Posts by OneFingerSalute

54

Paranoia after today's Watchtower

by Truthexplorer in

boy oh boy did i feel paranoid at today's wt.

not only are we to watch our associations outside of the congregation, but also watch our associations 'within' the congregation.

this was emphasised by the wt study conductor.

OneFingerSalute

I'd like to know if one finger salute made a comment today

I actually did make one. Par. 7 question, "Whom should we choose as close friends?"

Answer, "While the example of a single person is given, we must follow the counsel of the governing body that is alluded to when the paragraph states, 'It would be wrong for one of Jehovah’s Witnesses who is a single person to date an individual who is not dedicated to God.' We know that one must be baptized to prove their dedication, so we would choose ONLY baptized JW for associates unless they slip into wrongdoing. Then we cut them off too, as par. 5 instructs us."

It was the CO visit. He did mention in his last part that "some say, 'The governing body says...' but it is really what GOD says," I guess he told me!

BTW, I apologize to all those (one) who were so offended at my old avatar. But "thanks" for changing without asking. Next step will probably be getting "disfellowshipped" from this site for disagreeing.

82

INSPIRED ERROR: new phrase among JW CO

by wannaexit in

jw
friends

there is no end to their madness.

the co gave a talk on inspired error.

i have never heard of it.

OneFingerSalute

Wondering if any other co tells the same stupidity.

Yes, got the same thing just the other night. Even heard the same "experience" as one of the GB used some time ago about kids going to university and then slowing down in the meetings, then field serve us, then they get too busy with part time job and class studies and become inactive. Of course he presented it in the first person as if he had eldurrs tell him first hand. Now that would make that experience a. . .lie??

.

82

Intriguing - but Unsubstantiated!

by The Searcher in

according to one source on a western european 'apostate' website, the org's plan is to abandon the name "jehovah's witnesses" in the future, and replace it with "worshippers of jehovah.".

http://www.bruderinfo-aktuell.de/index.php/fixnews/#comment-4313 .

the gist of the account appears to be a repeat of rutherford's re-branding and debunking of old predictions made by the previous shower of fakers.

OneFingerSalute

@Magnum

I agree with your assessment. I have seen the changes since the early sixties myself. I just feel that they have too much invested in trying to prove they are true witnesses. I may be wrong though, and will be the first to admit I was if this happens.

82

Intriguing - but Unsubstantiated!

by The Searcher in

according to one source on a western european 'apostate' website, the org's plan is to abandon the name "jehovah's witnesses" in the future, and replace it with "worshippers of jehovah.".

http://www.bruderinfo-aktuell.de/index.php/fixnews/#comment-4313 .

the gist of the account appears to be a repeat of rutherford's re-branding and debunking of old predictions made by the previous shower of fakers.

OneFingerSalute

Kind of like the godawful home contractor who ripped us off, then he packed up and scurried off to another state

Didn't happen to have initials JWC did he? Sounds like a JDubya contractor I know of who did the same thing, and now lives south of OK. USA.

.

82

Intriguing - but Unsubstantiated!

by The Searcher in

according to one source on a western european 'apostate' website, the org's plan is to abandon the name "jehovah's witnesses" in the future, and replace it with "worshippers of jehovah.".

http://www.bruderinfo-aktuell.de/index.php/fixnews/#comment-4313 .

the gist of the account appears to be a repeat of rutherford's re-branding and debunking of old predictions made by the previous shower of fakers.

OneFingerSalute

I don't believe for a minute that there is a real chance of a name change. That being said IF it were to happen I can see it being spun as "new" light more clearly defining what they do.

Witness: "attestation of a fact or event." So Jehovah's Witnesses must be able to attest to a FACT or event. I think we all can agree that there isn't really any proven Bible fact or event they can truthfully attest to.

Worship: "a form of religious practice with its creed and ritual, reverence offered a divine being or an act of expressing such reverence." Now THAT would fit the JDubya's much closer. The reverence they show God, and their peculiar creeds and rituals.

Just my two cents.

362

No 'Tight Pants' policy is now official - classed as 'disturbing'

by wizzstick in

in short:- tight pants is no longer just a am3 hang up (or is that a hang up on the well hung?

)- brothers who have effeminate body language are flagged up- as are sisters with 'masculine' hair styles or dress- such dress is 'disturbing to the congregation'- the above must heed the (repeated) counsel from the elders...or they get stripped of the right to share on the ministry- however...this will not be revealed (announced) to the congregation.

wow.

OneFingerSalute

The new WT policy is to single out those with effeminate traits and mannerisms, using the term gender blurring characteristics, it is separated from the grooming and dress, check the outline.

Again, this is the point of this entire instruction. It has NOTHING to do with just clothes. It has EVERYTHING to do with PERCEPTION. Anyone who knows circuit overseer Henry Turner will know what I am talking about. A man with some of the most effeminate MANNERISMS, and speech qualities I have ever seen. How long before he gets kicked to the curb for simply having MANNERISMS that are more feminine than most men?

And still there is the one or two who cling to the idea that this issue is about nothing other than a mans pants! There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

15

Following Links to JWT

by konceptual99 in

jw
friends

just a wee warning on following links to jwtalk (jwt).

if you are a member there then it is very easy for the mods to identify if you have come in from this site.

they will then ban you.. so, if you are member here and trying to lurk there then don't click on any links to jwt, just copy and paste the link into a new browser tab..

OneFingerSalute

I also tried 3 or 4 times and finally I was able to get in. As many of you have said, it is nauseating to read some of the post, but on the other hand its good to see what the general mood is among the jdubs.

I had the same happen to me. After many tries, just so I could see what was going on, I was able to create an account. I posted a couple times and was quickly banned as not being a good fit. Funny thing was I was posting the same drivel that Tortuga and some others were. Bunch of hypocrites can go straight to hell for all I care!

56

Today's watchtower: obey us, no matter what

by Tornintwo in

today's watchtower:.

obey us, obey us even when it seems strange, obeying our man made hierarchy equates to obeying god, sacrifice your own interests, work for us, don't be independent, put your own interests aside, obey some more, preach for us, build for us, enjoy it, obey some more, forgive when we are jerks to you and mistreat you, accept your changed assignment even if it seems cruel and doesn't make sense, don't complain if we move you (eg.

) because you might have to move in the new world, remember you are being trained to obey, remember to put your own interests aside, that's the way we are designed to live - it will only make you happy!

OneFingerSalute

OFS managed to get in his two cents worth this morning.

Question par. 5, "How will learning to submit to theocratic arrangements help to train us for life in the new world?"

OFS, "By learning to give up independence and personal preferences now we will be part of the refreshing contrast to the world, and be better trained to live then without independence and personal preferences."

Question par. 10, "How can we show we are patient?"

OFS, "By patiently waiting to understand present new truth's when they are revealed, even if we don't understand why the change from what was in the past taught as truth."

Question par. 17, "What place will personal interests and pleasures have in paradise?"

OFS, "Psalm 145: 16 assures us that Jehovah will satisfy the desire of every living thing. But we must realize that what Jehovah does must be balanced with what the Watchtower says; par. twelve helps us know that life in the new world may NOT mean getting what we want."

It's funny, the heads were bobbing up and down, and he still calls on OFS. I sometimes wonder if the conductor is waking up and that is why he still calls on me. Or maybe just figure to give OFS enough rope?

362

No 'Tight Pants' policy is now official - classed as 'disturbing'

by wizzstick in

in short:- tight pants is no longer just a am3 hang up (or is that a hang up on the well hung?

)- brothers who have effeminate body language are flagged up- as are sisters with 'masculine' hair styles or dress- such dress is 'disturbing to the congregation'- the above must heed the (repeated) counsel from the elders...or they get stripped of the right to share on the ministry- however...this will not be revealed (announced) to the congregation.

wow.

OneFingerSalute

But attempting to ban someone from worship for seeming gay is new. Where does that behavior lead if left unchecked?
This seems like more than a dress code issue to me. Am I missing something?

No. You're not missing anything. That is exactly what this is, if it is indeed true.

362

No 'Tight Pants' policy is now official - classed as 'disturbing'

by wizzstick in

in short:- tight pants is no longer just a am3 hang up (or is that a hang up on the well hung?

)- brothers who have effeminate body language are flagged up- as are sisters with 'masculine' hair styles or dress- such dress is 'disturbing to the congregation'- the above must heed the (repeated) counsel from the elders...or they get stripped of the right to share on the ministry- however...this will not be revealed (announced) to the congregation.

wow.

OneFingerSalute

On the contrary, the outline subsequently focuses on "effeminate traits … in one's bearing, body language and manner of speech" referring to such as "gender-blurring characteristics."

This is only superficially dealing with outward appearances. It is indeed an attack on the behaviors and identity of individuals who may or may not be gay, but are perceived to be by intrusive, overzealous elders who have now been given permission to go on a crusade against anyone that dresses, acts or talks in a way they don't like.

Again Oubliette, you are 100% correct. But still there are some, well ONE anyway, who insists that it is only about a dress code. I would bet that person either did or would make an EXCELLENT JDubya elder with that kind of stubborn refusal to understand the finer points of this discussion.