Posts by no one

18

Jehovahs V the Raelians

by spacegirl in

jw
friends

hi everybody - long time no speak, been researching other stuff like these flipping raelians.

absolutely fascinating what they believe in.

don't know if any of you have read this guy rael's books about being created by human aliens and apparently in 30 or so years if we follow rael we can have everlasting life by being cloned.

no one

Um, and I'd really like to know the difference between open and free use of the word "shag" and the word "deleted". Both four letters. Both mean the same thing. So what's with the very emotional association with one and not the other? I'd really like to know, especially as I'm a journalist

Elitism. Another definition of 'vulgar' is 'the common people'. But, now most people take it to mean 'offensive'.

Being the language of the common people, there arose those who didn't want to be associated with that particular class. And so in place of a word, say, the 'vulgar' shit, other words sprung up; feces, defecate, excrement, effluvia(marginally means shit), ca-ca, do-do. But if you use a word like 'effluvia' in a sentence, gee, you sound so knowledgable. Pretty soon, the new words separated you from the scum that said 'shit'; even reaching a point where you could talk down to them cuz they didn't understand the meaning of the word being used..

Personally, if I think someone's full of it, I prefer being explicit so there's no misunderstanding. However, we're in Simons' house and if he asks us to refrain, it's his home to make the rules in.

Edited by - Englishman on 11 January 2003 10:32:24

6

need to know

by kls in

i have a question, i asked my witness husb.

why witnesses dont call god by his real name ,yahweh, if their the only ones talking to god you would think they would.so i went on the internet and did some looking and found the name jehovah was interpeted by a spanish munk in 12 century.he was to study and reveal meaning of bible.then i read jews did not even use the letter j in those times,i told my husb this and he blew up saying jesus is not hes real name either.so my question is---who interpited jesus name ?if jews did not use the letter j and god is realy yahweh what is jesus real name?

why dont the witnesses want to be called by gods real name,i mean they take jehovah and use it for their title and they talk to god and hes name was started by a munk.i hope im making sense and explaining myself ok.thanks kls

no one

Anglicizing a name is OK if in the end one acknowledges that it isn't the correct pronunciation. Jesus is 'gee sus' in English, but 'hey zeus' in Spanish. If I had a Spanish friend named Jesus, I think he'd prefer to be called by other than an 'anglicized' version of his name. Maybe I'm being too picky about this, but have always noticed the human tendency to correct others when our name is mispronounced. Maybe for God it ain't that big a deal, but I prefer to err on the side of caution and not be disrespectful.

To me, the whole concept that Christ was trying to get at was that his(and our) relationship with God should be as close as father and son, hence, his continual use of father instead of calling God by name; same way we say 'dad' instead of calling our parents by their names.

Question: What do Israelites who are JWs today call themselves; Jehovah's Witnesses, Yahweh's Witnesses, %&%* 's Witnesses? Can anyone here provide feedback on this?

Edited by - no one on 9 January 2003 12:29:13

126

Birthday List

by nicolaou in

jw
friends

c'mon guys, we can celebrate our birthdays!!!.

post your birthdate here and let us know how you want to get your 'birthday card' (email, post on the board, text message, soaped-up kyliegram!).

my birthday is october 16th and i'd be happy to receive any of the above.. .

no one

February 31st.

3

Theocratic Terrorism

by openminded in

if you think theocratic warfare is a conflict to terminology, the institute of american dialect has coined the term "theoterrorism.

" simply put, it is the killing of civilians for religious purposes.

another formidable reason why theocratic governments do not work.

no one

However mental constraints and forced conformity do not produce fulfilled lives. The illusion of peace within any church that requires this conformity is not the result of superior ethics or model tolerence

Conformity is not necessarily maturity. Yet, what better mask behind which submission can hide its shame.

6

need to know

by kls in

i have a question, i asked my witness husb.

why witnesses dont call god by his real name ,yahweh, if their the only ones talking to god you would think they would.so i went on the internet and did some looking and found the name jehovah was interpeted by a spanish munk in 12 century.he was to study and reveal meaning of bible.then i read jews did not even use the letter j in those times,i told my husb this and he blew up saying jesus is not hes real name either.so my question is---who interpited jesus name ?if jews did not use the letter j and god is realy yahweh what is jesus real name?

why dont the witnesses want to be called by gods real name,i mean they take jehovah and use it for their title and they talk to god and hes name was started by a munk.i hope im making sense and explaining myself ok.thanks kls

no one

Not once in this prayer does he mention Yahweh or Jehovah.

You can take it farther than that. There is not one scripture where Christ actually refers to God by name. And I am with Yeru that making his name known referred to his 'attributes'.

The other JW argument is that 'surely Jesus used the name of God when he was in the synagoge reading from the scrolls'. Probably correct, but it certainly wasn't Jehovah that he used. For a religion that prides itself on claiming accuracy with regards to their Bible translation, I feel they became trapped once Rutherford chose the name Jehovah's Witnesses for them.

One more tidbit, kls. There is no 'J' in the Greek alphabet either.

43

Would you post as much if...

by Jourles in

jw
friends

...the number of posts next to your name was not there?

or what if the date from the time you signed up was missing?

do you think that some here crave the attention that they receive just by the amount of posts that they create?

no one

Yep! I figure that at the posting-frenzied pace I'm currently on, I'll make 'Supreme One' near the end of the Millenium.

Guess I should get started:

lol @ Fark, lol @ larc, LMAO, LMFAO, ROTFLAMO.......ROTFLMFAOPIMPOITISM--that would be rolling on the floor laughing my f***ing a** off pi**ing in my pants oops I think I sh*t myself.

Dammit. Should have made these separate posts. I'll never make it to 'Master'

42

"2008" End of this system...??

by breeze in

my theory

maybe the org was right with all of their predictions about the timeline of 607bc 1914?

except for the small difference, the time that jesus spent on the earth was exempt from the calculations?

no one

The problem I see with this is the year 1975 as equaling 6000 year of man's existance. To arrive at that, you have to accept that Adam was created in 4026 B.C. To arrive at THAT date, you have to be willing to accept that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 and not(at evidence points to) 587 B.C.

If you finally decide that 587 is correct, then JW chronology jumps 20 years forward in time, making it 4006 B.C. when Adam was created and 1995 for the end of 6000 years. However, there are other factors to consider:

For the 'Adam became father to Seth, who became father to'....etc. period of 1656 years to really equal 1656 years, each successive person in those 10 generations until Noah would have to have been born not longer than 9 days later than his father(plus the father's age) if we accept the logic that Adam was created about Oct. 1 because of the history of Jewish calendars. Example: if Adam is born on Oct.1, Seth needs to be born not later than Oct. 10, so that by the time you get to Noah, he will be born at the end of December so that the 1656 years work out. Doesn't sound logical.

Also, it appears from how Noah was counting time while in the ark, there were only 12 months of 30 days each. But WE count time going backwards to the flood using 365.25 days per year. If indeed, time was measured that way prior to the flood, the 1656 years turns out to be almost 24 years shorter.

And one last thing, how old was Noah when the flood came, 600 or 599? If you read the entire flood account and apply cardinal and ordinal rules to the statements made, there is a problem of 1 year that needs to be reconciled.

33

Nothing Hurts Like This

by JT in

jw
friends

james: .

though i may, on more than a few occasions, have questioned whether or not i wanted to be one of jehovahs witnesses and i may at some point decide that i dont, i can assure you that i would never contact you again.

it is really unfortunate that you felt the need to post our email exchanges on jw.com because to be honest with you, i actually thought that you may have been sincerely interested in me as a person.

no one

you can take a horse to water but you can't make them drink

Or said another way: You can lead a JW to logic, but you can't make them think.

11

Note: Attempt to Deny 'Theocratic Warfare'!

by metatron in

jw
friends

take a close look at the jan. 15 2003 watchtower page 21.

'questions from readers' - is it scripturally acceptable for a. christian to place his hand on the bible and swear to tell the.

whole truth in court?.

no one

"Those who simply leave the faith are not shunned."

The WTS will continue to allow shunning to be on a 'voluntary' basis for members in each individual situation as long as members comply and follow through with the shunning of those who have left. If it becomes increasingly evident that family menbers and friends are willing to forego shunning in favor of forgiveness or compassion, shunning will become mandatory.

54

What If We Are All Wrong?

by SpannerintheWorks in

jw
friends

ludicrous as it may seem, the watchtower society may be right?...

yeah?

as so much of their doctrines are based on interpretation.. the watchtower society may have interpreted the bible... correctly!

no one

Ludicrous as it may seem, the Watchtower Society may be right?... Yeah?
It is possible, don't you think?
As so much of their doctrines are based on interpretation.
The Watchtower Society may have interpreted the bible... correctly!
Everybody else may have interpreded ...incorrectly!

Had the WT been right, we should all be sitting under our own vine and fig trees right about now. As far as 'everyone else interpreting incorrectly', no one else has made the 1914, 1925, 1975, before the 20th century ends claims. Seems to me as if the WTS has stood alone on these and other statements with the majority of the rest of Christendom waiting for a future coming of the Christ and Armageddon. Disappointing as it is, the WT has a chronology problem. Owning up to it and shifting the end to yet a future time would only further discredit them, so they are stuck with having to sleep in this particular bed that they've made.