i know that technically speaking, the wtbs has left voting as a "matter of conscience" in certain articles, but growing up jw, in practice, voting was always strictly forbidden.. with our referendum elections going on in texas, i got to wondering whether they just avoided political elections?
or are all sorts of political voting forbidden, such as on propositions?
for instance, should certain types of taxes be allowed to increase for disabled people?
It has been reported that JWs in many European countries actually do go to the polls. If I am not mistaken the French JWs are encouraged to do this because of the bad press the JWs have gotten in that country lately.
Wow! It's always interesting to see how a religion that prides itself on its unity behaves differently from one end of the globe to the other.
rx depot, which i understand has several offices throughout the u.s. was ordered by the fda through court orders to shut down its office in tulsa, ok. .
it is a business which takes prescriptions from local doctors and obtains them from canadian sources.
customers were saving tons of money.
I don't understand why there is such a price difference for the same drugs between the two countries.
Greed. Why do generics cost less than name-brands for the same active ingredient?
I realize that a big drug company has costs for research and development into the millions and billions and when they finally come up with something that works, they're going to charge more for it than it costs to make so that they can recoup the costs for developing it and recoup costs on all the money that went into developing drugs that didn't make it. Do US copyright laws on drugs apply to Canada? Did Canada just duplicate the formula and, having no R&D debt can make it cheaply? Don't know. But I would guess there is still some price gouging from US companies.
Since the republicans are in control here, you can be sure the interests of big rich US companies will prevail over the poor old senior citizens trying to survive on a pension.
the end of october i'm going on a 9 day cruise to the caribbean with a group of 70 people.
one of the the travelers is a jw and it will be interesting to see how "worldly" she will behave away from her jw clan.
at our christmas party (that's right she was at our christmas party) she got drunk and she buys christmas presents for her grandchildren who are not jw.
The end of October I'm going on a 9 day cruise to the Caribbean with a group of 70 people. One of the the travelers is a JW and it will be interesting to see how "worldly" she will behave away from her JW clan. At our Christmas party (that's right she was at our Christmas party) she got drunk and she buys Christmas presents for her Grandchildren who are not JW. BTW, she is a pioneer in good standing too.
Devon, I don't know your background. Were you once a JW? If so, does she know this?
I always find it interesting when I see JWs that don't know I was once one. Most of them play the boy scout right to the end. But some are a different person when they think they are safe from JW or ex-JW eyes.
I've always wanted to catch one of them doing something that's a real no-no and then call them on it just to see the look on their face. "Sister <insert name>, don't you know you can be disfellowshipped for smoking?" The thoughts that would run through their mind. I used the JW lingo. Am I a JW? Will I report them? Will I tell anyone else who might know them?
And who knows, maybe after finding out I am an ex-JW and willing to keep their secret, they might be willing to discuss why I'm not one.
i know that technically speaking, the wtbs has left voting as a "matter of conscience" in certain articles, but growing up jw, in practice, voting was always strictly forbidden.. with our referendum elections going on in texas, i got to wondering whether they just avoided political elections?
or are all sorts of political voting forbidden, such as on propositions?
for instance, should certain types of taxes be allowed to increase for disabled people?
Also, the JWs send people to testify before congress all of the time when it comes to freedom of religion issues. In fact, the JWs often team up with other cults like the Scientologists, Mormons, Hare Krishnas etc. particularly in third world countries to influence the gov'ts there. Also,It has been reported that the JWs have done this in Russia to try to influence political decisions there.
I realized these sorts of things were going on. I just wondered whether it would go as far as them actually telling people to go to their polls.
It seems like one of those things that gets blurred so often by the JWs. And if not by the WTBTS, at least by the JW-culture. One thing may be spoken out against, so they shy away from anything in that whole area. Since voting for candidates is bad, all voting must somehow be bad. And nobody ever stands up and clarifies the issue as to what is frowned upon and what is OK. They just let it slide and it becomes part of the culture. Nobody votes on anything. I'd venture to say that only the rebellious or half-hearted ones are even registered to vote. And if it were known you were registered to vote, you might be counseled for it, or at least looked at as suspicious by others.
I would think that if somebody from their podiums actually suggested they go register to vote and then vote, it might cause a lot of confusion. Perhaps even some stumbling.
since i left the dubs i have dabbled a bit with the lottery...a scratch off ticket here or there...but nothing major.
recently i have gotten to know a few people that seem to gamble quite a bit.
we went to the horse races a few weeks ago and i bet on one of the horses that a friend owns...lol fortunately not much as i lost.
For me, it is entertainment. I love the game, and if I am going to spend a couple hundred bucks on an evening, which is easy to do in Vegas, sometimes I prefer a show, sometimes I prefer the tables.
That's a great way to look at it - as entertainment. You can easily rack up a couple of hundred dollars a day on vacation. Given that you're parting with your money anyway, do what you like. If it's seeing a show, great. If it's taking risks at a table or a slot machine, fine. As long as you go into it realizing you are probably going to lose your money. You may come out ahead or even score big, but don't expact that. Set an amount you are willing to lose and go no further. When you go see a show or go to a football game, you don't go because of some doorprize they may be giving away. Same with gambling, gamble for the fun, not for a big payoff. Bottom line, look at any casino, horse track, even the lotto. The money is rolling into them, not being paid out to the players.
I worked with a gambling addict. He lived in a room above a bar and shared a bathroom with others who rented the other rooms. Because of his gambling, that's all he could afford. Sometimes he'd be up $100,000, then he'd be in the hole $50,000. It seems he never got ahead - or never quit when he was there. It was very sad to watch.
Addictions are terrible things. Just because you play a few scratch off games and it doesn't affect you doesn't mean the potential isn't there for you to become addicted too. Different types of gambling offer different thrills. The interest you seem to have in this may be a sign of that. Be careful with it. It's probably easier to stop an addiction before you get hooked than afterwards.
As for the people that are winning. Sure, that can happen. I've heard of people that make their living gambling. But probably more often than not, you are hearing of the winnings, but not of the losings. People brag when they win $1000 on a horse race, but they're often embarassed to tell you they lost $2000 last time they went.
I play for fun, but the analytical side of me likes to play with a strategy and rules to try to win. Sometimes it works, but other times I screw it up and I lose. I've heard blackjack has the best odds. But in reality, even with that, even if you use all the rules of when to hit and when not to, the odds still favor the dealer slightly. With some simple card-counting (knowing whether more low cards have been played than high ones and doubling your bet when this is so), you can tip the odds ever so slightly in your favor. Like maybe 3-5% over time.
i know that technically speaking, the wtbs has left voting as a "matter of conscience" in certain articles, but growing up jw, in practice, voting was always strictly forbidden.. with our referendum elections going on in texas, i got to wondering whether they just avoided political elections?
or are all sorts of political voting forbidden, such as on propositions?
for instance, should certain types of taxes be allowed to increase for disabled people?
I know that technically speaking, the WTBS has left voting as a "matter of conscience" in certain articles, but growing up JW, in practice, voting was always strictly forbidden.
With our referendum elections going on in Texas, I got to wondering whether they just avoided political elections? Or are all sorts of political voting forbidden, such as on propositions? For instance, should certain types of taxes be allowed to increase for disabled people? Should the government limit medical damage awards or let a jury decide? ... those sorts of things.
Suppose there were a referendum on ballot that would somehow hurt the JWs? Let's say they were going to be taxed on their Kingdom Halls, or not allowed to go door-to-door without an expensive permit. I know they've spent time and effort to fight such laws in court. Would they send their followers to the polls to vote against such laws if the situation arose? If they could strike down such a proposal through voting, they could save a lot of money on court battles fighting it or in costs if the law stays in effect.
If it's still an issue of staying neutral and not going to the polls, then why not stay neutral? Why fight these things in legal battles later? Why not pay Ceasars things to Ceasar?
my wife and i joke about the differences in our own halls all the time.
i swear she lived in a country club compared to my hall.. just to give a couple of examples:.
and this is from when i was growing up until i left home at 18.. every single weekend was field service.
That sounds like my parents, almost exactly. We didn't have Saturday meetings, but I remember a time or two of sitting through the Watchtower more than once (don't remember why). My parents weren't so quick to bring us to the elders though. Perhaps they dealt with things internally to avoid a bad reputation for themselves.
But KH personalities do differ, depending on the state, social position of elders, and a ton of other factors. My first hall was urban and blue collar with lots of nice, friendly people (of course I was very young, how would I know?). My second was blue-collar suburbs with a bunch of hard-asses for elders and just generally unfriendly people. My last hall was a mixture of blue and white collar elders and a much friendlier environment.
The second hall was the worst for strictness. Maybe it was the blue-collar elders excercising their chance at power and control and doing it poorly. Maybe it's because it was the 70's and Armageddon was going to happen. But it sucked the most.
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20030903/d7tb04380.html
johnny depp likens u.s. to 'dumb puppy'
sep 3, 11:00 am (et) .
Right, really respectful. Newsflash, Reagan has only begun very recently (well after he was out of office, let's see, THREE presidents later) begun exhibiting characteristics of Alzheimer's.
I don't know about that. He certainly couldn't recall much during the Iran-Contra hearings.
Back in my JW days when Reagan was president, I liked him. But I was one of those right-wing conservatives myself - as promoted by ideals in my religion. You know, not charitable, uncaring for other classes of people, and unable to understand the hardships others go through, elitist, always thinking I had the solution for everyone. Thinking everyone had to follow my world view and if they didn't, they were somehow deficient and deserving any hardships they faced. Right-wing in a nutshell.
When I saw documentaries about the peace movement, I changed my mind about Reagan. The films showed peaceful student anti-Viet Nam demonstrations at UC-Berkely. In the documentary, they were filming Reagan (then CA govenor) discussing the protests with advisors. He certainly was hot. You could see he wasn't going to stand for peaceful free speech if it was against the right-wing agenda. And he ordered force to stop the protests. The crowd ended up being tear gassed. What an asshole!
And as for conservative celebrities, I've heard of plenty of celebrities coming out in favor of the president and the Iraq war. The difference in me as a liberal is I don't bash them for it. I don't feel a need to punish them or boycott their work. I don't post what they said on message boards and try to get others to bash them for their pro-administration comments. I don't call their education into question. It certainly says something about a level of maturity of some conservatives that they feel they have to bash or punish these people who don't agree with them or call them un-American
And I'd much rather have celebrities voicing mere opinions, where it's not as important whether they're fully informed or not or whether they're right or wrong. You can agree or disagree. It doesn't really harm anybody. But when celebrities start running for major offices with no real qualifications, where their opinions and decisions can actually affect millions of lives, it gets pretty scary. Especially when they are celebrities with a knack for being charming and winning votes, but have no real qualifications for the job. Run for a city council member position first or a mayor. If you can't handle it at least you don't do as much damage. If you can, then go for higher positions.
i have, more than once, by other guys, one not even a dub, barely, nominally an associate, total stoner, to impress a girl, & make me look bad.
anyone have similar character assasination stories?
not that i was an ange, but i did'nt get in trouble for stuff i did do, it was always stuff i did'nt.
When I was in my early teens there was a teen couple at our hall. I think she was 16 and an elder's daughter and he was 17 or 18 and didn't have connections. What's more he was a foster child (though for several years) of this couple that treated him like an unwelcome child. (Think Cinderella)
From what I could gather from the "special needs" talk, there was some simulated sex (with clothes on) going on. I don't want to sound crude, but the common term we had for it was "dry humping". She was reproved, he was disfellowshipped.
He seemed very repentant. He tried hard, yet the elders found every excuse not to reinstate him. One time he was late because his car died and he walked the rest of the distance to the hall, in winter when there were 3 foot snow drifts everywhere. Yet they faulted him for coming in late instead of giving him bonus points for even showing up. He also ended up working for an elder's cleaning company and was often scheduled to work on meeting nights - also not helping his chances for reinstatement.
Meanwhile, the girl turned 18. At which time, she met some guy at the assembly who was kind of dorky and nerdy and seemed totally out of character for her. She married him 6 weeks later.
To this day, I believe he was disfellowshipped out of revenge from an angry father (and elder) with influence on the judicial committee. And I feel there was a conspiracy to keep him out of the picture until her parents could get her married off to some respectable JW.
He eventually was fed up over the whole thing and never returned to the JWs. Leaving is a good thing, but unfortunately it turned him into a bitter person.
I wasn't there when the "crime" was committed. I don't know who started it, whether it was mutual, who went the furthest, who wanted to the most, etc. So I don't know whether (in JW terms) the punishments were appropriate. All I know is that in later years, she turned out to be the most immoral one, having affairs on her husband. She even came to this ex-boyfriend's house one day to try to finally have sex with him (while she was married0. It sort of flattered him and it crossed his mind, but after a little more time spent catching up and talking with her, he realized what a slut she was and tossed her back out. At least at that time, it was him who had the high moral standards, not her. So I have to wonder whether it was her all along and that maybe she should have been DFed, not him.
.
even when we dismiss the bible,belief in an original paradise that was lost because of sin was wide-spread among the ancient babylonians,assyrians, egyptians,and others.common to many accounts was a tree of life the fruit of which would confer eternal life on those partaking of it.so mankind remembera that something tragic happened in eden.. scientists acknowledge that the human race is a single family with a common origin.. so,bible or not,could there be any truth,proof,about this event,is it possible to have eternal life on earth or, are the stories among the ancients only myths?.
blueblades
The Genesis story is a copy of older similar stories. Should'nt that put up a red flag somewhere?
Not necessarily. Similarities don't necessarily indicate copies.
Let's say this account did happen. Over the years, it was written down by different civilizations. Granted, after several years and among different writers, differences in the story are bound to creep in. But that doesn't mean the later versions can't contain the most accurate retelling.
We see that today in historical books where, given greater understanding of the past from other sources and angles, we may be presented with a better picture of events than previous books on the same subject. And, if you believe the Bible was inspired, God could have provided that greater understanding of knowledge of the past.
And just because it was recorded by several sources with variations doesn't mean it didn't happen. On the contrary, I think that would indicate there was some basis for the story.
