it seems to be hard when getting out of the witnesses for many to realize that nobody really knows about many things in life.
good and evil, what happens when we die.
those leaving the witnesses may see it as a big loss in not knowing, and some more than others go through a whole grieving loss process with denial, bargaining, anger, etc.
KK.
I can indeed.
And at sometime in the future I can turn around and say "You know, I think I was wrong" and change my mind.
But if I ever tell you that God's using me as His exclusive mouthpiece - hit me with a rolled up copy of the Spenborough Guardian . . .
it seems to be hard when getting out of the witnesses for many to realize that nobody really knows about many things in life.
good and evil, what happens when we die.
those leaving the witnesses may see it as a big loss in not knowing, and some more than others go through a whole grieving loss process with denial, bargaining, anger, etc.
I agree totally with this.
I think that this is equally applicable to those who would call themselves Christians or believers (like myself)
I have my beliefs. My experiences and observations lead me to many shadesof gray and lots of colours.
Some say "You can't believe that if you're a Christian"
Seemingly I can
Best thing that ever happened to me!
i watched this film last night, and it made me really really grateful that we have free health care in the uk.
i know we complain about the state of the nhs, but the bottom line is if there is ever anything wrong with me my first thought will not be 'does my insurance cover this' or 'can i afford this'.. there was one part of the film where michael moore takes some people to cuba to get free health care and one woman picks up inhalers for 5 cents a piece, that are costing her $120 in the us.
she just breaks down and crys at the disparity of the cost.. it was also telling to see the insurance companies employ people specifically to try and find ways to deny claims or to void policies where a claim has been made.
No.
But I was just looking to see if I'd missed a "baby" thread and when I went back to active topics - there you were!!
reading old stuff from russell's day, you can see the bible students were expecting they'd all be raptured in 1878 and many were hoping for it in 1881. also, 1914 and 1918 were other times they were expecting it.
when did they stop believing that the anointed would be translated to heaven?
i'm assuming it was during rutherford's presidency, but wonder if anyone knows when that belief was changed?
I'd assume that they still teach the rapture although they only apply it to "The Remnant"
I'm sure they teach that some of the 144000 will survive Armageddon so that'll require a "rapture" then
BUT - they change stuff so often I may be hopelessly out of date!!
dear all (especially those in the uk),.
following on from danny's excellent post here: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/16/128626/1.ashx i have just sent an e-mail to the charities commission.
some time ago i wrote to you about the dangers of jehovah's witnesses and how they don't deserve charity status because far from helping mankind they are a real danger to it.
Hey!
I get it delivered every morning - I'll read it when I get home.
horrible life's topic on these guys peaked my curiosity about them.
looked them up on youtube...wow...just insane.. kenneth copeland's mad ramblings and bizarre facial expressions:.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz6t5rr3dra .
I think you'll find there are accounts of limbs growing back!
i do some research currently on the ibsa.
does anyone have a number of biblestudents or even better memorial partakers in 1925 or 1926?
would be much appreciated, .
I'm 5' 10" tall
38in chest
31" inside leg
41 years old
Oh I see . . . sorry
i am due my baby in 2 days time (friday 9th nov).. i have no idea what its going to be, and i dont have any inklings, so the field is wide open.
heres some detail to help you, and remember no babies will be hurt in the making of these bets!
last baby was a girl 10 years ago, but i had a really strong feeling it was going to be a girl.
I think it'll be a Tom.
As a piece of journalism, it misses the mark.
Sorry to beg to differ guys but I think this hits the "mark" totally because "the mark" isn't JWs.
The article is entitled "Who Are the JW's and Why Do They Refuse Blood Transfusions?"
It's aimed at the general public.
The inaccuracies are irrelevant to the general public (if it'd been about the Mormons we wouldn't have known all the minutae)
Where it talks about blood it's spot on - even down to the ham and cheese sandwich and the anomaly over donating blood.
SURE the JW's are gonna use every little thing they can to wriggle and deflect (Naomi Cambell isn't one and we don't ALL do 70 hours) but that's all they CAN do - and desperately at that!
As for the "rude" remark - he's right. He doesn't even just make the statement - he presents an example. The public will agree it's rude. And his example of them "rubbishing" everyone else's believes is accurate.
I believe that THE PUBLIC will be enlightened by this article.
Which just goes to show how brainwashed we all were and JWs are.
To focus on insignificant and irrelevant inaccuracies instead of the point under discussion.
