I have to say I did laugh, especially when they referred to the Greatest Man book to prove that Jesus never had a beard as a baby. That was funny. The WT judicial committees are evil, they destroy lives, but I can't see the harm in poking fun at the morons who think some God has given them the right to judge another. Not everyone is ready to view such jokes, after all they may be hurting from the harm that has been done to them and their family, but for others, humour like this can be therapeutic.
shepherd
JoinedPosts by shepherd
-
42
Riveting JW judicial committee hearing.... caught on video!
by koolaid-man inhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxxsderj5aw.
-
-
-
32
Never thought Id be cursing out my Dfd Dad
by lil.lady.03 insee my dad is dfd.
hes been dfd all my life.
he got dfd a year before i was born.
-
-
shepherd
@elderelite - It all depends on what he meant. In this context it sounds as if he was suggesting his daughter is a bit high-and-mighty and heading for one of life's mistakes. In the end, we all make them though, and he does have to let her make them, just like anyone else. This guy obviously does care what happenss to his daughter - the pity is that is not appreciated. Does this guy deserve to be called the devil and that he is now dead to his daughter? I don't think so. I have to say, adult daughter or not, I don't see much maturity in action.
-
32
Never thought Id be cursing out my Dfd Dad
by lil.lady.03 insee my dad is dfd.
hes been dfd all my life.
he got dfd a year before i was born.
-
-
shepherd
I expect if he was posting here he would have a very different take on what happened. You called him quite a few names and obviously have no respect for him, and it's not something new. Maybe he did not put things very well, and maybe he was genuinely caring about you and your future. You are an adult, so try to see things from both sides.
"He said, 'Someone has to put you in your place. You think you are a princess.'" - Your post certainly does appear to show you don't like anyone to advise you. Hopefully he is wrong and you will live happily ever after.....if not, at least he tried, even if it could have been done in a better way (I doubt any other way would have got you listening anyway)....
I expect I will be in the minority, or even the only one to say this, but that's ok. It never hurts to consider both sides of a story.
-
6
America's last WWI veteran, dies aged 110
by shepherd inamerica's last surviving veteran of world war i, frank buckles, has died aged 110.. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12601173.
the gb can change what a generation means but eventually even the most blind jw will see that describing a 'generation' as something that exceeds the lifetimes of all those alive at the time is just silly..
-
-
shepherd
America's last surviving veteran of World War I, Frank Buckles, has died aged 110.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12601173
The GB can change what a generation means but eventually even the most blind JW will see that describing a 'generation' as something that exceeds the lifetimes of all those alive at the time is just silly.
-
40
My article on Russia's ban of JW's
by honorsthesis ini am a columinst for cornell university's "the diplomacist".
i recently wrote an article on the various troubles jehovah's witnesses are facing in russia.
i try to make the point that, even if you do not support the witnesses (and most don't) you should support freedom of thought, expression and religion.. if you are interested in checking it out, here it is: "snuffing out religious freedom in russia".
-
-
shepherd
If you ban them they just consider the persecution as proof that it is the true religion. It is far better that they are not banned. Consider Greece as an example - when banned or persecuted the JW's were united and bound by a common 'enemy'. But once thet were given freedom of expression and far less persecution activity dropped, yes dropped! Now, just as in other Western nations, two thirds attending meetings are nominal JWs, doing the bare minimum. Give them freedom, ignore it for the unimportant minor religion it is, and growth virtually stops.
There is no need to ban them , just take away their tax break status. Still leave the literature available, but make it expensive to produce and distribute - it works for cigarettes and it will work for the WT, who are only interested in the bottom line. Oh, and make it so the money from donations cannot leave the country. That's my suggestion, target the money, not the religious side. When France insisted on taxes, the WT immediately shut down its bethel there. If the UK had done the same, where else would they have run to?
-
97
I sued the local congregation
by chukky 594 inseveral years ago, before my wife and i left, my 5 yr old daughter got up during the watchtower to cross the aisle to sit with someone else.
she tripped on the roving microphone wire and smashed her head on the foot of a metal chair.
the bleeding was profuse and an ambulance was called.
-
-
shepherd
The congregation probably did not have insurance but was insuring itself. This is how the WT does it, anyway, self insuring. It is most likely that the money you got came not from some faceless organisation but from the donations of the other members of the congregation.
In other words, because your child tripped, the members of the congregation had to give you money.
This is the problem with litigation of this sort - it's easy to consider the entity you are suing as a faceless monster (shoplifters reason in the same way) but actually where did the money come from? The others members of the congregation.
The congregation may well have been legally liable, but whether suing them years later was morally justifiable is another matter. By your own admission you had a different motive than recovering medical costs etc. Rather, it was your way of recovering some of the money you had voluntarily paid in before.
-
43
Hypocrisy 101 - Watchtower has Payed for College/College Courses for Bethelites!
by Crisis of Conscience inno you did not read the title wrong.
i was out to eat this weekend with two bethelites.
one gave a talk in my hall and i was invited out to dinner with them by another family in my hall.. as the conversation always turns to "spiritual" things, the subject of education was brought up.
-
-
shepherd
"No you did not read the title wrong."
Payed?
-
126
Bethel have just DENIED Jehovah's Witnesses shun ex members!!!
by Amelia Ashton ini can't believe it.
probably haven't been out long enough to know they lie like this.
now i just heard it with my own ears.
-
-
shepherd
I don't agree at all, Black Sheep. The statement put out by WT did not really mean disfellowshipped people in the first part as you correctly point out, but it was given to answer just that scenario - in other words it was intended to deceive, so it's no surprise that people misunderstand - they were meant to!
WT is very dishonest! To all the lurkers at Bethel reading this - think about that. Would Jesus really approve of this deceit?
-
51
Help: Re: Letter to elders NOT to disfellowship otherwise legal action will be taken
by LouBelle inhello there everyone.
i remember reading a while back about someone on here ( i think) that wrote a letter to the body of elders & headoffice that they should not take any action to disfellowship them as they would be distancing them from friends and relatives and would proceed to take legal action if the body of elders went ahead.. if anyone has that link or can point me in the right direction i'd appreciate that..
-
-
shepherd
Thing is, JW's no longer announce you are disfellowshipped for this or that or even that you left of your own free will. Alll they say is that you are no longer a JW. No court would challenge that, because as soon as you say you do not recognise their authority you have in effect left. You can't sue for libel or slander either, since they will only make that brief announcement.
I understand your anger with the shunning policy, I really do, but you would be hard pressed to find a court in any country to stop them from saying that simple sentence, even thought the consequences are so bad.
-
126
Bethel have just DENIED Jehovah's Witnesses shun ex members!!!
by Amelia Ashton ini can't believe it.
probably haven't been out long enough to know they lie like this.
now i just heard it with my own ears.
-
-
shepherd
I sent this email:
Hi
Thank you for highlighting the plight of anyone unlucky enough to be disfellowshipped or considered to have disassociated themselves by their actions (which has the exact same consequences) by the Jehovah's Witnesses religion. With reference to the official statement from the JW legal department: "Witnesses do not shun family members because of differences in religious beliefs. Many Witnesses have religiously mixed families and enjoy normal loving relationships together. If a family member who is a baptized Witness is disfellowshipped the spiritual ties he had with his family change, but blood ties remain. Accordingly, the marriage relationship and normal family affections and dealings can continue. As for disfellowshipped relatives not living in the same household we apply the counsel from the Bible at 1 Corinthians: "quit mixing with them." The scriptures are sacred to us and we therefore take this counsel seriously. The degree of family contact is a personal decision based on one's Bible trained conscience. If there are consequences, these relate primarily to one's relationship with God." The first part refers exclusively to 'family members' living in the same household, such as between a parent and minor child or a husband and wife. The JW's refer to these are 'family members' but consider those not living at home to be 'relatives'. Therefore, a disfellowshipped son not living at home is not considered a family member. The second part refers to those 'relatives' not living at home, but who may be as closely related as between mother and son. To these, the requirement is that family members must "quit mixing with them." Therefore, since the JW's have a special definition of what constitutes a 'family member', the first sentence is deliberately misleading to those not familiar with their particular narrow definitions. Equally misleading is the statement that "the degree of family contact is a personal decision" because although it is true an individual can decide for themselves, if they continue to associate they too may be disfellowshipped and shunned. This is alluded to in the following and final sentence warning of "consequences" to do with "one's relationship with God", which, as any JW knows, actually means they too risk being disfellowshipped. I wil not comment on the odd JW interpretation of 1 Corinthians since that is subjective.