anyone any personal information about you, including your mother's name, your home address or telephone number since the people here, including me, are strangers to you. If you are asked to PM someone, don't do it. Some of the people here do not know Jehovah and you cannot know who here might cause you harm if you should befriend them or interact with them using Facebook or on one of the internet chatrooms.

  If you feel you cannot trust the counsel given by Jehovah's Witnesses any longer, there are many other places of worship where you might decide you want to worship, but these "other places of worship" may not worship Jehovah as God as you have learned to do, but may worship Jesus as God. If your Bible-trained conscience allows you to change your doctrines to accord with the ones being taught in Christendom, then you will probably be ok attending one of Christendom's churches, although I would advise against your doing this if your goal is to build on a firm foundation, if your goal is to build your future on Jesus Christ, the chief cornerstone of God's spiritual temple.

  I wrote down a number of questions (eg, do the anointed around the world communicate?

  The anointed are human beings just like you and I, who distinguish themselves from us because they have a heavenly hope, whereas we have an earthly hope, but they communicate with other people that same as everyone else does using the telephone, email, letters and by their regularly gathering together in worship with other Jehovah's Witnesses in the world.

  [Which] is the most correct year for the fall of Jerusalem?

  By subtracting 70 years from 537 BC, the year when the Jews had repatriated the land of Judah, we can deduce based on the Bible, Josephus and the Nabonidus Chronicle that the land of Judah had been made to lie desolate by Babylon on or about Tishri 1, 3155 AM, September 27, 607 BC, Julian, September 20, 607 BC, Gregorian, so 607 BC would be the specific year in which Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians.

  Where Paul's letters inspired by the holy spirit?

  Yes, they were; Paul was privileged to write 14 of the books that have become a part of the 66-book Bible canon.

  @djeggnog
• 
  66

  Is my marriage worth saving?

  by sacdfan in

  1. social
  2. relationships

  long story - will make it short - i was a jw for 4 years.

  hy husband took to it straigt away and has been a jw for 20 years - we were both converted by one of his workmates.

  our 4 kids were all baptised jws and thankfully 3 escaped (2 disfellowshipped, one fading) - so my eldest son is still in with his dad.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @its_me!:

  I do have a bias against you....

  Yes, and I knew this, which is the reason I said what I did in my previous post, but that's ok. I don't come to JWN to make friends, and I would not want you to behave in any other manner toward my ilk, since pretending to be tolerant or at least friendly to a stranger would be hypocritical and thus exposes a character flaw. No, your bias toward me is consistent with the kind of individual you are and desire to be, and I would not expect you to be anything more than who you are as a person.

  You think that you are helping lurkers on this site to perhaps turn back to the JW religion with the kinds of posts you make?

  My answer may surprise you, but no. My hope is that those lurking the threads to which I have posted here on JWN will come to realize on their own that much of their discontent is not so much with the "Borg" itself, but with the very human failings that all of us have, including the failings that many of our elders in the local congregation have.

  It is often the case that the perceived contempt with which some elders are culpable is due to their never having learned the finesse they need in order to treat the people they call "Brother" or "Sister" as they would a member of their own family. (It's sad that some elders are seen to treat the flock better than they do members of their own family, whether these family members be in the truth or not, and as the OP has revealed about her husband, who is not an elder, he tends to treat people in the congregation better than he does his own wife.)

  While neither you nor I may be marriage counselors and none of the elders should not be pretending to be such, those of us having a wife or a husband and/or one or more children have gained valuable life experience and spiritual perspective, which can prove to be beneficial to those believing themselves to be in "bad" marriages should we elect to provide spiritual counsel to those asking for help. But to be effective in this regard, such counselors must remain emotionally detached, for where physical abuse or child abuse by a parent are concerned, such are criminal matters that should, in my opinion, be reported immediately to the authorities, lest the anger or mental illness manifest in one of the parties escalate and lead to serious injury or death.

  No one knows what's really going on in someone else's marriage; the OP whose marriage woes is the subject of this thread has told us that even she has no idea what's really going on with her husband or what it was that persuaded him to treat her as if his wife were invisible. I have made a few suggestions to @sacdfan that could open up to her an opportunity to have a dialogue with her husband in an attempt to learn what's going on with him, but I don't believe it appropriate for me, or for anyone, to interfere in someone else's marriage.

  A suggestion is one thing, but to insinuate oneself into someone's marriage offends Jehovah, who has only vested husbands with authority over their own wives. Marriages are real living things that differ from another based on the two unique individuals that were joined in wedlock, and because no one can live up to a decision made by someone else, only the two parties that were joined in matrimony bear responsibility for the decisions made in them.

  Spiritual shepherds would not want to learn the intimate personal details of a couple's marriage through the party emotionally affected and willing to tell all, for this could prove to be spiritually damaging to the other party if such were shared without the mutual consent of both parties. Since what is learned may be embarrassing to the other party and cannot be unlearned, a professional marriage counselor may be better equipped to handle sensitive details. This is why I never go there.

  Quite frankly, I've found many of the comments made in this thread to be offensive, since they presume a power with which human beings have not been endowed by Jehovah, since we aren't equipped to direct our own steps, let alone the steps in someone else's marriage! Of course, Moses led the entire nation of Israel, but he had divine help to do so, and must patiently wait for Kingdom rule.

  And telling me there is nothing to win?

  My tongue was in my cheek when I wrote that, but I was saying that as far as arguments go, there is no argument to win here. I joined this thread in an attempt to help the OP by making a few suggestions that might lead to resolution of her problem. I had not sought to argue with anyone; I just wanted to make a helpful comment to the OP.

  Sorry to all again for not staying on topic.

  If you owe anyone an apology, it would be to the OP, but I believe @sacdfan will realize it was because of something I wrote that caused you to go off-topic. Right now she's looking for suggestions on how she ought to proceed, and if it is true that @sacdfan's husband is using his wife to help him get through school, she needs to confront him about his agenda. I can think of no valid reason though why the OP should be pressed to discuss what her "life situation" is with her husband, or asked to speculate how she might feel living as a single woman again. How would you feel were someone to pry details about your "life situation" with your husband?

  Jehovah hates divorce and, anyway, couples ought to view marriage as being more valuable than a house. (While over time, a house does require fixing or tweaking, and being a homeowner, I don't know anyone that would want to just walk away from their own home.) Perhaps you will be able to help the OP by providing a suggestion of your own, @its_me!

  So whether you should forever hate me or be forever disgruntled with Jehovah's organization, my hope is that you will not remain angry indefinitely. May our future outcomes will be met with only that which is best for each of us.

  @djeggnog
• 
  66

  Is my marriage worth saving?

  by sacdfan in

  1. social
  2. relationships

  long story - will make it short - i was a jw for 4 years.

  hy husband took to it straigt away and has been a jw for 20 years - we were both converted by one of his workmates.

  our 4 kids were all baptised jws and thankfully 3 escaped (2 disfellowshipped, one fading) - so my eldest son is still in with his dad.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @elderelite:

  As a truly serving elder i can tell you, one who is not serving, that elders do not have the "right" or "[privilege]" to talk to DF people. It is to be limited as it for all others. Being on this board is [WAY] outta line according the branches directions.

  You have indicated that you are an elder. Assuming this to be the case, then you can construct my response to your statement by conducting a search in the 2010 or 2011 cdrom using the string "elders bear the prime responsibility for exhorting disfellowshiped ones," and reading the sentence that contains these highlighted words. In addition, it might be good for you to familiarize yourself with what the third to last sentence of 1:2 states, as well as what the principle in the last sentence of 5:52 states. An elder would have no difficulty finding the above-referenced material.

  If you were an elder you would know that

  Here's what I think I know: You're someone that I'd call "a nominal elder," and all such are eventually deleted. BTW, you were off-topic the moment you decided to post a response to me, rather than to the OP.

  @mrsjones5:

  Damn, Eggnog took over another thread with his totally worthless demagoguery.

  What "demagoguery"? Do you not have anything at all positive to suggest to the OP or was it more important to you to troll me and, as a bonus, use a word whose meaning you don't quite understand? I'm sure you must have friends here that are gullible enough to think you to be clever. What exactly is preventing you from trolling one of them? BTW, you're also off-topic.

  @djeggnog
• 
  66

  Is my marriage worth saving?

  by sacdfan in

  1. social
  2. relationships

  long story - will make it short - i was a jw for 4 years.

  hy husband took to it straigt away and has been a jw for 20 years - we were both converted by one of his workmates.

  our 4 kids were all baptised jws and thankfully 3 escaped (2 disfellowshipped, one fading) - so my eldest son is still in with his dad.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @Ucantnome:

  No I don't think I was off topic.

  Ok.

  @its_me! wrote:

  And please ignore Jdeggnog's insensitive and asinine comments.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  I don't believe any of the comments I made here to the OP were either insensitive or asinine.

  @its_me! wrote:

  If he likes the Borg so much, he really shouldn't be on this site anyway.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  You have the right ... to share your opinion, but I don't give you the right to dictate what things I decide to do, whether here on JWN or elsewhere. Why do I have to like what things you like? You are apathetic about your life and certain people, and I simply cannot afford to be you. @Simon decides who may be a member on here and who may not be, not you. Actually, I've discovered quite a few nominal Christians that exchange posts here on JWN, who have never been Jehovah's Witnesses, so I see no reason why it is you feel Jehovah's Witnesses should not be permitted to post messages here unless (1) you are an apostate, and (2) you believe JWN to be an apostate-only website. Until @Simon should make JWN strictly an apostate-only website, you're going to have to accept the fact that I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses that posts messages here.

  @its_me! wrote:

  Apathetic about my life?

  Possibly, yes. It does seem to me that you have a lack of interest in your life, in your future, so apathy aptly describes what you said here.

  What makes you think that you are in a position to make that obviously WRONG assumption[?]

  I have lived a long time, met a lot of people, seen a lot of trees, and I made no assertion about you; just an observation about your outlook on life is all. As to whether I have standing or position in life to remark as I did, I am in a position to make those statements I made just as you have every right to make what remarks you made to me. I, like you, am an adult. I don't need permission from you to say what things I choose to say about your comments here on JWN and you are certainly free to disagree with my comments, @its_me!.

  Its clear that you like to voice your VERY long-winded opinions, but I don't want to hear them. I was speaking to sacd, and your comments were very insensitive.

  You were speaking to @sacdfan about me, which is why I addressed you directly in responding to what you wrote.

  Please don't address anymore posts to me. If you wish to slam my character, you may pm me. I didn't slam you as a person, only your comments.

  No, I see no need to PM you. You believed I slammed your character, that's fine, but you don't get to tell me not to address any more posts to you. You lose the right to ask me not to do so when you spoke slightingly about me to @sacdfan and for you to even think I would honor such a request from you does make you an interesting "character." I didn't slam your character, I spoke to your inability to comprehend what you read when you remarked that what I said to the OP was both "insensitive and asinine." Was your remark about me a "slam" against my character? No, it was just an opinion, and my response was just an opinion. You want to make this about something more than that, ok.

  And while you are defending the JW religion, you are breaking one of their most stringent laws for their followers by being on here. If it were to be found out that you had viewed this site, let alone frequented it, you would be cut off. I don't care that you are on this site, but don't expect everyone here to tiptoe around your ridiculous comments and say nothing about them when you offend.

  You certainly do care that I am on this site, for I noticed that the @sacdfan indicated in her post that is currently one of Jehovah's Witnesses herself, and has been such for four years, but you didn't say a thing to her about her being on JWN. You are totally fine with her being on here, so your bias against me is obviously what drove your remarks to the OP and what drives your remarks to me now. You're not fooling me or anyone else here. What I should have written above is this:

  "You have the right to share your opinion, but I don't give you the right to dictate to me what things I should or should not say or do, whether here on JWN or elsewhere. Why do I have to like what things you like? You may be apathetic about your life and certain people, but I simply cannot afford to be you. @Simon decides who may be a member on here and who may not be, not you."

  You are free to believe JWN to be an "apostates-only" website, but doesn't my presence here prove that you're wrong? that JWN is not just for apostates? What about the OP, who started this thread: Do you think @sacdfan to be an apostate simply because she started a thread on here with the hope of eliciting suggestions from folks as to what she might to do in the situation she described where her husband is treating her as if she doesn't matter?

  Look, @its_me!: Prove your contention that JWN is an "apostates-only" website and I'll leave, but if you should fail to prove your contention within the next 72 hours, then I need you to agree to leave off from posting anything else here on JWN for a minimum of 30 days, ok? Surely you'd have no problem whatsoever in agreeing to these terms as I have just laid them out, right? I am aware that some of the folks that use this forum are apostates, but one thing I know about you is that you have a bias, not against all Jehovah's Witnesses, but against me personally, but perhaps you will recall from the time you spent in association with Jehovah's Witnesses in the past that elders do speak to disfellowshipped persons all of the time, so why don't you let this go? There's nothing for you to win here.

  @djeggnog
• 
  66

  Is my marriage worth saving?

  by sacdfan in

  1. social
  2. relationships

  long story - will make it short - i was a jw for 4 years.

  hy husband took to it straigt away and has been a jw for 20 years - we were both converted by one of his workmates.

  our 4 kids were all baptised jws and thankfully 3 escaped (2 disfellowshipped, one fading) - so my eldest son is still in with his dad.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @Ucantnome:

  Just a thought on the Good news. The Apostle Paul said this.

  Why? You're off-topic. @Fernando had suggested to the OP that she should inquire of her husband as to whether he was able to explain the good news to "someone in the field ... in one word," and explained also how he had learned that "the phrase 'good news'" appeared in the Bible "±152 times," so I responded to his missive, in part, by humoring him and providing my definition of the "good news," but his response, like yours, was really off-topic, as neither you nor he seemed to think it important to respond to the OP's question: What should I do?

  At any rate, @Ucantnome, I just wanted to say "Boo" to you since what you posted was really illogical. You had made reference to the Proclaimers book, and then, asking quoting Galatians 1:6-9, you went on to quote the following from this book --

  "A real milestone was reached, therefore, in 1925, when The Watch Tower of March 1 ... presented ... evidence that the Messianic Kingdom had been born -- established -- in 1914, that Christ had then begun [to] rule on his heavenly throne, and that thereafter Satan had been hurled from heaven down to the vicinity of the earth. This was the good news that was to be proclaimed.... [¶] "The good news of God's Kingdom continues to be central to the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses...."

  -- which was followed by this comment from you:

  I think that this is different to the Good News that the apostle was preaching but maybe I'm wrong.

  Yes, it is different. The Proclaimers book is not discussing the good news from the standpoint of what was being preached during the first century AD, but discussing the good news from the standpoint of what was being preached during the 20th century when it first became apparent, in 1925, that the Messianic Kingdom had been born, that Christ had begun to rule and that Satan had but only a short period of time remaining. The point being made is that this was good news to Jehovah's Witnesses back in 1925, and that this good news in particular also needed to be proclaimed as well. Get it now? In case you didn't know, the Proclaimers book is a diary that relates the modern-day history of Jehovah's Witnesses leading up to when the good news began to be proclaimed as to the establishment of God's kingdom in 1914.

  Maybe you were once one of Jehovah's Witnesses in the past, but I would consider you to someone that may know how to read and pronounce the words on the page, but I'm not so sure that you accepted with alacrity the things you learned with respect to reading comprehension. Boo.

  @sacdfan:

  I can understand what you are saying, djeggnog, but he doesn't want to study with me. Even when I was attending meetings I had to practically force him to study.

  Ok; I cannot understand how your husband's not wanting to study with you may have made you feel, but would it be correct to say that you became one of Jehovah's Witnesses because he was one of Jehovah's Witnesses and because you loved him so much that you wanted to be his wife? I don't ask you what it was he might have told you at the time, but I'm just wondering if you really wanted to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses at all? Let me elaborate here just a bit, @sacdfan:

  Under the Law of Moses, there were some 613 commandments, which included the Ten Commandments, such as "Thou shalt not murder." "Thou shalt not lie...." Thou shalt not covet." However, when the law of Christ superseded the Law of Moses, the stern legalistic nature of God's commands came to an end and were replaced with kindly admonitions to right conduct like "let us not be judging one another any longer," 'let not a rotten saying proceed out of your mouth,' "abstain from fornication," 'a widow is free to be married to whom she wants, only in the Lord'; I hope I didn't lose you in making these comparisons.

  Over time, some Witnesses develop an "attitude" -- for lack of a better word -- where they start thinking God's commandments to be burdensome. They want to serve God, but they feel he's too strict. "Do you see what things I have to give up?" they say. "Do you see what things I cannot do? That is why I think these kindly admonitions from the Lord to be a burden, and that is why I'm not serving God fully."

  But when this attitude comes up, the first thing I would ask the Witness is, What things do you want to do? When it comes to things that are right, there is no restriction. If you want to be a loving person, God will let you be as loving as you want. If you want to be a merciful person? You can exhibit as much mercy as you want.

  But Jehovah God does place a limit on the freedom we have. If someone wants to do something hateful or evil, then naturally God is going to make a law and prohibit such conduct. If someone wants to have immoral relations with someone else's wife or husband, shouldn't God put a limit on that? If someone wants to break into your house to steal your tv, your iPod, your money, jewelry, or other valuables, shouldn't there be laws to protect you from what is indecent, laws to protect your property from being stolen, laws to protect your children from drug pushers that want to make your children drug dependent and drugs addicts? God's commandments really aren't a burden at all.

  If the reason your husband has been treating you so disrespectfully and disregarding his marriage with you should be because he is having an affair with someone else, you would then have to make a decision that is only yours to make: To forgive his unfaithful conduct toward you or to put him away and go your separate ways.

  I don't envy your decision and I hope you do not have to make such a decision in your marriage, but if I were having an affair and I got busted, I'm not going to lie: I would cry, I would beg, I would probably say whatever it is I thought would convince my wife to forgive my betrayal of her, because I really love her and I would have to have lost my mind to betray my Lord by cheating on her, and Jehovah would not be too pleased with me either since he knows that I "get" what he purposes to do. I don't see how I could ever cheat on my wife, but other brothers -- even elders -- that we have had to disfellowship from the congregation didn't think they could ever cheat on their wives either.

  It's sad to say his, but if your husband should be forced to confess to you that he has cheated -- and this is only talk, speculation, we don't know that he has done anything in this regard --- and he really loves you, then he's either going to be doing a lot of crying and begging himself, or you are going to have an uncontested divorce, which means you're going to have to endure maybe six months or a year or 18 months (I don't know!) of rebuilding your life as you try to figure out what it was you did wrong or what it is you could have done differently in order to have achieved a better result, when all you did was to accept the fact that he chose someone else to love.

  Of course, if it should turn out that he did cheat on you, you could hurt him by not divorcing him, which would prevent him from remarrying the woman he chose instead of you, but the downside of your spitefully not divorcing him and not forgiving him is that it's possible that you will have sexual needs that will have to go unfulfilled, and during this period of time you will not be free to remarry, which can make you vulnerable in two (2) foreseeable ways: (1) You can become vulnerable to a "one night stand" with your husband and forever foreclose your right to divorce him later since the resumption of sexual relations with a spouse would be viewed by the congregation as a sign that one has forgiven their spouse their adultery. (2) You can become vulnerable to a "one night stand" or an affair with someone that is not your husband, which would then give your husband scriptural grounds to divorce you for you failure to live up to your marriage vow.

  Again, I don't envy your decision, but people do change. You became one of Jehovah's Witnesses, which is a big change for someone to make a dedication to serve Jehovah as a disciple of Jesus, and get baptized in symbol of one's dedication, but if you should decide to disassociate yourself from Jehovah's Witnesses to study the Bible and worship God in another church, that would be a big change, too, for most Christian churches today worship Jesus as god and not Jehovah, and you could decide Christianity is not for you and you could end up in a Buddhist temple, a big change for someone that had formerly been one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

  Being a JW has not helped my marriage - it has had the opposite effect.

  Well, whether this is so remains to be seen, @sacdfan. Maybe through this experience, you have learned to be more tolerant of others, patient and understanding of the human condition; you may have come to learn things about yourself that you didn't know until now.

  He does all the right things in the hall, pioneers when he can, is a complete dogdbody, gets made up to MS pretty soon because from the outside he looks so good. I am being mean, I know, he is a good man deep down, but he seems as hard as nails.

  You can be mean, but don't lose your perspective. You may have to be the adult in the room should the need arise on your part to confront your husband in the future. In my opinion, even though I do not know your husband, if all that you have said is just as you have related it here, then even though he may be a "good man deep down," he hasn't been a good husband to you, he hasn't demonstrated to you that he loves you as much as he loves himself, which is just another one of those kindly admonitions to Christians found in the Bible that even if he hasn't cheated on you, he is at least guilty of ignoring this admonition.

  He told me this morning he is going witnessing in the wilds of Scotland (or was it Ireland?) in July or August for 2 weeks. He didn't even ask if I'd like to go. You see, djeggnog, he doesn't seem to care if I am getting weaker - shouldn't he be trying to save me - to encourage me or something? Why didn't he ask me if I want to go? When I said it was a bit unfair going off for 2 weeks without me (a bit like holidaying alone) he said I have the wrong mind set and I need to correct my thinking.

  Please don't be angry over what I am about to say, but, like you, I have a spouse, and if I wanted to go off somewhere for two weeks and I didn't ask my wife if she wanted to accompany me on such an outing, she would have the right to ask me if she could go with me. I could tell her, no, and she, in turn, could tell me that she is against my going away for two weeks by myself. She could object to my spending money for this trip-for-one, with the threat that upon my return from this trip to have given away or discarded everything in the house about which I care.

  Of course, you don't have to carry out your threat at all, but this would force him to discuss with you his apparent inability to make sound decisions that would mutually benefit the two of you, and the apparent abandonment of his marriage, the subject of this thread. You could stop caring about the things that he cares about and concentrate on those things about which only you care. If you do most of the cooking in the house, you could continue doing "the hard part," but only serve yourself while letting him do "the easy part," and serve himself. Remember the object of these suggestions is to force him to talk to you about the things he has been doing and has not been doing with you, which have taken their toll on you emotionally, and have made you feel unloved by him and married to a stranger.

  The last thing that you could do to force him to talk to you is to change the locks on all of the doors when he leaves on a day when you are planning to be home all day. Of course, this means that his keys to the house will not work so that he would have to talk to you on whatever topics you wish to discuss with him, albeit on the telephone. If he should decide to make a scene in an attempt to make you open the door to let him into the house, this would be unfortunate, but you can threaten to call one of the elders about the scene he is causing, and whether or not he causes a scene, you can ask that elder to call him on his cell phone to ask him to explain to you, his wife, why it is he is planning to go off for two weeks on a trip without including you in his plans, and this would then raise a question as to his fitness to serve as a auxiliary pioneer if he should not longer be viewed by the congregation as exemplary.

  Nothing that I have suggested here is criminal, and changing the locks on all of your own doors is not a criminal offense -- I have lost the keys to our home at least twice and have had to change the locks to all of the doors, once without her knowledge because I had been forced to leave a message on her cell phone about the locks being changed and she didn't turn on her cell phone to hear my message until after she had gotten home and was forced to ring the bell to enter her own home (since her keys didn't work) -- but if you want to force your husband to talk to you, you can make this happen. If you don't talk to your husband, you will never be able to figure out if your marriage is worth saving. Maybe once he is made to understand by you that he will no longer be permitted to take you for granted, you will force him to tell him his intentions toward you and toward his marriage.

  @its_me!:

  And please ignore Jdeggnog's insensitive and asinine comments.

  I don't believe any of the comments I made here to the OP were either insensitive or asinine.

  If he likes the Borg so much, he really shouldn't be on this site anyway.

  You have the right get to share your opinion, but I don't give you the right to dictate what things I decide to do, whether here on JWN or elsewhere. Why do I have to like what things you like? You are apathetic about your life and certain people, and I simply cannot afford to be you. @Simon decides who may be a member on here and who may not be, not you. Actually, I've discovered quite a few nominal Christians that exchange posts here on JWN, who have never been Jehovah's Witnesses, so I see no reason why it is you feel Jehovah's Witnesses should not be permitted to post messages here unless (1) you are an apostate, and (2) you believe JWN to be an apostate-only website. Until @Simon should make JWN strictly an apostate-only website, you're going to have to accept the fact that I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses that posts messages here.

  @djeggnog
• 
  66

  Is my marriage worth saving?

  by sacdfan in

  1. social
  2. relationships

  long story - will make it short - i was a jw for 4 years.

  hy husband took to it straigt away and has been a jw for 20 years - we were both converted by one of his workmates.

  our 4 kids were all baptised jws and thankfully 3 escaped (2 disfellowshipped, one fading) - so my eldest son is still in with his dad.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @Fernando:

  Great news that your faith is getting stronger!

  How do you figure that the OP's faith is getting stronger? Oh, wait: It was when you read the words in @sacdfan's post: I am a Christian ... and my faith is getting stronger, right? I read her post, too, and I concluded that her faith is being tested by what she perceives to have been her husband's untoward actions that have affected her marriage.

  What about getting him to see the light by means of the Watchtower library itself! Remember they claim to be "publishers of the good news"! (This phrase appears 257 times in the 2010 wt library – single and plural publisher/s)

  So to the question asked by the OP -- What should I do? -- you would suggest that she spar with her husband over his knowledge of the 2010 WT Library? Really?? Why that one? I have the 2010 version on my iPad and on my iPhone in iSilo format, but why would you not be suggesting the 2011 WT Library since it's the one that is now in circulation? Hmmm.

  If someone in the field asked you to explain what the "good news" is in one word how would you respond my dear? (it's a "message" but let him struggle with this so that he can repent of his ignorance and of following spiritually blind humans instead of Jesus)

  What makes you think someone that has been one of Jehovah's Witnesses for 20 years wouldn't be able to describe the good news "in one word"? Very recently, in another thread, I posted the following description of the "good news" based on Romans 3:24, but using instead the word "gospel":

  "The gospel is the message from Jehovah God that began to be preached by the Lord Jesus Christ as to how the whole world of mankind that had been born into a world in which they have had to learn the dire consequences that flow from sin would eventually be brought into the way of righteousness and given the privilege of securing for themselves the opportunity afforded us by the ransom paid by Jesus Christ, which not only pardoned us, but satisfied justice as well, and now enables all mankind to enjoy eternal life."

  If we searched in the Watchtower library on computer how many times do you think we would find the phrase "good news" in the Bible my dear? (±152 times, must use quotation marks when searching, then select "Bible" to display only search results in the Bible)

  I actually didn't need to find out how many hits I would get were I to search for the words, "good news," in the 2010 WT Library or in the 2011 WT Library); I've been proclaiming the good news for more than half of my life as an ambassador (or envoy), publishing it to folks young and old, both inside and outside the congregation without the need to do a word count. I don't believe the OP's question -- What should I do? -- can be satisfied by a word count. This is my opinion. I don't know what it was about this thread that made you want to dazzle the OP by letting her know how adroitly you are with the 2010 WT Library, and I'm amazed with the prowess you evidently have with doing such proximity searches with this cdrom. However -- how would Jesus say this? -- this thread isn't about you, Peter @Fernando. So what do you opine as to the OP's question?

  Do you happen to have any suggestions as to what the OP might do to salvage what's left of her marriage that might maybe help her to get it back on the tracks and prevent shipwreck? (I love mixed metaphors.) @sacdfan has been one of Jehovah's Witnesses for four years and yet she's thinking that reserving a seat at "the table of demons" could possibly save her marriage. Other than word counts, do you have any ideas to share with the OP as to what she should do?

  @djeggnog