Unfortunately for many of us, this article serves to further alienate our families, (e.g. our spouses) from us. Even the mention of some conflict of scriptures with WT sets my wife off as I found out a couple weeks back. I won't go into details, but it was sure hard to remain calm and remember how very, very, very deep the indoctrination is.
leaving_quietly
JoinedPosts by leaving_quietly
-
53
Paranoia of today's WT study!
by stuckinarut2 inthe wt study for sept 7th just breeds such a spirit of paranoia!.
using old biblical references just so as to prevent anyone from using critical thinking skills and analysing the "truth".. then using incorrect, leading reasoning to paint any who "think outside of the box" of the org as "apostate".... pure manipulation!.
-
-
-
83
PART TWO of AN IMPORTANT MESSAGE BY A PRACTICING JEHOVAH'S WITNESS
by Sparks inwhile you are sitting there reading this, there are literally hundreds of thousands of young males and females all over the world [ mostly in america / canada and england] sitting in their grotty little smelly bedrooms or flats, designing computer viruses that they will up-load onto web-sites to cause anonymous innocent peoples computers to malfunction.
these creeps spend literally weeks,months or even years hoping to make a computer viruses that will get into peoples computer bios to completely destroy their computers.
they never see the peoples anger, frustration and distress.... the damage can cost each person about 1,000 [ $1,660.74 ] or more to replace a basic new laptop or tower.
-
-
leaving_quietly
I'm confused. Sparks joined and started posting 11 years ago. Then nothing for awhile, then 7 years ago, one thread started. But, 7 days ago . . . well, this isn't the same Sparks as back then, is it? Total turnaround, if so. Hijacked account perhaps? New user, same username? Reusing defunct username? Call me curious.
-
75
Anyone else notice the new Terms of Use on jw.org?
by leaving_quietly ini first noticed it today... slides up at the bottom.
i wonder why they felt the need to do this?
this is just silly for a religious website..
-
-
leaving_quietly
So please explain for us NON computer geeks what this means...Is the crux of the matter, do not cut and paste from JW.org because they can find out who we are and potentially sue us? Or something else?
You pretty much got it. It's a legal notification that their content is copyrighted and it is illegal to use anywhere else. The legitimacy of that claim and of fair use laws isn't my area to comment on. I'll leave that to the lawyers.
That said, the point of my OP isn't that they have a Terms of Use. Most websites do. And most have some strong-arm language in then to attempt to ward off copyright infringement. I get that. The point of my OP that the Terms of Use is now 'in your face'. It comes up when you go to the site at the bottom. They purposely draw attention to it. This is what I'm not getting. It just seems really strange and definitely uninviting. But that's just me.
-
75
Anyone else notice the new Terms of Use on jw.org?
by leaving_quietly ini first noticed it today... slides up at the bottom.
i wonder why they felt the need to do this?
this is just silly for a religious website..
-
-
leaving_quietly
No, Baltar, I didn't miss the point. I thought the same thing. I also though that it would be a big turnoff to those they just invited through their 'greatest campaign ever'.
Of course, I'm familiar with ToUs and most of it is a CYA sort of thing. It's out there so they CAN have a legal leg to stand on if they want to. Most of the time, they won't.
Most sites have a ToU, but I find it odd to call attention to it like that. Just really strange.
-
42
Copy of my DA Letter
by airborne inthis is my first time posting here, although i have been a visitor to it for around a year.
after doing a simple google search under "jehovah'switnesses" over a year ago, i found ttat.
i was deeply unhappy with the congregation and decided to educate myself, and boy what an education i have gotten so far.
-
-
leaving_quietly
Short and to the point. Excellent!
-
75
Anyone else notice the new Terms of Use on jw.org?
by leaving_quietly ini first noticed it today... slides up at the bottom.
i wonder why they felt the need to do this?
this is just silly for a religious website..
-
-
leaving_quietly
Well, I guess I won't use their site anymore since I simply don't agree with their terms of use.
I find it actually incredible that they would do this. What a complete turnoff for anyone who just got that tract that points them here. It's like: wait... what? Well, then, no thanks.
-
75
Anyone else notice the new Terms of Use on jw.org?
by leaving_quietly ini first noticed it today... slides up at the bottom.
i wonder why they felt the need to do this?
this is just silly for a religious website..
-
-
leaving_quietly
I first noticed it today... slides up at the bottom. I wonder why they felt the need to do this? This is just silly for a religious website.
-
68
Come on! Tell it like it is. People are LYING when they tell you, "I've read the Bible."
by Terry ingo ahead.
tell me.. "i've read the bible cover to cover.
i don't believe you.. it is damned near impossible!.
-
-
leaving_quietly
I've read the Bible cover to cover. I am NOT lying. I did it when I started waking up to TTATT. I did it because I wanted to understand for myself, not what WTBTS was telling me. And I did not use the NWT. I used a different translation, which made it much more tolerable. I rather enjoyed some of the historical accounts in Kings and Chronicles, and even Isaiah and Jeremiah in that translation. There is a world of difference in Bible reading, depending on the translation.
-
13
You ought to know positively the appearance of your flock
by leaving_quietly inthis famous line from proverbs 27:23 (in the old nwt) is used for elders and the organization to justify field service reports.
but, what is this verse talking about?
is it about overseers in the congregation?
-
-
leaving_quietly
@TheOldHippie, this is still used in this context and definitely in elders' meetings and schools. At least it is where I live.
The typical rule of thumb is that the most recent information on a verse is official "doctrine". The most recent in this case is the Jeremiah book page 131 par. 6: "Like literal shepherds, Christian overseers should not be negligent in caring for the congregation. If you serve as an elder, are you striving to be alert to any sign of suffering on the part of your brothers, and are you willing to assist them promptly? Wise King Solomon wrote: “You ought to know positively the appearance of your flock. Set your heart to your droves.” (Prov. 27:23) That verse extols the industriousness of literal shepherds; yet, in principle it may be applied to the care provided by spiritual shepherds in the congregation."
The typical R&F might not be aware that this is used in relation to viewing field service reports. But I've been at many a meeting with the CO and elders where this verse is used in that context.
I did look up the verse in the Scripture Index to see if they've changed and I just missed it. None of the references say what you stated. However, there is another verse that's easy to connect with this one, and you may have been thinking about that one: "Shepherd the flock of God in your care." (1 Pet 5:1) There is a recent reference that says similar to your comment.
*** w11 6/15 p. 20 par. 5 “Shepherd the Flock of God in Your Care” ***
The apostle wrote that the older men were to ‘shepherd the flock of God in their care.’ It was most important for them to recognize that the flock belongs to Jehovah and Jesus Christ. The elders had to render an account about how they kept watch over God’s sheep. Suppose that a close friend of yours asked you to look after his children while he was away. Would you not take good care of them and feed them? If one child got sick, would you not make sure that he received any needed medical help? Similarly, the elders in the congregation are “to shepherd the congregation of God, which he purchased with the blood of his own Son.” (Acts 20:28) They keep in mind that each sheep was bought with the precious blood of Christ Jesus. Being accountable, the elders feed, protect, and care for the flock.
(italics theirs) -
10
That 'Resurrection' video is cultish and scary but it couldn't actually harm anyone. Could it?
by nicolaou inmy wife and i spent last evening, as so many did, concerned for the king family and their little boy ashya (bbc report).
it's clear that blood is not an issue in their decision to take ashya away from hospital and the vital medical attention that he needs.
the watchtower office of public information also denied "that their decision is in any way motivated by any religious convictions".. hmmm.
-
-
leaving_quietly
So, I'm not sure what to think about this case. They were, according to reports, seeking proton beam treatment, which was not available in Britain, and which the doctors were unwilling to pursue. According to reports. This has nothing to do with blood, but, once again, why in the world would their religious beliefs come up? It makes no sense. You would never see this about a Catholic, Protestant, etc. The only thing I can think is that JWs advertise their religious background when talking to doctors BECAUSE of the blood issue, just in case.
My question is: is what these parents did actually a crime? Apparently, international authorities think so. But, I'm not so sure. Eliminating the religious affiliation from the equation, and assuming that the reports are true, are the parents ethically in the right to seek better treatment? I think so. But, perhaps they went about it all wrong. Shouldn't they have procured an appointment with whatever facility they were going to first and arrange for transport via proper channels where the boy would be looked after during transport? That would be my thinking, at least, and they would be well within their rights as parents to ask for such a thing.
It's an interesting case, to be sure.