Norm

Joined

• started 158 topics
• posted 659 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Norm

• 
  45

  God’s Hero[s]

  by Norm in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  those who are believers and worry about meeting gods standard for moral, ethics and general behavior seem to have very little to worry about.

  at least if we are to take the bible serious.

  most christians seems to be very selective in such matters.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Norm

  defd

  By all means, why don't you tell us all the truth about Samson then?

  After all we all want the facts you know.

  Norm
• 
  21

  Grounds for divorce.

  by Norm in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  divorce has always been a tricky thing in the watchtower world and has been subject of many articles in the literature.

  for a year - from january 1972 until december the same year, "christian" husbands could technically screw anything with a pulse in the animal world without giving his spouse a "biblical" reason to divorce him.

  the only thing he had to be careful about if having sex with humans - men or women was to use the "rear entrance".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Norm

  Hello NeonMadman,

  You said:

  Many Christian believers live happy, productive lives, doing good for their fellow man to the best of their ability.

  Indeed there is, and that's only because they completely ignore 90% of the icredible insane nonsense the Bible spew.

  Norm
• 
  45

  God’s Hero[s]

  by Norm in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  those who are believers and worry about meeting gods standard for moral, ethics and general behavior seem to have very little to worry about.

  at least if we are to take the bible serious.

  most christians seems to be very selective in such matters.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Norm

  
  And that was all you got out of the story? I am not going to debate or make an issue out of her nationality, which is really irrelevant for the story, but no place in the relevant texts is her nationality revealed so it will be pure guesswork, I guess she was Philistine, you guess she was jewish. Anyway it is sidetracking the whole post.

  Norm
• 
  45

  God’s Hero[s]

  by Norm in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  those who are believers and worry about meeting gods standard for moral, ethics and general behavior seem to have very little to worry about.

  at least if we are to take the bible serious.

  most christians seems to be very selective in such matters.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Norm

  Those who are believers and worry about meeting God’s standard for moral, ethics and general behavior seem to have very little to worry about. At least if we are to take the Bible serious. Most Christians seems to be very selective in such matters. Take the example of the well know Hero and Judge, Samson. Just like with Jesus, the Bible claims it took a direct intervention from God in order for Samson to be born:

  *** Rbi8 Judges 13:2-5 ***
  2 Meanwhile there happened to be a certain man of Zo'rah of the family of the Dan'ites, and his name was Ma•no'ah. And his wife was barren and had borne no child. 3 In time Jehovah’s angel appeared to the woman and said to her: “Look, now, you are barren and have borne no child. And you will certainly become pregnant and give birth to a son. 4 And now watch yourself, please, and do not drink wine or intoxicating liquor, and do not eat anything unclean. 5 For, look! you will be pregnant, and you will certainly give birth to a son, and no razor should come upon his head, because a Naz'i•rite of God is what the child will become on leaving the belly; and he it is who will take the lead in saving Israel out of the hand of the Phi•lis'tines.”

  God seems to love this “barren woman” trick since he pulled it so often according to the Bible. In this incidence the writer didn’t even take the trouble of telling us the name of this remarkable woman. Anyway she got the son and for some inexplicable reason he was of course different from all other babies because he was “getting bigger” and Jehovah continued to “bless him”. Then God’s “spirit” apparently started to work on Samson:

  *** Rbi8 Judges 13:24-25 ***
  24 Later the woman gave birth to a son and called his name Samson; and the boy kept getting bigger, and Jehovah continued to bless him. 25 In time Jehovah’s spirit started to impel him in Ma'ha•neh-dan between Zo'rah and Esh'ta•ol.

  What did God’s spirit influence Samson to do? Let us find out:

  *** Rbi8 Judges 14:1-2 ***
  14 Then Samson went down to Tim'nah and saw a woman in Tim'nah of the daughters of the Phi•lis'tines. 2 So he went up and told his father and his mother and said: “There is a woman that I have seen in Tim'nah of the daughters of the Phi•lis'tines, and now get her for me as a wife.

  Well, apparently God made him think about, and (gasp) want sex because he wanted to marry, not to a fine Jewish woman, but a Philistine woman. God had apparently for some reason seen fit to endow Samson with “great strength”, one of the way’s Samson used this ability was to be cruel to animals, apparently something greatly admired in those days:

  *** Rbi8 Judges 14:5-7 ***
  5 Accordingly Samson went on down with his father and his mother to Tim'nah. When he got as far as the vineyards of Tim'nah, why, look! a maned young lion roaring upon meeting him. 6 Then Jehovah’s spirit became operative upon him, so that he tore it in two, just as someone tears a male kid in two, and there was nothing at all in his hand. And he did not tell his father or his mother what he had done. 7 And he continued on his way down and began to speak to the woman; and she was still right in Samson’s eyes.

  As we can see tearing a male kid in two seemed like a common pastime among Samson’s contemporaries.

  Samson also was quite a party man, according to the Bible he held a banquet that lasted for 7 days. If he tried such a stunt today Brooklyn would have been very displeased indeed. In the beginning of the banquet he tells the 30 Philistine groomsmen a riddle they have to solve before the banquet is over. Apparently this was serious business because the groomsmen threaten to burn down her father’s house if she doesn’t help them find out the answer to the riddle. This sent Samson’s wife into a crying fit lasting the 7 days of the banquet. It must have been quite a damper on the party having the wife of the host sobbing away all the time. But the crying eventually worked on Samson so he gave her the solution for the riddle, which she in turn told the despicable groomsmen. Samson seems to have learned about what happened:

  *** Rbi8 Judges 14:17-18 ***
  18 So the men of the city said to him on the seventh day before ever he could go into the interior room:
  “What is sweeter than honey,
  And what is stronger than a lion?”
  In turn he said to them:
  “If YOU had not plowed with my young cow,
  YOU would not have solved my riddle.”

  Here we can see the origin of the still doubtful custom of referring to women as heifers or cows, but what else can you expect from men of God? Now, what did Samson do? Did he pull a similar stunt as with the lion, and tear these deceptive groomsmen apart as a punishment for their despicable behavior? Let us find out:

  *** Rbi8 Judges 14:19 ***
  19 And Jehovah’s spirit became operative upon him, so that he went down to Ash'ke•lon and struck down thirty men of theirs and took what he stripped off them and gave the outfits to the tellers of the riddle. And his anger continued hot, and he went his way up to his father’s house.

  Jehovah’s spirit made him very angry but instead of venting this anger on the guilty men he went to another place and killed 30 men who had had nothing to do with the whole matter, took their clothes and gave them to the 30 groomsmen, go figure. A man who randomly kills 30 strangers is what we today call a mass murderer and this guy also did it under the influence of Jehovah’s spirit. I mean get hold of your children and read this story to them, it is immensely up building and after that you can never say that they are really badly behaved. Isn't the Word of God wonderful?

  Samson had no doubt been very displeased with the behavior of his wife, so much so that her father thought he hated her and had given her to one of the groomsmen, apparently this was what Samson had been “planning” for:

  *** Rbi8 Judges 15:1-3 ***
  So he said: “I will go in to my wife in the interior room.” And her father did not allow him to go in. 2 But her father said: “I really said to myself, ‘You must unquestionably hate her.’ Hence I gave her to your groomsman. Is not her younger sister better than she is? Let her, please, become yours instead of the other.” 3 However, Samson said to them: “This time I must be free of guilt against the Phi•lis'tines in case I am dealing with them to their injury.”

  This did of course not help much to quench Samson’s anger and he had to find some other sick depraved way of venting it so let us see what happened next:

  *** Rbi8 Judges 15:4-5 ***
  4 And Samson went his way and proceeded to catch three hundred foxes and to take torches and turn tail to tail and put one torch between two tails, right in the middle. 5 With that he set fire to the torches and sent them out into the fields of standing grain of the Phi•lis'tines. Thus he set on fire everything from sheaf to standing grain and the vineyards and the olive groves.

  Again we can see how this hero of God treated innocent animals and used them to devastate the crops of his enemies. Now the Philistines got a chance to show that they without the help of Jehovah could be just as vicious as the Jews:

  *** Rbi8 Judges 15:6 ***
  6 And the Phi•lis'tines began to say: “Who did this?” Then they said: “It was Samson the son-in-law of the Tim'nite, because he took his wife and then gave her to his groomsman.” At that the Phi•lis'tines went up and burned her and her father with fire.

  Instead of coming after Samson and punish him for his act, they turned their rage toward the poor woman and her father, what had they done to deserve such a gruesome death? Then in true Middle East tradition, which we can see is still alive and well today, the violence escalated as Samson slaughtered a great number of Philistines. The other Jew’s didn’t seem very pleased with Samson because they tied him up and delivered him to the Philistines as the no doubt insane murderer he was, but of course with the help of Jehovah he was able to kill a thousand of them with a jaw bone of an ass. But the madman, liar and mass murderer Samson had other excellent Godly qualities too:

  *** Rbi8 Judges 16:1-3 ***
  16 Once Samson went to Ga'za and saw a prostitute woman there and came in to her. 2 And report was made to the Ga'zites, saying: “Samson has come in here.” So they surrounded him and lay in wait for him all night long in the city gate. And they kept quiet the whole night, saying: “As soon as the morning gets light, we must also kill him.”
  3 However, Samson kept lying till midnight and then rose at midnight and grabbed hold of the doors of the city gate and the two side posts and pulled them out along with the bar and put them upon his shoulders and went carrying them up to the top of the mountain that is in front of He'bron.

  Samson would of course not dream of doing something as vile as masturbating so instead he went to a whore in Gaza. His night with this no doubt remarkable and talented woman was so invigorating for him that in the morning he ripped out the city gates and carried them up to the top of a nearby hill. But being a man with an obviously great appetite for female companionship and a clear preference for Philistine women he soon cast his eyes upon another one by the name of Delilah, you know, by the same name as in the Tom Jones song.

  However, Samson didn’t have much luck in choice of women as Delilah proved to be as much of a whiner as the first one and he didn’t learn much from that experience so he gave in to the whining this time too. Then we really get into the unmistakable realm of the superstitious nonsense and folklore. As we know the secret was in his hair. With a shaved head Samson, and even Jehovah was helpless. Then the Philistines were tying him up again and then they performed another very popular Biblical pastime and they put out his eyes. The rest of this story we know, with his 7 locks (no doubt rastafarian dreadlock style) now grown back, he calls for the help of the chief mass murderer, Jehovah, and together they kill a lot of Philistines. And this “Hero” was their “Judge” for 20 years. Poor Jewish people, no wonder they are so messed up.

  But as I mentioned in the beginning, it shouldn’t be very difficult for anyone to live up to Jehovah’s standard for a genuine hero. Partying, frequenting whorehouses, tormenting animals, mass murder etc. Compared to Samson we all stand out as extremely good people, don’t you think?

  Norm.
• 
  21

  Grounds for divorce.

  by Norm in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  divorce has always been a tricky thing in the watchtower world and has been subject of many articles in the literature.

  for a year - from january 1972 until december the same year, "christian" husbands could technically screw anything with a pulse in the animal world without giving his spouse a "biblical" reason to divorce him.

  the only thing he had to be careful about if having sex with humans - men or women was to use the "rear entrance".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Norm

  Hi NeonMadman

  I am afraid they have most of their insanities from the Bible even though they some times come up with their own. They still have this divorce rule which they undeniably get from the Bible, just read:

  In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus Christ said: “Everyone divorcing his wife, except on account of fornication, makes her a subject for adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” (Matt. 5:32) On a later occasion he told the Pharisees: “Whoever divorces his wife, except on the ground of fornication, and marries another commits adultery.”—Matt. 19:9.

  They are not the only Christian organization to observe this rule. The Bible is every bit as bad as the WTS. Every sect that takes the Bible really serious and actually try to live by what is written there ends up as insane fundamentalists.

  Norm
• 
  21

  Grounds for divorce.

  by Norm in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  divorce has always been a tricky thing in the watchtower world and has been subject of many articles in the literature.

  for a year - from january 1972 until december the same year, "christian" husbands could technically screw anything with a pulse in the animal world without giving his spouse a "biblical" reason to divorce him.

  the only thing he had to be careful about if having sex with humans - men or women was to use the "rear entrance".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Norm

  Divorce has always been a tricky thing in the Watchtower world and has been subject of many articles in the literature. For a year - from January 1972 until December the same year, "Christian" husbands could technically screw anything with a pulse in the animal world without giving his spouse a "biblical" reason to divorce him. The only thing he had to be careful about if having sex with humans - men or women was to use the "rear entrance"

  Anyway, read how the GB in their vast "wisdom" handles such matters. Good job they have this direct line with God. Well here it is:

  *** w72 1/1 pp. 31-32 Questions from Readers ***
  Questions from Readers• Do homosexual acts on the part of a married person constitute a Scriptural ground for divorce, freeing the innocent mate to remarry?—U.S.A.

  Homosexuality is definitely condemned in the Bible as something that will prevent individuals from gaining God’s approval. (1 Cor. 6:9, 10) However, whether an innocent mate would Scripturally be able to remarry after procuring a legal divorce from a mate guilty of homosexual acts must be determined on the basis of what the Bible says respecting divorce and remarriage.

  In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus Christ said: “Everyone divorcing his wife, except on account of fornication, makes her a subject for adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” (Matt. 5:32) On a later occasion he told the Pharisees: “Whoever divorces his wife, except on the ground of fornication, and marries another commits adultery.”—Matt. 19:9.

  Thus “fornication” is seen to be the only ground for divorce that frees the innocent mate to remarry.The Greek word for fornication is porneía. It can refer to illicit sexual relations between either married or unmarried persons. The ancient Greeks, in rare instances, may have understood this term to denote acts other than illicit sexual intercourse between a man and a woman. But the sense in which Jesus used the word porneía at Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 must be ascertained from the context.

  It should be noted that in Matthew chapters 5 and 19 “fornication” is used in the restricted sense of marital unfaithfulness, or illicit relations with another person not one’s marriage mate. Just before bringing up the matter of divorce in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus Christ pointed out that “everyone [married] that keeps on looking at a woman so as to have a passion for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Matt. 5:28) Consequently, when he afterward alluded to a woman’s committing fornication, his listeners would have understood this in its relative sense, namely, as signifying a married woman’s prostitution or adultery.

  The context of Matthew chapter 19 confirms this conclusion. On the basis of the Hebrew Scriptures, Jesus pointed out that a man and his wife became “one flesh,” and then added: “What God has yoked together let no man put apart.” (Matt. 19:5, 6) Now, in homosexual acts the sex organs are used in an unnatural way, in a way for which they were never purposed. Two persons of the same sex are not complements of each other, as Adam and Eve were. They could never become “one flesh” in order to procreate. It might be added, in the case of human copulation with a beast, two different kinds of flesh are involved. Wrote the apostle Paul: “Not all flesh is the same flesh, but there is one of mankind, and there is another flesh of cattle, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish.”—1 Cor. 15:39.

  While both homosexuality and bestiality are disgusting perversions, in the case of neither one is the marriage tie broken. It is broken only by acts that make an individual “one flesh” with a person of the opposite sex other than his or her legal marriage mate.

  The change came here. Apparently God, the Holy Spirit and all those bigwigs had changed their minds and the informed the GB about it, and as the "loyal" servants they are they immediately changed the rules:

  *** w72 12/15 pp. 766-768 Questions from Readers ***
  Questions from Readers• Why, according to Matthew’s accounts, did Jesus use two different words—“fornication” and “adultery”—in discussing the proper grounds for divorce? Is not the only ground for Scriptural divorce “adultery,” as the term is generally understood?—U.S.A.

  At Matthew 5:32 Jesus’ words are: “However, I say to you that everyone divorcing his wife, except on account of fornication [Greek, por·nei´a], makes her a subject for adultery [Greek, moi·khei´a], and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” Similarly, at Matthew 19:9 we read: “I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except on the ground of fornication [por·nei´a], and marries another commits adultery [moi·khei´a].”

  The account, therefore, does use two distinct words. Let us first see what they mean and then consider the significance of their use. Moi·khei´a, one of the terms used in Matthew’s account, is properly translated “adultery.” The English word “adultery” comes from the Latin adulterare, which means, basically, “to alter” and, by extension, “to corrupt or make impure, as by the addition of a foreign or a baser substance.” Thus we speak of ‘adulterating’ food, making it impure by adding foreign substances. A marriage is ‘adulterated’ when one of the parties defiles the marital relationship by having relations with someone outside that relationship. This idea of adulterating or corrupting, and of unfaithfulness to a sacred relationship, is also inherent in the Greek term moi·khei´a. Therefore, both in Greek and in English, the focus is on the effect illicit sexual relations have on the marriage relationship, the adulterous mate being guilty of introducing someone else into that relationship, corrupting the union that should include just the husband and wife.

  What of the other term used? “Fornication” focuses attention, not on the effect sexual immorality may have on a marital relationship, but on the nature or quality of the sexual activity itself. This is true, not only of the English word “fornication,” but also of the Greek word, por·nei´a, used in Matthew’s account. Our interest, of course, is primarily in the Greek term used by the Gospel writer. For, no matter what the word “fornication” may commonly be understood to mean by English-speaking people, it is what the word used in the Bible meant to the writer and the people at that time that really counts and is decisive.

  When “fornication” is mentioned today, people commonly think of sexual relations between members of the opposite sex, relations carried on outside marriage yet consisting of intercourse in the ‘ordinary’ or natural way. So, many have understood that, when Jesus said that “fornication [por·nei´a]” was the only ground for divorce, he referred only to intercourse in the ordinary or natural way between a wife and a man not her husband, or, by extension, between a husband and a woman not his wife. But is that the case? Does por·nei´a, the word used in Matthew’s account, refer only to such natural sexual relations? Or did it include all forms of immoral sexual relations, including those between individuals of the same sex and also perverted forms of sexual relations between members of the opposite sex? Just what did por·nei´a mean to people in the first century when Jesus was on earth? And does a sincere and careful investigation of this meaning call for a reappraisal of our understanding as to what the Scriptural ground for divorce is?

  A thorough study of the matter shows that por·nei´a refers to all forms of immoral sexual relations. It is a broad term, somewhat like the word “pornography,” which is drawn from por·nei´a or the related verb por·neu´o. Lexicons of the Greek language clearly show this to be so.

  They show that por·nei´a comes from a root word meaning “to sell,” and it describes sex relations that are licentious and not restrained (as by the restraint of adherence to marriage bonds). Thus, of the use of the word in Bible times, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament states that por·nei´a described “illicit sexual intercourse in general.” Moulton and Milligan’s The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament says it is “unlawful sexual intercourse generally.” The sixth volume of the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament says that por·nei´a can come to mean “‘sexual intercourse’ in gen[eral] without more precise definition.”

  It is because of its being a broad term (broader in its scope than the word “fornication” is in the minds of many English-speaking people) that many Bible translators use expressions such as “gross immorality,” “sexual immorality,” “sexual sins,” or similar, when translating por·nei´a.

  Does this mean that unnatural and perverted sexual relations such as those engaged in by homosexuals are included in the meaning of this term used by the apostle in recording Jesus’ words? Yes, that is the case. This can be seen by the way Jesus’ half brother Jude used por·nei´a when referring to the unnatural sex acts of the men of Sodom and Gomorrah. (Jude 7) Concerning the use of por·nei´a by Greek-speaking Jews around the start of the Common Era, the sixth volume of the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament says: “??????? [por·nei´a] can also be ‘unnatural vice,’ . . . sodomy.”

  What, then, is the significance of the Bible’s use of these terms and what does it reveal as to the valid Biblical grounds for divorce? It shows that any married person who goes outside the marriage bond and engages in immoral sexual relations, whether with someone of the opposite sex or someone of the same sex, whether natural or unnatural and perverted, is guilty of committing por·nei´a or “fornication” in the Bible sense. Such sexual relations do not refer to minor indiscretions a person might commit, as by a kiss or caress or embrace, but refer to immoral use of the genital organs in some form of intercourse, natural or unnatural.

  We find principles in the Law covenant in support of this broadened viewpoint. It is clear that under that Law marriages were dissolved when a mate committed serious sexual sins, including unnatural ones, inasmuch as such mate was put to death according to God’s own instructions.—Compare Exodus 22:19; Leviticus 18:22, 23, 29; 20:10-16; Deuteronomy 22:22; as well as the words of the Christian apostle at Romans 1:24-27, 32.

  Taking Jesus’ words for what they mean, therefore, when a mate is guilty of such serious sexual immorality the innocent mate may Scripturally divorce such a one, if he or she so desires. One who obtains a divorce on such Scriptural grounds is also Scripturally free to remarry, not thereby being subject to a charge of adultery.

  This clearly marks a correction in the view expressed on previous occasions in the columns of this magazine, but faithful adherence to what the Scriptures actually say requires it. There is much more that can be considered on the matter and for that reason it will be discussed more completely in a coming issue of this magazine.

  This is all an excellent example of how insane everything gets when idiots actually think that old crap, written by incredibly superstitious lunatics several thousand years ago, should have any influence in our lives.

  Norm
• 
  1

  Loyalty

  by Norm in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  one of the most telltale signs of all totalitarian systems, religious of political is that they demand complete loyalty from their members.

  no one or nothing can break that loyalty to the organization or the cause.

  the watchtower society is of course no exception in this matter but is demanding the same kind of loyalty.

  1. 
• 

  Norm

  One of the most telltale signs of all totalitarian systems, religious of political is that they demand complete loyalty from their members. No one or nothing can break that loyalty to the organization or the “cause”.

  The Watchtower Society is of course no exception in this matter but is demanding the same kind of loyalty. Being a religious organization they of course pretend that the loyalty you as a member are required to show isn’t directed at them but at God, but this is just technicalities, for all intent and purpose it is the Watchtower organization that gets and benefits from the members loyalty. They are of course aware that loyalty can be misplaced:

  *** w61 10/1 p. 591 Prophesying with the Loyal Organization ***
  Today many persons think that by their loyalty to a religious organization they are loyal to God. But they can be wrong about this.

  After having pointed this out they hurry to “identify” everyone but themselves as guilty of such “misplaced” loyalty. Not surprisingly it is the members of good old “Christendom” that are placing their loyalty to a “false organization”.

  *** w61 10/1 p. 591 Prophesying with the Loyal Organization ***
  Among things foretold to appear in our day are people and organizations described as being “lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, having a form of godly devotion but proving false to its power.” (2 Tim. 3:1, 4, 5) These make religious claims; they pretend to be devoted to God; they go through man-made religious ceremonies conducted by men who are ordained as priests, bishops, deacons, reverends and doctors of divinity. At the same time they go in for material things, the satisfying of the flesh rather than the spirit, and thus they betray that they are not God’s true organization.

  Then follows the usual complete nonsense and written contortionist act where scripture, not very clear to begin with, as usual are bent totally beyond any shape to fit on the two-bit puny con organization in Brooklyn, as the only one that “deserve” loyalty. So it turns out that when a friend, relative or close family member are accused of some act that go against the Watchtower organizations vast volume of written and unwritten rules, this is your chance to prove your ultimate loyalty to this abominable organization:

  *** w61 10/1 p. 596 Prophesying with the Loyal Organization ***
  What, then, if the son of a family that is within God’s visible organization should oppose this prophesying concerning the Kingdom? What if the son should begin to proclaim or prophesy something contrary to the Kingdom message and try to influence others in the organization wrongly, doing this in the name of Jehovah? What should the dedicated, baptized father and mother do? They dare not let their affections run wild; they dare not spare even this dear one whose natural birth they caused.
  22 They must declare to him the mortal sinfulness of his false prophesying or opposition to Kingdom prophesying. They cannot endure to have even their own child speak falsehood in the name of Jehovah. They must pierce him through because of his false prophesying. They must consider him as spiritually dead to themselves, as one with whom to have no religious association and fellowship and whose prophesyings are to be rejected. They must not hinder his being disfellowshiped from the New World society of Jehovah’s witnesses. It is a situation in which to remember the words of Jehovah’s King, Jesus Christ: “He that has greater affection for son or daughter than for me is not worthy of me.”—Matt. 10:37.

  *** w65 7/15 p. 435 Do Not Resist Jehovah’s Counsel ***
  25 At times action must be taken by a judicial committee of a congregation against a person in the congregation. Although that person may be a close friend or a relative, do not resist Jehovah’s arrangement by taking sides with that one against the organization. The action is necessary, and it is taken for the good of all the congregation. Such unpleasant happenings test your love for Jehovah and his organization. You fail to show love and loyalty to Jehovah’s organization when you side with persons against whom it is obliged to act.—1 Cor. 5:9-13.

  In a more recent publication the Watchtower Society are reminding their “flock” about this for the umpteenth time:

  *** km 8/02 p. 4 Display Christian Loyalty When a Relative Is Disfellowshipped ***
  11 As for a child, the same article continues: “Sometimes Christian parents have accepted back into the home for a time a disfellowshiped child who has become physically or emotionally ill. But in each case the parents can weigh the individual circumstances. Has a disfellowshiped son lived on his own, and is he now unable to do so? Or does he want to move back primarily because it would be an easier life? What about his morals and attitude? Will he bring ‘leaven’ into the home?—Gal. 5:9.”
  12 Benefits of Being Loyal to Jehovah: Cooperating with the Scriptural arrangement to disfellowship and shun unrepentant wrongdoers is beneficial. It preserves the cleanness of the congregation and distinguishes us as upholders of the Bible’s high moral standards. (1 Pet. 1:14-16) It protects us from corrupting influences. (Gal. 5:7-9) It also affords the wrongdoer an opportunity to benefit fully from the discipline received, which can help him to produce “peaceable fruit, namely, righteousness.”—Heb. 12:11.
  13 After hearing a talk at a circuit assembly, a brother and his fleshly sister realized that they needed to make adjustments in the way they treated their mother, who lived elsewhere and who had been disfellowshipped for six years. Immediately after the assembly, the man called his mother, and after assuring her of their love, he explained that they could no longer talk to her unless there were important family matters requiring contact. Shortly thereafter, his mother began attending meetings and was eventually reinstated. Also, her unbelieving husband began studying and in time was baptized.

  So even in this regard the Watchtower Society is fulfilling all the requirements for a totalitarian organization. Of course like all true totalitarian organizations and totalitarian thinking individuals’ criticism of the Watchtower Society is the same as criticizing God himself. Stalin equated all criticism of himself as Anti-Soviet propaganda. The same totalitarian thinking is really quite usual today where criticism of Israel is automatically equated with anti-Semitism; criticism of the Bush administration is Anti American etc.
  All of it typical of a totalitarian mindset, where nuances, details and such means nothing. Such thinking demands unquestionable loyalty to nations, organizations and other entities with a totalitarian mindset.

  Norm
• 
  27

  Monotheism - the beginnings of one world govt?

  by Satanus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  but consider when there were many gods, male and female.

  you could choose the one that suited your nature.

  or, if one god wasn't doing it for you, or you thought that it was harassing you, you call in another god to help you.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Norm

  Monotheism is a tragedy and it is really an antireligion or a counter-religion. The hebrew kind seems to be an inversion of the old Egyption polytheistic religion. Everything the Egyptians held sacred was filthy and vice versa. Much the same as the relationship between hindusim and islam.

  Religion wasn't a cause for war when everyone worshipped the same gods under different names. When monotheism arose all hell broke lose. Now we have a US president on a "mission from God" against another guy on the same mission, both monotheists.

  Norm
• 
  54

  Death of innocent people

  by Norm in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  again we have been witnessing a hideous, horrible act of terrorism where cowards and maniacs have blown up innocent people.

  it is thoroughly distressing and revolting.

  being a bit cynical about it this it is in all probability a payback to britain for blairs staunch support to george bush.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Norm

  hello u/d
  
  It is hard to know where to begin with your post but you can start educating yourself on the first point you made, which was this:
  
  
  "As "they" say... you drew first blood by TARGETING innocent civilians. And yes "collateral damage" is the proper term. What kind of utopian dream world do you live in where ANY military option doesn't hurt the innocent?"
  
  
  If you think that sept 11 was "first blood" and not a retaliation, you ignorance about recent history is staggering but hardly surprising considering where you live. And second, when you carpetbomb a country and use clusterbombs it should be abundantly clear that worries about civilian "casualties" isn't very high on the list. Conservative estimates say that over 10,000 civilian Afghans were killed on those bombings, people who of course had nothing whatsoever to do with Sept. 11. And yes,"the entire Congress, Senate and JCS and the President...were/are "idiots"..." I thought you had gotten that by now. This question from you really tell it all:
  
  
  "My question now is... When Billionaires and Millionaires go to wage battle for their respective "causes"...why do you think your opinion matters ( mine included)?"
  
  
  So you do realize that you do not live an a democracy then? Well, that's progress.
  
  
  
  
• 
  54

  Death of innocent people

  by Norm in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  again we have been witnessing a hideous, horrible act of terrorism where cowards and maniacs have blown up innocent people.

  it is thoroughly distressing and revolting.

  being a bit cynical about it this it is in all probability a payback to britain for blairs staunch support to george bush.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Norm

  
  There is an almost unbelievable hypocrisy regarding what is going on in the so-called war on terror. As one of the posters (Spook) here pointed out, that there is really no meaningful definition on what terror is or means, because if such a definition was made it would no doubt include what the US and its allies are doing in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere and of course did in Vietnam. The British journalist Robert Fisk has some quite interesting comments about this here:

  "If you bomb our cities," Osama bin Laden said in one of his recent video tapes, "we will bomb yours." There you go, as they say. It was crystal clear Britain would be a target ever since Tony Blair decided to join George Bush’s "war on terror" and his invasion of Iraq. We had, as they say, been warned. The G8 summit was obviously chosen, well in advance, as Attack Day.

  And it’s no use Mr Blair telling us yesterday that "they will never succeed in destroying what we hold dear". "They" are not trying to destroy "what we hold dear". They are trying to get public opinion to force Blair to withdraw from Iraq, from his alliance with the United States, and from his adherence to Bush’s policies in the Middle East. The Spanish paid the price for their support for Bush - and Spain’s subsequent retreat from Iraq proved that the Madrid bombings achieved their objectives - while the Australians were made to suffer in Bali.
  
  It is easy for Tony Blair to call yesterdays bombings "barbaric" - of course they were - but what were the civilian deaths of the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq in 2003, the children torn apart by cluster bombs, the countless innocent Iraqis gunned down at American military checkpoints? When they die, it is "collateral damage"; when "we" die, it is "barbaric terrorism".

  http://www.robert-fisk.com/articles517.htm

  Another rather strange phenomenon is that no one seems to have any interest in what Osama Bib Laden actually say, when he publish his videos. Fisk also addresses this:

  “It’s strange that for a White House that writes screenplays, the words of Osama bin Laden appear so uninteresting. Whenever Bin Laden speaks, no one bothers to read through his speech. The questions are always: Was it him? Is he alive? Where is he? Never: What did he say?”

  http://www.robert-fisk.com/articles516.htm

  The sheer idiocy of attacking Iraq, which was clear to so many even before it happened should now be crystal clear to anyone with half a brain, but instead we see an incredible amount of people participate in myth making:

  “So we are going to support the myth. As the headless bodies are found along the Tigris, as the mortuaries fill up, as the American dead grow far beyond 1,700 - and, let us remember, the Iraqi dead go into the tens of thousands - Europe and the rest of the world still support the American project.”

  http://www.robert-fisk.com/articles514.htm

  The world which was supposed to become a so much better place when Saddam was gone doesn't seem to follow the Washington/Hollywood script.

  Norm