Posts by NotBlind

101

Is it wrong for a white to marry a black?

by gumby in

jw
friends

see if you think this sounds a little............you know.......biggoted .

do you think the opinion from the slave is a little strong in one direction..........nah!

questions from readers wt, 1960 july 15

NotBlind

Someone stated

I notice no Scriptures are cited

Actually, gumby didn't post the whole article. Here's the whole thing from wt 7/15/60:

Is it wrong for a white person and a colored one to marry if they truly love each other? Does the Bible give any counsel in this regard?W. M., U.S.A.
Gods Word does not forbid marriage between the races. On the contrary, it shows that all races are related in that they all came from one man originally. (Acts 17:26) No one race is esteemed better in Gods sight than another. As the apostle Peter expressed it: "God is not partial, but in every nation the man that fears him and works righteousness is acceptable to him."Acts 10:34, 35.
What Gods Word does command is that dedicated Christians should marry "only in the Lord." Should it happen that one or the other had been married before, it would be necessary that they be Scripturally free; either in that the mate is deceased or has been legally divorced because of adultery.1 Cor. 7:39.
Obviously, those who marry seek happiness. And the Scriptures indicate that a marriage or wedding should be a very happy occasion. The countless happily married couples give evidence that marriage can bring deep satisfactions, contentment and much joy. However, it also follows that due to human imperfection marriage does bring with it a certain amount of "tribulation in their flesh," as the apostle Paul terms it.1 Cor. 7:28.
It is quite likely that those who marry across racial lines will have more of this tribulation than will others. Christians cannot change prevailing human customs, prejudices and laws but must put up with them. They should therefore take a very realistic view of matters and recognize the added difficulties such a marriage will have to face. In many parts of the earth there is still much racial discrimination, and entering such a marriage may result in restricting the Christians opportunities for preaching the good news of Gods kingdom. Also, children born of such a marriage most likely will face similar added obstacles as soon as they are old enough to mingle with other children.
Then again, the law in certain lands and states forbids interracial marriage. Since Christians must recognize Caesars right to regulate marriage, Christians residing in such states or lands and contemplating interracial marriage would have to move to a land or state where such marriages are legal, and it would be inadvisable for them to return to their own land or state or to go to any others having such laws.
In view of these factors, those who contemplate such a marriage will do well to consider the step seriously. Is it truly love or chiefly physical attraction? Would it be in the best interests of both? Is this marriage the best possible solution to their problem or reason for wanting to marry? Before marriage the love between two persons may seem sufficiently strong, but is it strong enough to endure the added obstacles such a marriage brings with it? If two persons of different races decide to take such a step, no one should criticize them. The really important factors, it may not be forgotten, are those plainly stated in the Scriptures.

7

silentlambs march summary

by silentlambs in

jw
friends

she gets a nice round of applause.

today we are very honored to present erica garza as the next recipient of the silentlambs courage award.

all: nice applause sherry!!

NotBlind

Good Job, Bill and all the not-so-silentlambs!

While you were reminding the WTS of their hypocrisy, you were in my mind back home in Kentucky. Way to go, and keep putting the pressure on!

NotBlind

6

bowen's kentucky cong? this is the gossip...

by surferdude in

jw
friends

i got into a discussion and it swung to the famous cong.

i guess someone i know who is a mts got sent there to "help out"... the word on the street is that the "congregation was taken over by apostates"..."no one could trust anyone, and there was picketing around it".

and something about the deed to the hall .

NotBlind

ARoarer, Draffenville is in a different circuit than Louisville (3 hours away). Western Kentucky has a CO by the name of Gary Hughes. I hear he's a pretty bad one, too... Very demanding on the congs, I hear.

23

M.T.S. Brothers

by Black Man in

jw
friends

another avenue of service that the borg always tries to shove down the mouths of youth/single peeps is that of going to m.t.s.

(ministerial training school).

if bethel isn't your cup of tea, then m.t.s.

NotBlind

And nobody wants to go to MTS, at least not many...

A friend of mine who still goes to the assembly went to the MTS meeting at the last CA. He said he was the only guy there. I guess there aren't that many single bro's around by age 23, at least not any that want to stay single for 2 more years.

27

Are the Disassociated shunned?

by NotBlind in

on a whim, i recently visited the jw media site and found this question in their beliefs faq at http://www.jw-media.org/beliefs/beliefsfaq.htm:do you shun former members?those who simply leave the faith are not shunned.

if, however, someone unrepentantly practices serious sins, such as drunkenness, stealing, or adultery, he will be disfellowshipped and such an individual is avoided by former fellow-worshipers.

every effort is made to help wrongdoers.

NotBlind

I think Elsewhere hit the nail on the head...

The ole WTS is "couching" its words very carefully, trying to give the impression that their no-shun policy applies to the disassociated, when they're really talking about the inactive...

27

Are the Disassociated shunned?

by NotBlind in

on a whim, i recently visited the jw media site and found this question in their beliefs faq at http://www.jw-media.org/beliefs/beliefsfaq.htm:do you shun former members?those who simply leave the faith are not shunned.

if, however, someone unrepentantly practices serious sins, such as drunkenness, stealing, or adultery, he will be disfellowshipped and such an individual is avoided by former fellow-worshipers.

every effort is made to help wrongdoers.

NotBlind

Maybe I'm the only person here who thinks the WTS is trying to deceive the public . . . ? ?

We all know JW's shun the disassociated. The point is: they're using their spin doctors to try to convince the public that they don't....

Am I the only one who sees the WT deception here?

39

Useless Drama Pictures

by Matty in

jw
friends

do any of you good people of jw.com remember going to a district convention and hearing that little announcement the chairman would make before the bible-drama started?.

it generally went like this: "please remain seated during the drama and please do not obstruct other peoples view if using recording equipment such as camcorders" and he would also say "please do not use flash photography because it distracts others and is of little use.".

they made such a fuss anyone would think we were all going to witness the second coming of christ, floating down on his chariot onto the field!

NotBlind

Hmmmm, might this be the 1994 drama?

27

Are the Disassociated shunned?

by NotBlind in

on a whim, i recently visited the jw media site and found this question in their beliefs faq at http://www.jw-media.org/beliefs/beliefsfaq.htm:do you shun former members?those who simply leave the faith are not shunned.

if, however, someone unrepentantly practices serious sins, such as drunkenness, stealing, or adultery, he will be disfellowshipped and such an individual is avoided by former fellow-worshipers.

every effort is made to help wrongdoers.

NotBlind

The reason I bring this topic up is that the wording on the JW media website was changed recently. It used to say

Those who simply cease to be involved are not shunned.

Now it says

Those who simply leave the faith are not shunned.

Why was it changed? If I didn't know any better, I would say that the former refers to the inactive, the "fade-aways" and the latter refers to the inactive and the da'ed, too. I know it's just a few words, but they seem to convey a different tone.

27

Are the Disassociated shunned?

by NotBlind in

on a whim, i recently visited the jw media site and found this question in their beliefs faq at http://www.jw-media.org/beliefs/beliefsfaq.htm:do you shun former members?those who simply leave the faith are not shunned.

if, however, someone unrepentantly practices serious sins, such as drunkenness, stealing, or adultery, he will be disfellowshipped and such an individual is avoided by former fellow-worshipers.

every effort is made to help wrongdoers.

NotBlind

Leaving the faith means becoming inactive.

I believe that "leaving the faith" is the same as "leaving Jehovah's Witnesses". If this is the case, then I would say that becoming inactive is merely one way (of only 2 options I can think of) of leaving Jehovah's Witnesses. Another option to leave Jehovah's Witnesses is to disassociate oneself. It's an option that has been discussed many times on this board.

It's really a matter of semantics, but I honestly believe that becoming inactive is not the only way to 'leave the faith' of JW's.

DAing yourself is disfellowshipping yourself

The final result is the same, you get the cold shoulder. The means is not, though. When someone is DA'ed, no JC meets, no 'sin' is required. I disagree with, but understand, the WT reasons of DF'ing and treating them the way they do. What basis do they have for treating DA'ed ones the same way? I see no Bible support whatsoever...

27

Are the Disassociated shunned?

by NotBlind in

on a whim, i recently visited the jw media site and found this question in their beliefs faq at http://www.jw-media.org/beliefs/beliefsfaq.htm:do you shun former members?those who simply leave the faith are not shunned.

if, however, someone unrepentantly practices serious sins, such as drunkenness, stealing, or adultery, he will be disfellowshipped and such an individual is avoided by former fellow-worshipers.

every effort is made to help wrongdoers.

NotBlind

On a whim, I recently visited the JW Media site and found this question in their Beliefs FAQ at http://www.jw-media.org/beliefs/beliefsfaq.htm:

Do you shun former members?
Those who simply leave the faith are not shunned. If, however, someone unrepentantly practices serious sins, such as drunkenness, stealing, or adultery, he will be disfellowshipped and such an individual is avoided by former fellow-worshipers. Every effort is made to help wrongdoers. But if they are unrepentant, the congregation needs to be protected from their influence. The Bible clearly directs: "Remove the wicked man from among yourselves." (1 Corinthians 5:13) What of a man who is disfellowshipped but whose wife and children are still Jehovah's Witnesses? The spiritual ties he had with his family change, but blood ties remain. The marriage relationship and normal family affections and dealings can continue. As for disfellowshipped relatives not living in the same household, Jehovah's Witnesses apply the Bible's counsel: "Quit mixing with them." (1 Corinthians 5:11) Disfellowshipped individuals may continue to attend religious services and, if they wish, they may receive spiritual counsel from the elders with a view to their being restored. They are always welcome to return to the faith if they reject the improper course of conduct for which they were disfellowshipped.

My problem is with the first sentence. "Those who simply leave the faith are not shunned." Is this true? I think most elders would agree that those who "leave the faith" include disassociated ones.

I noticed that there was a BIG demarcation in this paragraph between those who leave on their own and those who are thrown out (df'ed). Basically, this site states that those who leave on their own are not shunned; those who are df'ed are shunned. Although still corrupt, it makes a little bit of sense, even though it requires some twisting...

The August King-dumb Misery insert now says that

the principles . . . apply equally to those who are disfellowshipped and to those who are disassociated.

How can this be reconciled with what's on their website (not to mention the Bible), even using the WTS brand of double-talk? Or does the WTS need to update their site to say: "There's no honorable way to leave the WT. If you go, you're toast!" ??

Is the webmaster in the dark? Was he left out of the latest edition of "new light"? Is there dissention in the ranks? Or am I missing something?