in the the early 1970's, i used to enjoy going to assemblies, conventions and hear special talks given by bethel heavies.. in those days, we were believers and we applied ourselves as "ministers" with pride.. once the "end" was obviously not within our "generation", many of us started losing interest.. we started to think more critically.
it took a long time but once you start recognizing the bullsh*t, it's hard to stay in and truly believe at the same time.. .
1975. I was a kid who was scared to death that I wasn't "good enough" to survive the Armageddon that was openly predicted at our hall to occur in October of 1975. I thought for sure that viewing Playboys that I obtained from neighborhood kids would make me unfit to make it into the "new system."
When it didn't happen, even though I was very young, I stopped believing. At the age of 14, I left the so-called "truth" and never came back to it.
Left in the Cold,
While I hate to admit it, all of us who were "born in" are damaged goods in one way or another. It's not a question of whether we have baggage, it's only a question of how much. Our success in life is substantially related to our ability to manage whatever baggage we have.
If you limit your choices to men with some sort of JW background, you're limiting your choices to men with baggage only.
Given your posts, I think you'd be better off focusing on fixing yourself before trying to take on another relationship.. The fact that you are experiencing difficulty dating men with no JW background illustrates the fact the you have some of your own psychological issues that need to be addressed. You should deal with those issues before entering into another relationship, or your new relationship will be unlikely to succeed.
The men will always be there, looking for women. You won't be missing out on anything while focusing on yourself.
Good luck!
Jemba: Stop trying to instigate confrontation with foolish comments.
<<<< Hi Mr. John, people do not qualify a statement. However, they can quantify it. If you want to improve your grammar skill, there are several grammar schools I can recommend for you.>>>>
Your ignorance of the definition of "qualify" is a poor reflection on whatever grammar school, if any, you attended. Here's the definition of "qualify," as set forth in the Merriam Webster Online Dictionary:
transitive verb 1 a : to reduce from a general to a particular or restricted form: modify b : to make less harsh or strict : moderate c : to alter the strength or flavor of d : to limit or modify the meaning of (as a noun) 2 : to characterize by naming an attribute : describe <cannotqualify it as … either glad or sorry — T. S. Eliot> 3 a : to fit by training, skill, or ability for a special purpose b (1) : to declare competent or adequate : certify (2) : to invest with legal capacity : license intransitive verb 1 : to be or become fit (as for an office) : meet the required standard 2 : to acquire legal or competent power or capacity <has justqualified as a lawyer> 3 a : to exhibit a required degree of ability in a preliminary contest <qualified for the finals> b : to shoot well enough to earn a marksmanship badge" .. .. .. Definition 1.d is the meaning of "qualify" as used in my post. "[T]o limit or modify the meaning of (as a noun) " is exactly what my use of the word "qualified" did. You should have [limited or modified the meaning] of your general statement that police reports are public documents that are admissible in court, by adding that it depends on the jurisdiction as well as the purpose for which the evidence is sought to be introduced. By not qualifying your general statement of law, you made it misleading. .. .. This time, your personal attack ended with your foot far down your throat. People do "qualify" statements, notwithstanding your ignorance of that fact. Here's a tip; next time you choose to launch a personal attack on me, make sure you're correct. I don't suffer the fool well . . . You never know when to quit, do you? Doh!
i have never understood why, according to the wt, jws are okay (conscience matter) with birth control methods like the pill, mini-pill, depo-provera, and iuds.
i am not trying to spark an abortion debate.
but i was actually angry at the wt when i started researching how the mini-pill prevented pregnancy.
I'm opposed to abortion, but I'm even more opposed to others imposing their views on this subject on women. Abortion is a personal choice, and it should stay that way.
i have never understood why, according to the wt, jws are okay (conscience matter) with birth control methods like the pill, mini-pill, depo-provera, and iuds.
i am not trying to spark an abortion debate.
but i was actually angry at the wt when i started researching how the mini-pill prevented pregnancy.
Smart ladies choose choice.
with the holidays amongsts us how did you feel the first time you celebrated the holidays?
the first time i felt like i was in north korea trying to slip pass the secret police.
how weird a wonderful family holiday and i was acting like i just stole the mona lisa..
For those of us who were born in, isn't it great? We were denied the joy of Xmas and other holidays as children, but for enduring this injustice, as adults were are now rewarded with the stressful part of the holidays, including shopping for gifts, arranging family get togethers and dealing with the various family problems that occur around the holidays.
Notwithstanding the above, I do love celebrating the holidays. I'm a little bitter though that the WTBTS ruined my childhood holidays.
...also, do any of the elders here plan on going?.
My sincere condolences to anyone here who has to attend this. Xmas day? Puke!
Scott,
Out of context? You made a general statement of the law that is misleading because in many cases it is not a correct statement of the law. You did not qualify it by stating that it depends on the jurisdiction you're in as well as the purpose for which the evidence is sought to be introduced. If you want to be a lawyer, there are law schools you can attend. Until then, you should avoid posting statements about the law unless you are absolutely sure of what you are posting, because others here might rely upon them and be detrimentally affected.
The "out of context" excuse is getting old, Scott. Don't you have any other excuses to explain your misleading post and the support you gave to making dishonest statements about legal cases in another thread?
i am writing this because i am so upset about the bickering and fighting that is going on about oompa.
this was an amazing wonderful, peaceful, giving man who never met a strager who is now deceased and you are taking his name and running all over the place with it using it for your own agendas.
he is not a statistic.
I think it's poor form to exploit Eric's passing in furtherance of anyone's agenda or to bicker about anything in memorial threads. Engaging in such conduct provides fodder for the Watchtower apologists to utilize in their quest to label all of us as bitter, crazy, and of course, "demonic."
