I graduated high school in 1969, and of course, Armageddon was coming by 1975. Now I'm 61, and while I've always done OK, I've never had a really satisfying job or an especially well-paying job as I could have had if I had gone to college. My wife, who was never a JW and went to college after high school, has always made more than I do.
NeonMadman
JoinedPosts by NeonMadman
-
119
How many of you followed the WTS direction on education years ago and have been screwed by it?
by Julia Orwell ini'm really interested in this question because i've heard for years that if you forgo further education and go pioneering, when you have a family down the track you will get a good job because jehovah will provide for you because you pioneered.
as long as i was a kool-aid drinker, even then, i thought, "how does pioneering pay your bills?
surely education should come first.
-
-
-
7
Sabbath, why the change in the sacredness of the Sabbath?
by jam inyou may recall a poor fellow was put to death for.
gathering sticks on the sabbath.
numbers 15:32 the lord.
-
-
NeonMadman
Just ran across this on one of the blogs I follow:
-
37
Why do Jw's have to pay for CO's expenses?
by nolongerconfused inthis is something that has always bothered me!.
why do rank and file have to pay for co's do's expenses, car, health insurance, meals, etc, etc...?.
didn't the apostle paul say that all christians have to be self sufficient and work?, not depending on anyone else and cause a burden?.
-
-
NeonMadman
As Blondie noted, Paul was presenting himself as an exception to the rule that those who minister to the churches should be paid for their work. 1 Corinthians 9:4-16 says this:
"Those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel." The WTS takes Paul's exception and makes it the rule, that all who preach should do so at their own expense. That is not the Bible's teaching. The congregation that receives the benefit of a teacher's efforts should pay for his expenses, and, more, should pay his support. The Watchtower's railing against having a "paid clergy class" is completely contrary to Scripture. Clergy should be paid. This is not to say that clergy should be regarded as an exalted class with more status than regular Christians, only that those who actually do the work of preaching and teaching the Scriptures should be able to do so as a profession, not as a volunteer.1Co 9:4 Do we not have the right to eat and drink?
1Co 9:5 Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?
1Co 9:6 Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living?
1Co 9:7 Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard without eating any of its fruit? Or who tends a flock without getting some of the milk?
1Co 9:8 Do I say these things on human authority? Does not the Law say the same?
1Co 9:9 For it is written in the Law of Moses, "You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain." Is it for oxen that God is concerned?
1Co 9:10 Does he not certainly speak for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of sharing in the crop.
1Co 9:11 If we have sown spiritual things among you, is it too much if we reap material things from you?
1Co 9:12 If others share this rightful claim on you, do not we even more? Nevertheless, we have not made use of this right, but we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ.
1Co 9:13 Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings?
1Co 9:14 In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.
1Co 9:15 But I have made no use of any of these rights, nor am I writing these things to secure any such provision. For I would rather die than have anyone deprive me of my ground for boasting.
1Co 9:16 For if I preach the gospel, that gives me no ground for boasting. For necessity is laid upon me. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!
-
12
breaking an engagement consequences
by spirituk inwhat are the consequenses of breaking an engagement between two jws which lasted 2 years?.
-
-
NeonMadman
*** w75 6/15 pp. 382-384 Questions From Readers ***
Questions From Readers
? If a Christian unilaterally breaks his (or her) engagement to marry, what effect would this have on such a one’s being used in an exemplary way in the congregation?
Both the making and the breaking of an engagement to marry are serious steps, not to be taken lightly. Both, however, are basically private matters. There is no need for congregational elders to inquire into such matters unless a complaint is lodged with them by one of the parties or there is evidence that a number in the congregation are disturbed, with corresponding lack of respect for the one thus breaking the engagement. In some cases it may be that the ones who are disturbed need to have a clearer understanding of the principles involved.
We may note that, under the Israelite arrangement, engaged women were viewed as bound by that engagement, and if they became guilty of any infidelity, the Mosaic law provided that they should be dealt with as a married woman would be. (Deut. 22:23, 24) The Israelite man had greater freedom and could break the engagement, as Joseph of Nazareth planned to do. Matthew 1:19 relates that, after learning of Mary’s pregnancy, “being a man of principle, and at the same time wanting to save her from exposure, Joseph desired to have the marriage contract set aside quietly.” (New English Bible; compare Deuteronomy 24:1.) Christians, however, are not under the Law covenant, and in large areas today an engaged woman is not viewed as bound to the same extent as was the case then.
At Matthew 5:37 Jesus said: “Just let your word Yes mean Yes, your No, No; for what is in excess of these is from the wicked one.” The context shows he was here counseling against the practice many had of frequently accompanying statements by an oath, regularly swearing by heaven or Jerusalem or something else. But by this warning against such excess, Jesus did not say that, when an individual realizes he or she has made a serious mistake, it is wrong to make an effort toward correcting it. Proverbs 6:1-5 speaks of the one who goes surety for another and has “been ensnared by the sayings” of his mouth, “caught” by them, and counsels that such a one should take action to deliver himself, saying: “Go humble yourself and storm your fellowman with importunities.” A person who is engaged to marry may also come to realize that he or she has made an unwise step. It is a fact that during courtship prior to engagement a man or woman generally presents his or her ‘best face,’ puts his or her ‘best foot forward.’ Following the announced engagement, however, an individual may begin to let more of the real self show through. One of the two may now see serious problems that were not evident before.
In those special cases where elders do find it necessary to inquire into the matter of a broken engagement, they should be concerned with ascertaining whether the reasons for it were valid. What might be a “valid” reason? In a “Question from Readers” published in The Watchtower of October 1, 1968, two examples were given. Consider here a few other examples. During the engagement period the woman might begin to reveal a very “bossy” attitude, not showing real respect for headship, thus giving strong evidence of being the type of person described at Proverbs 19:13; 21:9; 27:15, 16. Or, during that period, the man might participate in some serious wrongdoing, perhaps becoming drunk, engaging in some immorality or seriously dishonest act. Or one of the two might see some other definite spiritual weakness, perhaps a very strong materialistic attitude, in the other party and might conscientiously feel that to carry out the marriage could impose a serious burden on his or her spiritual strength, perhaps more than he or she feels able to carry without harm. This does not mean, however, that in every case the other person will be viewed as deficient or inferior. One may feel that the other person is a very fine individual but simply may come to realize that there are very strong differences in personality or outlook that would make the marital relationship a very difficult one for both of them. These, then, are some, but by no means all, of the serious reasons that might cause one, after careful thought and prayer, to decide for termination of the engagement. Of course, mutual agreement to break the engagement would be far preferable to a unilateral action. But it may be that the other party does not see, or even prefers to ignore, the problem that is there.
All of this emphasizes the value of not rushing into an engagement to marry but rather seeking first to get to know the other party well. Love of neighbor should prevent anyone from taking a light attitude toward becoming engaged, realizing the emotional hurt that it can bring if the engagement is broken.
In cases where an individual has lost a mate, through death or through infidelity (and Scriptural divorce), his or her emotional state may be such that there is a keen feeling of need for companionship to combat loneliness. There may be an inclination to enter into an engagement more quickly than if under other circumstances. On gaining emotional balance, the person may realize that the engagement was unwise. In the case of an elder, this might or might not reflect on his stability. The circumstances would have to be considered.
In the case, then, of one who is in an exemplary position, such as an elder or a ministerial servant, a member of a Bethel family, or other person in full-time service, the body of elders should look at the whole picture of what the person is and not solely at the one act of terminating unilaterally an engagement. If the person’s past course shows an inclination or pattern of taking such matters lightly, then the elders might find it advisable to recommend removal from any exemplary position. They may find that the reason for the breaking of the engagement is simply that the person has allowed someone else to get his attention and interest, a course showing fickleness. If a considerable portion of the congregation gives evidence of having lost respect for such a one, this will also be given due consideration. Local attitudes and circumstances must be taken into account, since some countries or regions of the world take a much stricter view as regards such arrangements than do others.
However, if these negative factors are not present and the person has shown himself or herself to be serious, conscientious and considerate of others, the decision to end an engagement unilaterally would not necessarily call for removal from an exemplary position or a restriction of congregational privileges. Whether there are valid reasons or not for terminating the engagement will always be a determining factor.
-
7
Sabbath, why the change in the sacredness of the Sabbath?
by jam inyou may recall a poor fellow was put to death for.
gathering sticks on the sabbath.
numbers 15:32 the lord.
-
-
NeonMadman
My sense about the guy gathering sticks on the Sabbath is that an example was being made. The penalty for breaking the Sabbath had been established as being death (Ex. 31:15). This was the first violation that we are aware of; I think it probable that the letter of the Law was carried out to demonstrate the seriousness with which the Law needed to be taken. We also don't know the extent of the violation. Was the man picking up a few sticks that he needed for an individual fire, or was he doing a day's work, ignoring the Sabbath entirely? Either was prohibited, but the latter might have presented an aggravating factor.
A similar case might be that of Ananias and Sapphira. Clearly, liars are not routinely stricken down by God, but this was a case of a flagrant deception at the very beginning of the Christian church, and an example needed to be made so as to generate a proper fear of violating God's laws.
Throughout the history of Israel, the Law tended to be often forgotten. There were long periods when the festivals such as the Passover and Feast of Tabernacles were not even celebrated. As JWs, we tended to think that the Law was enforced fairly consistently throughout Israel's history, but this was not the case. Times where the Law was consistently kept were few and far between.
By the time of Christ, the Roman Empire had removed the right of the Jews to impose the death penalty for the violation of their laws (John 18:31). Any capital case had to be brought before the Roman authorities. So there would be no executing of anyone for Sabbath-breaking alone.
When Jesus called Himself "Lord of the Sabbath," I don't believe that He was simply saying that He was not subject to the Law; He was saying that He was the God who had given the Sabbath and the other Laws to Israel in the first place. A JW would never read it that way, of course. As such, Jesus was more qualified than anyone else to speak about what the intent of the Law was. And He said, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." The Sabbath was never intended as a burdensome religious ritual (as the Pharisees had made it) but as a time of rest and refreshment and of worship. The ritualistic aspect of the Sabbath was not of more importance than human life. As David and his men had eaten the otherwise forbidden showbread in a time of extreme need, it was permissible for Jesus' disciples to pick heads of grain (note - not doing harvest labor, just picking what they needed for their immediate survival). The Pharisees had made nit-picky laws about the Sabbath that would have prohibited even this minor effort, but those man-made laws exceeded what the Law of Moses required. Jesus, as the true authority - the Lawgiver - was within His authority to pronounce what the requirements of the Law actually were. It wasn't that the Law was different now, it was that the Jews had added many detailed ritualistic rules that were never part of the Law to begin with.
As an aside, one familiar with JW teaching might gain some insight on the taking of blood transfusions from this principle regarding the Sabbath.
-
28
Pro-JW website SLAMS apostates
by yadda yadda 2 inat the site, click on the pictures to read lengthy diatribes against apostates lol.. apostasy "seeing oneself as a victim denied" .
as a result of seeing oneself as a victim denied, there can occur a powerful drive toward disaffection and apostasy.
as is almost inevitably the case, there is a great need on the part of a leave-taker to validate their oppositional stance, and the victim-victimizer scenario greatly assists a person in justifying their course of action.
-
-
NeonMadman
They've learned the Watchtower style very well, they just take it to a bit more of an extreme. Lots of personal attacks and ad hominems, and absolutely no attempt whasoever to actually refute anything that apostates say about the JW organization, teachings and practices. No meaningful dialogue, just try to scare the faithful away from listening. Of course, that's what you have to do when your own positions don't hold any water.
-
9
hell fire
by carla inwhat is with jw's and the use of the term 'hell fire'?
i know of no other people who use this term, even those who do not believe in hell.
try having a discussion with a jw on the concept (or lack thereof) of hell and they cannot bring themselves to refer to it as simply 'hell', why must it be 'hell fire'?.
-
-
NeonMadman
It's also a way of evoking an emotional reaction. Many Christians today would agree with the JWs that the image of fire with reference to hell is not literal (though most Christians who believe in hell would also assert that hell is eternal and conscious, not simply annihilation as the JWs teach). Hell is eternal separation from God and the eternal wrath of God - whatever form that might take. Fire isn't the only image used in the Bible - hell is also described as "outer darkness," which seems incompatible with the image of fire, if taken literally.
Emphasizing the "fiery" aspect of hell raises an image in the mind of the householder that evokes primal fears, which they may have been taught as a child or which are part of their cultural heritage (or even of pop-culture), but that may not be what their current churches actually teach. It's a form of straw man argumentation, since they are setting themselves up to argue against the most extreme forms of the doctrine, while, in effect, claiming victory against all forms when the householder agrees with them.
-
6
Wait for it...........It's almost here
by donny inthe end is almost here.
wait for it.............wait for it............ it's almost here....wait for it.........1914, damn, we got that date wrong..........wait for it.................it's just around the corner...........1918, damn, we got that date wrong......but it's almost there.........wait for it.............wait for it...............1925, damn, we got that date wrong too............but it is still upon us...................wait for it .........wait for it..........1942, damn you rutherford........but still almost here.......wait for it........wait for it..........1975, damn, we got that date wrong...............but it is upon us..........it is a matter of weeks or months, not years.........wait for it..........almost there............wait for it..........the preaching work will be completed in our 20th century...........wait for it...............uh oh, it's 1995 and the generation thing is jacked up........wait for it........wait for it.............damn, 2001 just passed, we got that one wrong too...............wait for it....................wait for it................now we need to overlap a generation or two but do not worry the end is upon us..............wait for it..............wait for it........
-
-
NeonMadman
The end is almost here, and it's going to be legen - wait for it - dary!
-
44
New Pope will be named Peter
by Monsieur ini remember reading somewhere in regards to a a 'prophet' of sorts who had predicted all the popes that have been chosen.. his 'prophecy' stated that the next pope (since benedict has resigned) would be the last before the 'end' would come.
his name would be pope peter.. let's see what happens.
we are suppose to know who the next pope will be before easter..
-
-
NeonMadman
This refers to the prophecy of St. Malachy, according to which the next pope will be the final one. The prophecy is not believed to be original with St. Malachy (who lived in the 12th century), but is regarded as a 16th century forgery. The final pope is supposed to be called "Peter the Roman." The apostle Peter is considered by Roman Catholics to be the first pope, and no subsequent pope has ever taken the name Peter. While I give no credence to St. Malachy's alleged prophecy, it would probably freak me out just a little if Benedict's successor were to call himself "Peter II."
-
16
Your Saturday Time Puke
by Kool Jo inso i'm sure some of you have seen this already...but read this crap that was sent to me this morning, while i was sleeping in.
it was sent to me by an uber dub in my former congregation....i think it's a chain message:.
if someone asks about your educational background, proclaim boldly that:.
-
-
NeonMadman
There will probably be a JW somewhere who will put all that on his resume...