Posts by Drearyweather

43

talked to jw woman on corner then later family fight with jw dad

by JunkYardDog in

jw
friends

i had to go into a office close to a supermarket on a very high traffic expressway with next to no persons on the street anyway ever near.

i see this jw lady about 65 yrs old standing there alone with 2 bags of groceries staring at the catholic church one side across the interstate road and the kh across the other side of the highway.

cross bronx expressway.

Drearyweather

JYD. I repeat, there is no need to be that mad here. No one is your enemy. For many posters, this is a place to heal.

The style of all your past posts that I have read seems that you have lost a great deal in your life to the WT. I am sorry for that. You are right to be angry at the WT, but don't be angry and mad at anyone or everyone here who disagrees. That way you are just imitating the style of the WT that you left. Let's tolerate each other. I again apologize if I have hurt you. That was not my intention.

Next time maybe I'll just read your posts and move on. I hope you gain happiness in your life through your activism. But in my opinion, life is not all about trashing your ex-religion each an every moment. Let's celebrate whatever is left in this small life and enjoy these moments!!!.. All the best to you and Cheer up now:)

43

talked to jw woman on corner then later family fight with jw dad

by JunkYardDog in

jw
friends

i had to go into a office close to a supermarket on a very high traffic expressway with next to no persons on the street anyway ever near.

i see this jw lady about 65 yrs old standing there alone with 2 bags of groceries staring at the catholic church one side across the interstate road and the kh across the other side of the highway.

cross bronx expressway.

Drearyweather

Again.

JYD, Why do you need to shout and cuss if someone asks you something?

I am not experienced like you. Maybe my question was not right or too sarcastic. I apologize if it hurt you in some way.

But why the need to use profanities while replying?

My point was, you stopped your car twice by a 65-year-old lady with 2 grocery bags and ask her about wts child abuse rather than asking her for a ride/drop home or knowing if she needs any help. That I think was not polite.

If you think I am wrong, then reply in a civil manner rather than shouting back.

43

talked to jw woman on corner then later family fight with jw dad

by JunkYardDog in

jw
friends

i had to go into a office close to a supermarket on a very high traffic expressway with next to no persons on the street anyway ever near.

i see this jw lady about 65 yrs old standing there alone with 2 bags of groceries staring at the catholic church one side across the interstate road and the kh across the other side of the highway.

cross bronx expressway.

Drearyweather

Your a dope

your a jw ass kisser

YOUR AN IDIOT

I just asked you whether you were teasing her and you reply by giving me a barrage of expletives.

Is this your normal way of confronting someone?

43

talked to jw woman on corner then later family fight with jw dad

by JunkYardDog in

jw
friends

i had to go into a office close to a supermarket on a very high traffic expressway with next to no persons on the street anyway ever near.

i see this jw lady about 65 yrs old standing there alone with 2 bags of groceries staring at the catholic church one side across the interstate road and the kh across the other side of the highway.

cross bronx expressway.

Drearyweather

she didn't get it,

If I am reading correctly, you saw a 65-year-old JW lady standing with 2 grocery bags at the side of the highway, and you went and ask her if she is standing there and counting time? and then you ask her about the child abuse in the WT?

Really?? Were you teasing her?

I don't think that was polite.

21

Warwick HQ wooden "carved image" on wall - please verify using QR reader

by Fay Dehr in

.

Drearyweather

I am not sure if this practice is something new. Since the very beginning symbols have been used by JW's prominently. Like the cross and crown symbol, then the Watchtower logo on Bethel buildings and now the JW.Org posters and QR code like in this instance.

286

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

by Simon in

seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.

it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.

it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.

Drearyweather

An interesting comment made by Solicitor General Noel Francisco: "Accordingly, the government may not enact content-based laws commanding a speaker to engage in a protected expression: An artist cannot be forced to paint, a musician cannot be forced to play, and a poet cannot be forced to write."

So many what if scenarios to contend with.

What if the gay couple approached a Christian musician and asked him to play music at their gay wedding?

Or What if they approached a professional emcee to compere at their gay wedding and the emcee refuses?

Does abiding by non-discrimination law mean that you should abandon your religious beliefs?

286

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

by Simon in

seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.

it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.

it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.

Drearyweather

Seems that the Colorado Commission is fine if a baker (who supported LGBT community) refused to bake cakes with anti-gay messages, but doesn't agree if a religious baker refuses to bake cakes for gay weddings.

Am I right?

Something that I read in the supreme court ruling:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4493287-SCOTUS-Masterpiece-Cakeshop-Decision.html#document/p2

"Another indication of hostility is the different treatment of Phillips’ case and the cases of other bakers with objections to anti-gay messages who prevailed before the Commission. The Commission ruled against Phillips in part on the theory that any message on the requested wedding cake would be attributed to the customer, not to the baker. Yet the Division did not address this point in any of the cases involving requests for cakes depicting anti-gay marriage symbolism." - Page 2

25

If God’s people can’t see anti-God verses in the Bible

by Ireneus in

if god’s people can’t see anti-god verses in the bible, how can they be god’s people?.

jehovah is the “god of the gentiles also” and “there is no impartiality with god,” says the bible.

(romans 3:29; deuteronomy 10:17).

Drearyweather

I don't see the scriptures that you listed as anti-God. Maybe we both interpret them differently. This is my take:

1) Phinehas who performed a double murder when a Jew married a Gentile is praised by Moses.

The issue here was not "marriage". Numbers 25:1 onwards mentions that Israelites committed sexual immorality with the Moabite women and were worshipping the immoral God Baal. Things that were clearly commanded to have abstained from. Bringing a Moabite woman when people were weeping near the tent and committing fornication was an act of blatant defiance of the law.

'Murder' is an unlawful killing of an individual. However, what the Israelite man did was against the laws of Israel and was dealt with as per the law and not by a random act of personal vengeance. It was an act of personal dedication to the divine worship, something that Israel was supposed to uphold and not defy.

This was not murder, it was an open act of defiance. In current times, an open act of defiance to the sovereignty of a nation will attract severe punishments, sometimes death.

2) Moses is shown as exalting one nation over others

No. It was not like choosing the UK over the US.

Jehovah did not choose an already established nation of Israel. Rather, Jehovah chose Abraham due to his faith and blessed him that his family would be special to Jehovah. Israel became a chosen nation due to Abraham's faith.

However, Israel was not chosen to perpetuity. In fact, disobedience led to severe punishments to Israel and later banishment from being the chosen nation.

It was like having a special relationship with someone. Having a best friend or a special friend does not mean that I am being partial or that I don't love others.

and even authorizing them to own Gentile people as their slaves "for ever"

Slavery in Israel as not like the tyrannical or ruthless slavery practiced during the middle ages. Slaves in Israel were protected under the law and had their own rights.

Yes, as you said, Israel could own Gentiles as their slaves. However, Leviticus 25:46 onwards also says that Israelites could own other poor Israelite as hired workers. Above that, Israelites could even become slaves of the Gentiles. (Lev. 25:47).

3) Woman is spoken as the property of men in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35:

It speaks about the subjection of a wife to her husband's authority not being a property for sensual satisfaction. The subjection was not akin to domination, because, Ephesians 5:28 says: husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. A man who loves his wife loves himself.

According to Jesus, Jewish laws that include laws about woman such as the above should remain until "heaven and earth pass".

According to Jesus, the law would remain 'until everything is accomplished' (Matt 5:17-18). The law was accomplished when Christ was executed on the cross/stake. (Col 2:14; Gal 6:24, 25) Hence we are no longer under the law.

People who claim to be God’s own would shudder at such anti-God verses found in the Bible

No. For believers, these passages show God's wrath against law-defying people. It bolsters their faith in the God of Justice. That's how things are. We can do very little about it.

A person may shudder at the savagery mentioned in the Bible but may be completely fine with the more than 100,000 abortions done every day.

In the end, it is all about how a person spins these passages around to advocate his point.

13

Russia Seizes JW Property.

by Lost in the fog in

http://tass.com/world/1002773 .

Drearyweather

however do you honestly think J.W.`s in Russia fear for your safety ? they see you and me as food for the birds to be slaughtered at Armageddon.

I am not concerned about what they think about me. But I know that banning them doesn't make them stop being doomsday people. Their message about non-JW's being killed in Armageddon has not changed since 1925 even after multiple bans in various countries.

Bans have been used by dictators, authoritarians, and nefarious leaders. This is never a good step because you don't know what they will ban next to fit their agenda.

We live in an age where inept ideologies are criticised and turned down by knowledge, education, and information and not by oppression, regression, and brute force.

21

Don't be too Christian, you'll raise red flags

by neat blue dog in

for the past few years all my comments and talks have been a purely christian message.

i tiptoe around wt dogma and focus on the basics of love, life compassion, etc.

and i deliberately do not use jw terminology whenever i can.

Drearyweather

I always substitute alternate words/phrases, including those used more often by the churches.

Why use phrases used by other churches if you are presenting a purely Christian message? It would obviously raise red flags.

Why don't stick just to Biblical terminology?