Posts by OutsiderLookingIn

92

Only a few days ago I was entirely lost and without hope the rug was pulled out from under me

by elderess in

jw
friends

only a few days ago i was walking around the house in a mindless wander thinking if i needed to seek professional help.

then i got the courage to seek the comfort of complete strangers on the internet and found a world of support here on this website.

thank you simon and whoever else has made this website possible.

OutsiderLookingIn

Congratulations, eldress! This is truly wonderful news! I wish you and your husband all the best as you move forward. Time to get busy living :)

14

Leaving jw propaganda all around the house, what to do?

by Crazyguy in

the wife leaves it all around, not sure if this is by design i don't think so since the return to jah brochure was never left out.

it drives me a bit nuts but haven't done anything about it.

looking for ideas on what i should do?

OutsiderLookingIn

One of two options--

Two can play at that game: leave out some article about the ARC, the headquarters being sold off or some other controversial issue.

Or spring cleaning: just throw them out. If it's a "mistake", she can't blame you when they go missing. Shred well to make sure no unsuspecting garbage collector sees it and wants to learn more.

32

Every Know Anyone Too "Weak" To Wake Up?

by freemindfade in

a jw that is probably irregular, they don't really attend meetings, they are not up on anything going on, they may even seem like they are faded but they are not, they are just slackers.

a jw that is impervious to the f.o.g.

(ok maybe it bums them, but they are too lazy and self serving to do otherwise).

OMG, yes! This is pretty much exactly the situation with my (former) JW romantic interest. He only attends the Memorial from what I can tell. We have religious discussions and he's rusty on the teachings besides the basics (paradise earth and holidays are bad). Sometimes it's as if he's guessing at the right answer probably because it's changed lol and gets a quick refresher by going to the website. It's sad. He was born in and I'm sure his main attachment is family, identity and emotional (nostalgia about the brotherhood).

I don't think it's impossible but it's an uphill and slow battle for sure. I think he appreciates my knowledge and respect for the Bible and likes the chance to have discussions that allow difference of opinion. I stepped away physically because of what I've read about inactive people sometimes relapsing and the possibility frightens me. I came to realize that if he's half out, he's all in. And I can't live like that. So from a distance (text), I keep the conversation going. Not only about JW nonsense but also about life, that more often than not, it's what you make of it.

56

A fresh start

by FormerlySandL in

after the worst introduction i could ever make on the forum i would like to reintroduce myself and make a fresh start on the forum and hopefully over time i will be able to redeem myself.

i have changed my user name which was over dramatic and ridiculous in the cold light of day but for transparency and to show i am not trying to hide anything i have adapted the original name and it now has a more positive feel.

after reading a lot of posts on this forum i am feeling more optimistic about my future.

OutsiderLookingIn

Welcome, Formerly S&L!

I've never been a JW...just so you know, we're not all bad ;) A few words of wisdom as you begin your journey:

- Take one day at a time. It's an overwhelming change in worldview.

- You will have to learn discernment. You've already learned JWs aren't all good; the rest of the world isn't all bad and you'll find more good if you're willing to see it. No more broad strokes

- Move forward as it's comfortable for you, not to try to win friends or only because you're trying to rebel. In doing so, it's more than you could do under the WT's thumb--you can decide.

All the best going forward!

3

👑 He Who Is Least In The Kingdom of Heaven....

by Cold Steel in

jesus said that of all those born of women, none were greater than john the baptist.

nevertheless, he added, he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

universally nearly all scholars have taken this to mean that because jesus had taken upon himself the sins of the world, he had the last claim upon the kingdom of heaven.

OutsiderLookingIn

I've understood this passage as setting forth the necessity of being born again for salvation. Contrary to WT theology, it does not say go further and say that John the Baptist was excluded. The comparison is between those born of women (all humans) and those entering the kingdom of God. Kingdom of God and kingdom of heaven are interchangeable. And born again = born of the Spirit = born of God. The entirety of John 3 is about this requirement: John 3:3-5, Jesus telling Nicodemus you must be born again (born of the Spirit); John 3:15-17, believe in the Son for eternal life (also John 1:12-13).

So Jesus was in effect saying: John the Baptist is the greatest among natural born men, but even he would not enter the kingdom of God if he was not born of the Spirit. Other passages show that John believed Jesus for salvation (e.g., when he baptized Jesus in Matthew 3 and when he reiterated the same requirement for salvation in John 3:25-36), so John was born of the Spirit.

40

Prince's recent passport pik!

by fulltimestudent in

well, that's the claim.

is this sexy, or isn't it?

are male witnesses now allowed to wear eye liner?.

OutsiderLookingIn

Hmmm fair point, sir82. But did MJ ever publicly state he was a JW? I don't know either way, but if he didn't, they didn't lose anything by cutting him off. Plus in 2016, I'm sure they're more concerned about attracting/keeping people with examples of talented people in the org. So they won't burn a bridge if they don't have to.

40

Prince's recent passport pik!

by fulltimestudent in

well, that's the claim.

is this sexy, or isn't it?

are male witnesses now allowed to wear eye liner?.

OutsiderLookingIn

As much as I'd love confirmation that Prince is no longer a JW, I don't think we'll ever get it. As has been mentioned, celeb JWs play by a different set of rules. So he won't get disfellowshipped. The only way to know for sure is if he were to publicly disassociate, which he wouldn't do for business reasons (non-JWs love him/buy his stuff because he's a musical genius; JWs love him/buy his music because he's a JW). From his perspective, what would be the point of confirming or denying? As things are, he can't lose.

But if he ever did leave and give a principled reason for leaving, he'd have a very large audience.

47

Help finding a video of GB member saying that Jehovah may not really be God's name

by mamacita29 in

jw
friends

hi everyone i'm at work and need to show this video to a jw.

i saw it a few weeks ago i think it was geoffry jackson who said that jehovah may or may not be gods real name but we use it anyways.

can someone help me find that video?

OutsiderLookingIn

Leaving quietly--yes, it's all mountains out of molehills with the Watchtower. That and hypocrisy. The issue is not for most people is not how The Name is pronounced. It's that the Watchtower hangs it hat on the idea that it's so important to use His name in worship and yet revert to what other Christian denominations have used (and still use) because it's widely accepted. JWs do not have the monopoly they think on the word Jehovah. That's why their high-falutin' claims are especially obnoxious and hypocritical.

Another issue is that one of their pet verses (Matthew 6:9) says the Father's name should be sanctified (or other translations say: hallowed). That does NOT mean Jehovah should be used all the time. To the contrary, it means His name (the Person) is set apart and holy. That's not to say we should never say the name Jehovah, but JWs could certainly be accused of overuse.

Some think the Name is unimportant and others say it should be known and spoken. I won't weigh in either way except to say: be consistent. A major issue with JW theology generally is that Jehovah can only mean the Father. I think it's the main reason the Watchtower has taken it upon themselves to add Jehovah to the New Testament even though the Tetragrammaton is NEVER used. The only time it might be justifiable to insert Jehovah is when the Old Testament is quoted but even there, that's not the word used. The Greek word is kyrios/kyrion, which is translated "Lord" and was applied to Jesus.

The only motivation I can see for adding Jehovah where the Tetragrammaton is not for clarity, but rather to create a false distinction between Jesus and Jehovah/Yahweh. Romans 10 is a good example because in the span of a few verses, it shows kyrion referring to Jesus (Romans 10:9) and then in Romans 10:13, kyrios is used again in quoting Joel 2:32 but this time it's translated as Jehovah. Did Paul get confused as he was writing and dare to use the same word to describe Jehovah, maker of heaven and earth and Jesus, a mere created being? As in everything else, the Watchtower's translation choices on where to use Jehovah instead of Lord (thus implying Jesus) are determined by its predetermined conclusions. The Watchtower Bible Detract Society strikes again!

41

Toasting is Pagan - How many contradictions can fit in 2 pages, I found 5?

by jwfacts in

the watchtower 2007 feb 15 pp.30-31 explains why jehovah's witnesses are not to toast.

what is astounding is that for each point they then go on an explain why the point is irrelevant, yet still conclude toasting is wrong.

what did people think when reading this?

OutsiderLookingIn

That's interesting, One Eyed Joe. I didn't mean to diminish your experience by any means. Both reactions are definitely possible. As I'm learning, the Watchtower gets you coming and going. They have the true believers (in the GB) and the unsure but guilt ridden follow along. It's such a shame.

41

Toasting is Pagan - How many contradictions can fit in 2 pages, I found 5?

by jwfacts in

the watchtower 2007 feb 15 pp.30-31 explains why jehovah's witnesses are not to toast.

what is astounding is that for each point they then go on an explain why the point is irrelevant, yet still conclude toasting is wrong.

what did people think when reading this?

OutsiderLookingIn

Great OP and topic generally. As a never dub, the endless string of rules and contradictory reasoning is truly mind-numbing.

OneEyed Joe, I reach the same conclusion about the "difference" between wedding rings and toasting, but for the exact opposite reason. Everything JWs do is to raise their conspicuousness. It's all about how they can stand out. Wedding rings accomplish this goal. Marriage is still generally respected and respectable in our society. And as a single woman, I definitely notice a wedding ring lol. So a JW with a wedding ring and org pin (ugh) makes a statement without saying a word: I'm a JW and I believe in the sanctity of marriage (whether or not it's true).

As for not toasting, I think it is conspicuous in a small group (which is generally how toasts are made at a table...you try to clink glasses with everyone). If the one JW at the table abstains, someone might ask, why didn't you join in? Giving them an opportunity to give a witness (read: rain on everyone else's parade). I certainly think it's why JWs aren't permitted to celebrate holidays even non-religious ones. What better witness than to differentiate yourself multiple times a year for no good reason? But what's the one thing they are allowed to celebrate? Hmmm... Because JWs are so respectable It's just gross. The control is sickening.