i was just checking out some of minimus' early posts and came across this one from circa 2002: .
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/34903/1.ashx.
some interesting stuff there.
Greetings:
I was just checking out some of Minimus' early posts and came across this one from circa 2002:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/34903/1.ashx
Some interesting stuff there. Blondie called the Awake! going to a once-a-month pub. Others said that the GB would go non-anointed.
Worth a review.
-Eduardo
PS: I think Min has been asking so many questions that he is starting to repeat himself. See: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/96904/1.ashx
we've already got some "most hated" threads on here, like "most hated bible verse" or "most hated meeting", don't know if there's another thread on metaphors/analogies.
one of the most used analogies used is the "jehovah's like a loving father holding your hand and leading you, you can trust him like a little child trusts his father".
i don't know how often i heard that one.
Hello?
Are we still doing this thread?
Anyway, I have narrowed down the hunt and found out that Fred Franz is the one who publicly referred to unmarried women as "cows" but I haven't found the exact context just yet.
Regarding the Spring Analogy, I always preferred the sexier version of a "Bar of Soap" that is that Children are like a Bar of Soap.
If you try to grip them too tightly you might either crush them or they may fly right out from your hand but hold them too loosely and they will slip right out also. You have to hold them just right.
I always saw this as a moderate approach to child rearing, a balance between being too restrictive and too liberal when it comes to a child's freedom and choices, etc. so I didn't find it very offensive. It also is kinda funny to me for some reason.
-Eduardo
i was reading the "mobile phone" thread and then found the article below on the official wt web site.
i'm surprised they don't tell people to empty the garbage and polish their shoes when they get horny rather than engage in phone sex.
why the wt feels the need to comment on these topics is really beyond me, but it's good for a laugh.. http://www.watchtower.org/library/g/2004/2/22b/article_01.htm.
Its a big problem. I know at least 5 or 6 sisters who lost their phone virginity to me
-Eduardo
PS: brings a whole new meaning to the terms "Call Waiting", "Speed Dialing" and "Touch Tones"
not too mention
"Phone a Friend"
"In Network"
"Out of Service"
"Busy Signals"
and
"Party Lines"
there is this guy going around another blog area thinking he is the last coca-cola in the desert.
constantly spewing nonsense from his big gob.... anyway now he has started up this did you know topic about the church's involvement in america's government.. one of his did you knows is:did you know?
every session of congress begins with a prayer by a paid preacher, whose salary has been paid by the taxpayer since 1777.. .
I would reply: "Don't you know that 'a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds?'"
-Eduardo
It was lame. It was so lame that it managed to ruin the First Movie which was pretty good! That was some feat for a sequel.
-Eduardo
has the wtbts ever made money, in the form of compensation, in a law suit against another organization or person?.
just wondering?
do they sue for defamation of character or daren't they?
Greetings!
Technically the answer is Yes. But this is so really only if you go to the beginning of the "modern-day" Organization.
For all intents and purposes, in the beginning the Society WAS Charles Taze Russell and CTR was the WTBTS. At the turn of the century, a local gazette, the Brooklyn Eagle published a lot of bad press against Russell and came to print a cartoon of him involving the Miracle Wheat Scheme.
Russell sued for libel and defamation. A lot of INTERESTING things occurred during the trial including admissions that were made by certain Society big-wigs and I think that the Society learned a lesson very early in its history. Incidently, Russell lost the suit.
During the 20th century the Society brought either separately, or backed individual plaintiffs or sometimes together with other groups brought numerous claims regarding free exercise of religion as is well known. Some of these might have resulted in monetary compensation for individual plaintiffs but I would have to research that further to be certain.
In today' s modern litigation, I think that the Society would be extremely careful to initiate any kind of lawsuit and certainly seeks to avoid as many as possible. Modern discovery rules would allow opposing counsel to poke into all sorts of hidden nooks including actions, operations, expenditures and finances, electronic records and many other things that the Society has kept confidential.
As far as a defamation lawsuit, the chances of winning are so low and what needs to first be proven is so high that I can't imagine a circumstance where it would be worth it to pursue.
What we also must remember is that from the Society's viewpoint a certain amount of mudslinging and criticism is beneficial. The Society promotes the myth that it is God's sole organization on Earth, that it as the physical part of the "bride of Christ" is due to receive much persecution, etc. and these things only serve to reinforce the US vs. THEM mentality and culture. So rather than try to stop any defamation occurring the Society would just point and say "See we told you so. Satan's system is out to get us. Didn't Jesus say his followers would be persecuted? yada, yada, yada......"
-Eduardo Leaton Jr., Esq.
yeah so i was catching up on some of my back issues of the watchtower and i was surprised to see a dear old friend and his wife, shannon and rosaliya rainey, in the gilead graduating class pg.
15 of the july 1, 2005 issue.
i didn't even realized that they were at gilead since it has been over a year since i saw them last.
Greetings!
Yeah so I was catching up on some of my back issues of the Watchtower and I was surprised to see a dear old friend and his wife, Shannon and Rosaliya Rainey, in the Gilead graduating class pg. 15 of the July 1, 2005 issue. I didn't even realized that they were at Gilead since it has been over a year since I saw them last.
Shannon, who is about my age, is just one of the best persons you can ever meet. I always admired his skills and we had a lot of mutual respect. I remember one the day that I was in field service and I sidled up to Rosaliya and Marie Washington and started chatting with her. I think Rosaliya made it a point to announce to me that her and Shannon were now officially dating which was completely unecessary but very delightful to me as I thought they made a great match and indeed they do. Shannon's bachelor party was pretty small, just a handful of us brothers there. It is the only Jehovah's Witness bachelor's party that I have ever been to and I remember being a little shocked at the amount of contraceptives that Shannon received as gifts from the other brothers. Shannon learned to speak Spanish and he and Rosaliya soon left University congregation to help out the spanish speaking friends. It is so great to see them doing well and I wish them well on their travels to their foreign assignment(s).
I think that it will be interesting to see what becomes of them and in the future, when a lot of the Organization has changed, I will be very curious to talk to Shannon if I get the chance.
-Eduardo
i work in a bookstore that specializes in buying its goods directly from the public second-hand and reselling them at half price.. .
it is a large chain of 83 stores in 8 states and does about 100 million a year.. .
i'm in charge of the religion and the philosophy sections.. .
I think you are overreacting Terry. The old lady was actually thinking about you and your wellfare and her views can't possibly have any negative effect upon you, unless you allow them.
Much of the problem that we have in the world is that we are always so self-centric and that we don't think about others enough. Any time a situation comes up on life that someone is showing love or caring towards us we need to encourage that - while remaining true to ourselves of course.
A smile and a thank-you is all you needed to respond wth and would have been the appropriate reaction. In another situation you might be justified in more, in perhaps explaining your own beliefs or standing for your own convictions, but in the one you described nothing more was necessary. If you were uncomfortable you should simply have extracted yourself from the conversation or turned it to one more appropriate to your work (and in conformity with the company's policies).
Regarding those policies, I find them actually pretty restrictive. While I can see a policy of not injecting personal views or antagonizing patrons as being a good one, a blanket policy on not permitting any comments to be made on "controversial subjects" is ridiculous. Especially for a bookstore these days. Since one can now get any book from the Net or at the library, bookstores, even the big chains, have to rely upon the relationship between repeat customers and their employees if they really want to be successful. Having knowledgeable, friendly, conversant and even engaging employees that will say to customers "you don't want to read that book, let me give you another recommendation" because they KNOW the customer is the kind of policy that I would have in place, if I were a bookstore owner. And the only way for you to know the customer is to learn from them what their political, cultural, religious views are and where their interests lie.
-Eduardo
.
if you are celebrating christmas do not x christ out of it.. if you are celebrating christmas do you know why???.
hibiscusfire
Finally-Free,
I think pointing out rude behaviour and unchristian qualities are valid criticism. There is a difference between attacking a person simply to attack them or as an ad hominem tactic in a losing argument and pointing out, in my opinion of course, that a person is displaying bad qualities.
I don't feel that we need to shy away from the latter course in the name of being "sensitive." If someone came into the forum and began behaving inappropriately I would expect that we all would be justified in telling the person such and if the behavior was extreme enough, (not the case in this instance of course) that the administrator's would consider banning the person).
Hibiscus, is a big girl, she can take my criticism of her characteristics, which again in my view is bad form. And just to clarify, I am not saying her point of view is what is wrong, although it be in error. I am saying that she is not displaying Christian humility in admitting that she is wrong or even acknowledging what others have written. Despite these flaws, I am sure she is a good person at heart, or at least I hope that she is.
Undercover it is "Christwalk" not Crosswalk, don't you know that? Actually the X is used a number of ways as you have illustrated it can mean "cross" but that is not the meaning in Xmas or X-mas. The meaning there is "Christ".
Wonders whetehr Hibie has or condones having a "fish" on her car?
-Eduardo
.
can a congregation have it's own website?
i mean, if they can have printed handbills, surely they could make their presence known on the internet.
very interesting GermanXJW. I have no doubt that these efforts are not officially endorsed. It will be interesting to see how long these sites stay up.
Anyone else know of any others?
-Eduardo
