stuckinarut2: That's exactly how I feel. It calls to mind Jesus' description of them being like "sheep thrown about without a shepherd."
These Dubs in this video are just pawns of a bunch of Pharisees...they're proverbial cannon fodder.
you don't have to know much to talk to jw's and show them they don't want to really discuss the matters.they consider a discussion on the matter they are pushing to be "confrontational.".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfw_txpmsj8.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lqtadagucq.
stuckinarut2: That's exactly how I feel. It calls to mind Jesus' description of them being like "sheep thrown about without a shepherd."
These Dubs in this video are just pawns of a bunch of Pharisees...they're proverbial cannon fodder.
you don't have to know much to talk to jw's and show them they don't want to really discuss the matters.they consider a discussion on the matter they are pushing to be "confrontational.".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfw_txpmsj8.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lqtadagucq.
It is sad. (Disclaimer: only watched the first video, figured the second was more of the same.)
Back in the day, I would relish the opportunity to have an intellectual discussion such as this.
What the kid got wrong is that he's obviously not trained properly. First, you find common ground. Find out what the householder believes. Then, talk about what you believe.
When the householder didn't seem interested in learning more about what you believe, you can then say, "Well, isn't it wonderful we live in a time where we can have discussions like this?"
Depending on the reaction of the householder, I would then say, "No one has all the answers. I personally believe the Bible has satisfying answers and provides comfort for a lot of these existential questions." I would then read a comforting passage or a passage that showed the Bible contained sound advice on living life.
I then would thank the householder for his time, if he was still railing on about evolution, and offer to call back at another time to have another in depth discussion.
What I was taught in Pioneer School is that it's okay to have an intellectual spiritual discussion. Obviously, if the person is just being argumentative or aggressive, the direction was to not waste your time. But in the case of the first video, it seemed to me that there was a genuine interchange of ideas there, and that poor, ill-equipped bloke looked like a deer in the headlights.
so manipulaitve.
.
http://www.printcentralandsigns.com/jwtalks/covisits/sinutko%20charles%20-%20is%20it%20proper%20to%20have%20doubts.mp3.
Just now listening to this.
I noticed in at around the 1:15 mark he uses the term, "Jehovah's Christian Witnesses."
Is this an old term? I was born in for the last 35+ years, and I don't remember this term being used ever.
hey guys.
my grandpa died recently, for a reason i told my jw friends about it.
and they literally didn't say anything about it at moved on to another subject like nothing happened.
i have read the site with great interest over the last few weeks.
some interesting stuff thats for sure.. i have left the jehovah's witnesses (was almost going to say the 'truth') for some time now.
i was one of the lucky ones that was baptised then faded, no humiliating disfellowshipping but nonetheless was very hard to get myself out.
ever had this thought about an upcoming movie?.
and then i would feel guilty for putting my entertainment desires ahead of god's kingdom.. .
shameless!.
Oh man, when I heard about the prequels back in the 90's I said that. "1999? 2002? 2005? The new system will be here by then. WHYYYYYYYY?!?!?"
Of course then I saw the Prequels and because of Jar Jar, I wished Armageddon had come so I wouldn't have been so disappointed with George Lucas adulteration of my childhood dreams.
hello,.
this is a question for people with web knowledge (i'm looking at you simon :-)):.
i'm wondering why they named it tv.jw.org instead of something like jw.org/tv?.
I'm trying to explain this in layman's terms.
tv.jw.org is considered a "subdomain."
A Domain Name Server (DNS) is a computer that tells your web browser where to find the information for that URL you typed in.
You can tell the DNS to point people that type in to tv.jw.org to a certain computer (server).
However, if someone types in jw.org/tv, everything contained on jw.org/tv is on the same server as everything else on jw.org.
Video takes up a lot of disk space and bandwidth. They likely needed to have a separate server for the traffic to tv.jw.org which is why it wouldn't be possible to make it jw.org/tv.
christ, my mind feels f***ed.
there is so many layers of indoctrination and rules and regulations in this, whatever this is (religion?
cult?
campaign of hate:
I am going through the same thing as you. I'm still active, I even give opening prayer at the meetings occasionally. That's the hardest. Gritting your teeth and going through the motions because you're not ready to show your cards.
I was feeling really crazy and messed up last week. I feel different this week. Do you know why?
I made an appointment with a therapist. I need to talk verbally to someone about these dilemmas, even if they just listen. I need to get it out in the open.
This forum helps, but it's not the same as saying it out loud.
Once I made that appointment, even though it's not for a couple weeks, I felt a million times better because I knew I'd be able to talk to someone in confidence without fear of being judged.
the movie american sniper is breaking box office records and of course there is some irony that a movie about a sniper is released on martin luther king day (who was shot by one).. but of course there is a world of difference between an assassin and a military sniper ... or is there?.
some are making a big stink about it and claiming that "snipers are cowards".
it seems unfair to me.
so i have gotten into arguements with my wife in the past about this cult.
now a days after reading steve hassan books...i just try and avoid anything jdub with her.
try to keep her in authentic mode..(not sure she really has one).
I think the group here has the right idea. I would just approach it gently.
Perhaps just say, "I agree. James was correct. Can you show me from the context of where he said this what works he was referring to?"