dear friends,.
i just received a call from a concerned jw friend about what is going on behind my back.
a dfd friend whom i've been supporting through his mental distress and suicidal tendencies has done me a very strange turn.
I'd confront the guy and tell him that although you are there to support him he has no right to do what he's done and put your name to it.
Tell him to resend it with his name on it.
If anyone asks you about it say that the first you heard about it was when someone told you and it has nothing to do with you and you disagree with him distributing it and have taken up the issue with him.
Ask them if they usually accept the word of a mentally unstable DF'd person?
the watchtower claims speaking in tongues was restricted to the first century, though it seems quite clear that this was something to be practiced in the last days.
should christians today speak in tongues and what exactly is it?
i am wondering about the reasoning as some christian religions practice it and others don't.
I agree with Nark too.
In answer to the question, I think it's for some Christians, those who've been given that gift.
I belive that it is primarily a personal gift. I don't believe that a Christian who hasn't been given this gift should feel lacking or inferior.
I do believe that it is both mis-used and abused by some, and faked by others.
I wouldn't take the use of tongues by someone as any proof of faith, validity of belief or reason to follow and would be very cautious about anyone who attempted to use the gift in that way.
However I wouldn't reject anyone or their beliefs/suggestions simply because they claimed to have the gift of tongues either.
I personally don't have the gift. I know many people who do and my relationship with them is such that I trust them. I also know people who I doubt a bit (but that may be precisely because I don't know them very well) and I've seen those on TV (like the guy someone posted a picture of) who I'm sure is faking it (but hey I don't know him either!)
My research led me to exactly the same conclusions biblically as Nark, including the difference between tongues in Acts and tongues in Corinthians.
hands down the best new game system you can buy.
forget the ultra-highend graphics, being part of the game is where it's at.
we've had one for a couple months now and even my wife loves to play all the games we have for it.. bsom's thread about d&d reminded me of something...you know how many jw's will watch lord of the rings but will spurn harry potter due to the witchcraft portrayed?
Hey we were just discussing getting "the kids" one for Christmas too
Is it good?
just got this email of a magazine article from 1955. .
.
.
That's what I thought
just got this email of a magazine article from 1955. .
.
.
Pipe down woman
i was cleaning out a closet today and came across some book bags.
when i went through them i found one of those bic pens that has the four different colours of ink, red, black, green and blue.
i used to use them to mark my wt different colours for the a and b portion of the answers etc.. anyone else use these?.
Firstly.
I read this thread and thought "Hey Katie's back!!" and then I realised that it was a resurrected thread
Anyone know where she's got to?
Secondly.
I NEVER used coloured pens or anything. It's nearest thing to a phobia I've got. I can't bring myself to mark/deface a book - even at WT! It used to make me cringe to see all the markers, highlighters and underlining.
ray franz mentioned in crisis of conscience that in 1980 schroeder, klein, and suiter proposed changing the start of "this generation" from 1914 to 1957. as the "this generation" doctrine has since mysteriously morphed any date associated with it is moot.
however, as time marches on without the developments anticipated by the gb may they again pick a new year, this time for the invisible enthronement of christ, in an attempt to buy time and regain credibility?
what dates or historical events would be likely choices?
You've surprised me there Zico (aren't you too young to remember Zico!)
I thought that they'd faded it even tho they still officially believe it. They must be mad still putting it in print
ray franz mentioned in crisis of conscience that in 1980 schroeder, klein, and suiter proposed changing the start of "this generation" from 1914 to 1957. as the "this generation" doctrine has since mysteriously morphed any date associated with it is moot.
however, as time marches on without the developments anticipated by the gb may they again pick a new year, this time for the invisible enthronement of christ, in an attempt to buy time and regain credibility?
what dates or historical events would be likely choices?
I've been out since Sept '99 but effectively they've ALREADY dropped 607 haven't they?
They still say Jerusalem was destroyed then but hasn't the 2520 days stuff been dropped from all recent books? When they replaced the "Live Forever" book with the "Knowledge" book they dropped the sections that explained the chronology linking 607 to 1914 along with the "generation" and just used the "signs" as evidence.
Have any publications after 1995 had the "chronology" in?
ray franz mentioned in crisis of conscience that in 1980 schroeder, klein, and suiter proposed changing the start of "this generation" from 1914 to 1957. as the "this generation" doctrine has since mysteriously morphed any date associated with it is moot.
however, as time marches on without the developments anticipated by the gb may they again pick a new year, this time for the invisible enthronement of christ, in an attempt to buy time and regain credibility?
what dates or historical events would be likely choices?
Definitely.
The reasoning will be ridiculous. But so was the "Generation" change in '95 and they all swallowed that.
They've no choice. It'll look stupid to hold to it
i'm am so heart broken to see my boyfriend with so many internal strugles.
he is a good man, a good god fearing man and this is why it has been so difficult for him to leave the jw's religion.
we love each other so much and we want to be married but he fears the consequences of marring somebody who is not a jw.
Just to be clear here, you have been together for 7 years . . .as in "together and currently having a sexual relationship?"
If so the poster above's comment has some validity. He must have lied to them to get re-instated.
Thats not a judgemental statement just what the info you've given in your two posts seems to suggest.
I think you're instinctive desire to get him out is right.
Hypothetically, if you said it's "Them or Us" who would he choose?
