Nice, Flipper. Thanks.
Outlaw, good to hear from you.
Have a good vacation! Send us a postcard from time to time, won't you?
i've just been catching up on some of the posts that people made about this case and i am appalled at the blatant racism demonstrated by certain individuals.. yes, you are entitlted to your opinion ... but at some point your opinion needs to be kept locked inside your ignorant biggoted empty skull and not come out of your stupid fat mouth.
it especially shouldn't be posted on my forum.. such racism will not be tollerated here.. i also would like to publicly apologise to outlaw for not being on top of this earlier and making sure that he wasn't lumped in with these despicable people for simply pointing out how out-of-line their behavior was.
sorry my friend - you did not deserve that and i understand completely why you have had a break from the site..
i've had a quick glance through the july 15th watchtower, and at first reading there seems nothing too dramatic to report.. the title of the first article "let jehovah guide you to true freedom" seemed ironic to say the least.
not surprisingly, the way you get more freedom is by relinquishing it entirely to the watch tower society.
there is also a bizarre statement in the very first paragraph of the article on page 7 (bold highlighted remarks are mine):.
Mine did, that is attempt to stay in touch. There was a 3 year gap when I left my family behind. They displayed concern at my new found religion, but for the most part kept any comments on the down low. Now u should have heard some of the comments dubs had about my "worldly family".
Ditto, wha happened?
Fortunately, I woke up in time to prevent too much damage.
have you ever been at home, heard the knock on the door, and found a pair of nice looking people wanting to give you a free magazine?
where the magazine is titled awake!
or watchtower?
No, please don't stop, I enjoy all this stuff.
I'd like to see where it's going.
Are you ready with the next instalment, StopTheTears?
I do have some questions, though. What, exactly, was proved in a court of law in 1922? That Russell was a Satanist, a paedophile "according to his wife", a friend of Rothschilds, and "most certainly" Illuminati? And did his wife really say that?
Why was it "most certain" that Russell was Illuminati?
And, crucially, what exactly does being Illuminati entail?
he is one of my favorite posters, i look him up from time to time.
.
djeggnog wrote
My apologies for the typos in my previous two posts corrected below where indicated in red (and the ill-placement of "Mutley" at the top of Page 3).
@Iamallcool:
Do you see the laughing dog on the top of the page, how did it get there?
My bad. In an attempt to use and resize @OUTLAW's signature "Mutley" image in connection with the first post to this thread in which the last sentence of it was omitted for some reason, I used the wrong coordinates, but by the time I noticed that Mutley had found its way to the top of "Page 3," my post read "posted ~ 31 minutes ago," and, of course, its impossible to edit our posts after the 30 minutes allocated to edit our posts has expired, which circumstance resignedly led to me posting the second post with the typos and again with that last sentence that it was my intent to include.
Is it just me? or maybe I'm not the only one who's puzzling over that. I don't see how using and resizing an image makes it appear above the posting area.
My initial thought was that perhaps Simon had been in touch with Outlaw and placed the image there to indicate that Outlaw was laughing at us. But djeggnog did it.
I just played around with capturing and saving small image icons. I see nothing in the html that would enable me to post above the form.
In another context I'd be wondering about hacking.....
?????????????
yeah in the section on attending the convention, you will find this gem:.
"therefore, we should give attention to our dress and grooming while in the convention city, including when we check in at the hotel.
arriving in shorts and a t-shirt would not reflect dignity.".
When I went to my first Convention, I just couldn't believe how dressed up people were. I felt as if I'd walked into someone's wedding party.
"But God cares about what's in our heart!" I protested. "He doesn't bother how we look!"
"Oh, well, you're Catholic" came the reply. "For Catholics, anyhting goes, doesn't it?"
"Weeell," I replied cautiously, not sure where this was going, "it's certainly true that people wear jeans to church and no-one thinks twice about it. Really, no-one dresses up at all for church, you go as you like. The important thing is that you're there, and God sees what's in the heart."
"Well, we like to be respectful to Jehovah, and so we dress in a way that shows our respect."
I looked around at the brothers and sisters vying with each other to look their smartest, little boys in men's suits, little girls in long skirts or other astonishingly, to me, unsuitable clothes, brothers in suits on a hot day and sisters, well, in wedding clothes apart from a bridal gown, and it just seemed wrong. Yet they talked about the heart condition. (To anyone else that would sound like a cardiac problem, but I've learned JW lingo.)
Eventually I equipped myself with smart skirts, but believe me, I haven't worn one since I stopped going to the KH.
Phew!
60% of americans in one servey think the government did it.....even though there is no sold evidence.
let me spell it out.....a huge airplane full of fuel hit the building plowing thru the steel supports, thousands of witnesses, and video fotage, it almost flew through the building with debris blowing out the other side.
although it appears in the footage there is alot of smoke but no fire, right?
ok where i live in the pacific northwest in january of this year this elder from the hall called a special meeting and gave everyone some papers that he had gotten from some government place on what to put in an emergency bag to grab in case you have to flee your home in seconds.
i thought it was just my husbands hall being all strange and stupid over this.
one older sister said that the elder told everyone they needed three bottles of water for 14 days that is 42 bottles of water plus whatever other stuff they put in there not sure if she got that right because 42 bottles of water is a lot of weight.
Well, I don't know.
I mean, in the pictures, all the JW's are queuing up gazing adoringly into the sky, aren't they, while everyone else is being wiped off the face of the earth. No-one's carrying go-bags. They look as though they've just got what they stand up in.
I mean, the pictures must be right, mustn't they? No go-bags needed. Jehovah will have it all sorted, won't he?
Won't he?
did he start believing in the trinity and hellfire?
i have not read in search of christian freedom yet as i do not have a copy of it.
does he touch on this in that book?.
this is my first post on this forum, though it feels like i already know some of you here.
i have been lurking for a couple of months now, and i must say, there honestly seems to be more love and respect here than any forum i have ever seen on any forum of any kind.
i am 25 years old, married 3 years to my wonderful wife who is 22. we had a somewhat classic jw upbringing... which i now know has been our biggest problem.
did he start believing in the trinity and hellfire?
i have not read in search of christian freedom yet as i do not have a copy of it.
does he touch on this in that book?.
My question is: How do Trinitarians reconcile there being only one God if, as they now claim, the three are not one as the WT claimed the doctrine, but three in one?
the term "one Godhead" is not scriptural to my recollection and does not help the logic.
Binadub, you're absolutely right, Godhead isn't a Scriptural term. I never thought it was. I was just trying to answer your question, which was how Trinitarians reconcile one God with "three in one" and explain how they also see God, as the Trinity, as "one in three". I wasn't trying to justify it, nor explain it logically, but just help you in understanding Trinitarian thinking, which is what I thought your question sought.
Thanks for going into the question of Michael again. I studied all that very, very carefully on my way into the Witnesses, and came to the conclusion that maybe I could accept it as possible. i.e. I didn't believe strongly enough that it was impossible for it to prevent me from becoming a Witness.
One of the big differences between Catholics (and Anglicans, and maybe Episcopalians too for that matter) is that JW's seek reason and logic. (Some might feel that the WT bends Scriptural truth at times to fit a thread of reasoning that it seeks to prove, but that's another matter.) Catholics, particularly, don't. One of the predominant strands of Catholic thinking and worship is mysticism, which I haven't found very evident in WT thinking and practice, although of course I'm aware that my experience of WT thinking is limited. As for Anglicans, they are more likely in some respects to accept anything that feels mainstream, and within Anglicanism is a very wide spectrum of beliefs and doctrines indeed.
I wasn't answering as a Catholic, Binadub, but just as someone who happens to know Catholic and Anglican doctrine and thinking, through and through, trying to explain, not prove logically.
Thanks for that link to Mike Brown's site.