Posts by leaving

9

New Thoughts about the "three-fold cord" that is not easily broken and what it means....

by Muddy Waters in

got to thinking about this the other day.... you know how the wts uses a scripture from ecclesiastes (ecc.4:12) to say how important it is to have jehovah in your marriage -- that a two-fold cord is easily broken or pulled apart, but a "three-fold cord is not easily broken".

they then go on to define exactly who and what jehovah is and what exactly this love & marital arrangement means and how you properly show and demonstrate it, and blah blah blah and all the things jehovah (through his organization) says are so necessary and important for a happy marriage (from their special bias and agenda, the preaching work!

- and meeting attendance & preparation, and studying the bible together and the husband taking the lead, and all that jw filler which they define and obligate for others to do -- they define every term and behavior and expectation to the nth degree.. then it occurred to me, that the scriptures simply and always say, "god is love.

leaving_quietly

This is a verse that is so, so, so misapplied. It's generally applied to marriage, right? Husband, wife, Jehovah? This was a recent research session for me. Let's see what it's REALLY talking about:

Eccl 4:7-12

I turned my attention to another example of futility under the sun: 8 There is a man who is all alone, without any companion; he has no son or brother, but there is no end to all his hard work. His eyes are never satisfied with riches. But does he ask himself, ‘For whom am I working hard and depriving myself of good things’? This too is futility and a miserable occupation.
9 Two are better than one because they have a good reward for their hard work. 10 For if one of them falls, the other can help his partner up. But what will happen to the one who falls with no one to help him up?
11 Moreover, if two lie down together, they will stay warm, but how can just one keep warm? 12 And someone may overpower one alone, but two together can take a stand against him. And a threefold cord cannot quickly be torn apart.

Notice, there is no mention of a husband and wife here, but "son or brother", yes. And what does the threefold cord apply to? Defending oneself. Hard to defend yourself by yourself. Easier with a second person. Much easier with a third. This has NOTHING to do with marriage and having Jehovah as the third cord.

65

WT October 15, 2015 - Don't believe Apostate Lies

by Designer Stubble in

the last article in this new wt, shows me that the organization is dealing with much information that is damaging them.

i am sure that the many recent lawsuits are being noticed by the r&f.. here are some gems from that article, titled the naive person believes every word.

we must be very selective about what we consider worthy of our attention.

leaving_quietly

Data - He said that I was wrong, and that "slander" can be true information used against someone.

Punk - What in blue blazes does that mean? How can you use truth against someone unjustly?

I believe true information used against someone is called blackmail.

Edit: not blackmail, defamation

Slander is oral defamation

Libel is written defamation

Both are usually based on untruth. However, defamation could be based on truth that unjustly injures another. Blackmail, of course, is the holding back knowledge of something true for gain that would be damaging to another, if such knowledge were released.

Edit 2: In the legal world, usually something must be false to be considered slander. However, this article sheds some light on this topic: "Can A True Statement Form the Basis for a Defamation Lawsuit? In a Controversial Ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Says Yes"

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20090330.html

7

Things that make you go "hmmm"

by leaving_quietly in

got a phone call last week, but i didn't recognize the number, so i didn't answer.

no voice mail was left.

or so i thought.

leaving_quietly

They want to build as fast as possible.

The HAVE to build as fast as possible, don't they? Don't they have a January 2017 deadline to be out NYC?

7

Things that make you go "hmmm"

by leaving_quietly in

got a phone call last week, but i didn't recognize the number, so i didn't answer.

no voice mail was left.

or so i thought.

leaving_quietly

Got a phone call last week, but I didn't recognize the number, so I didn't answer. No voice mail was left. Or so I thought. Turns out my cell phone is having a problem with voice mail notifications, so when I manually checked today, I found out there WAS a voice mail. It was from a JW locally who I didn't know, but who was working with the local construction group for the Warwick project. They were on a recruiting drive, trying to see if I would be interested in working temporary construction at the new headquarters.

This got me to thinking... there's been multiple letters, pleas in KMs, encouragement to volunteer in various WT articles, and now... personal recruitment phone calls. I know men who have gone back to work there and they tell me there's usually around 700 people working on the site at any give time. I wonder why they are resorting to this sort of recruitment, especially when I haven't turned in an application, and my RBC file is several years out of date, and I don't have the skills they are looking for anyway.

Things that make you go, "hmmm".

8

Public Cart Witnessing Pays off for this young pioneer

by Watchtower-Free in

.

leaving_quietly

Looks photoshopped to me. No shadow by his/her feet.

Edit: Oh... didn't see this was in the humor section. LQ's sense of humor when it comes to this org has long departed.

37

W 15 july - members of others religions not destroyed???

by paradisebeauty in

please tell me what do you understand from this quote that is taken from w july 2015, the article your deliverance is close paragraph 5.. i understand that not all members of other religions will be destroyed at armageddon.

i talked to a jw.

he says he understands differently: they will not be destroyed when the babylon the great will be destroyed but they will be destroyed in armageddon.

leaving_quietly

StarTrekAngel and Doc come close to the correct understanding of what WTBTS is teaching. Note the quote carefully:

Should we conclude, though, that the destruction of the religions of Babylon the Great results in the death of all the former members of those religions? Apparently not.

Now look at the FAQ from the web site where it asks: "Do Jehovah's Witnesses Feel That They Are the Only People Who Will Be Saved?"

No. Many millions who lived in centuries past and who weren’t Jehovah’s Witnesses will have an opportunity for salvation. The Bible explains that in God’s promised new world, “there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.” (Acts 24:15) Additionally, many now living may yet begin to serve God, and they too will gain salvation. In any case, it’s not our job to judge who will or won’t be saved. That assignment rests squarely in Jesus’ hands.—John 5:22, 27.

24

David Splane address bethelites

by rosesinbloom in

i did not write this piece.

i enjoyed the simple and understandable reasoning.

hope some of you enjoy it too.

leaving_quietly

...prior to 1455, there were no printed versions of the Bible. No Bible, no food. No food, nothing for the slave to feed the domestics with, hence, no slave.

There was no printed version of any Bible when Jesus' followers formed and grew the Christian church.

Quite correct. The "Bible" as the source of spiritual food is ridiculous, since it didn't even come into existing for quite some time after Christ and the apostles. Yet, what was Peter charged with?

John 21:15-17: When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter: “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?” He replied to him: “Yes, Lord, you know I have affection for you.” He said to him: “Feed my lambs.” 16 Again he said to him a second time: “Simon son of John, do you love me?” He replied: “Yes, Lord, you know I have affection for you.” He said to him: “Shepherd my little sheep.” 17 He said to him a third time: “Simon son of John, do you have affection for me?” Peter became grieved that he asked him the third time: “Do you have affection for me?” So he said to him: “Lord, you are aware of all things; you know that I have affection for you.” Jesus said to him: “Feed my little sheep.

We see two things here:

1. Christ charges Peter with this "feeding".

2. Christ equates "feeding" with "shepherding", not with disseminating what Bible verses mean.

7

Who's will is it?

by freemindfade in

in our super cappy fallacious public talk today.

i kept hearing "we do jehovahs will" "do jehovahs will" "not our will...jehovahs" there was a lot of crap in the talk to be irritated by.

but this got me thinking.... if you are required under penalty of death!

leaving_quietly

The court case analogy is interesting. I recently thought about that a little bit. In the U.S. legal system, what the organization says about God is equivalent to witness tampering and bribery. In a real court, there would also have to be an unbiased jury who would hear the evidence. In the JW model, the jury is a mysterious group of anointed people who are "on Jehovah's side".

Of course, anyone reading the Bible would realize that God's sovereignty, authority or right to rule was never questioned. What was questioned by the serpent/Satan was whether God was withholding something from Adam and Eve that would make them "like God". And what was questioned in the case of Job was what would a man be willing to do to save his own skin, including cursing God. That was not a question of God's authority, or right to rule. I liken this to a president of a country. If he's lawfully elected, no one questions whether he has the right to rule in his position. They may very well question his ability to rule, and they may even curse him, perhaps even to his face. But his right to rule was legally established, so that's not a question. If it were a question, then cries for impeachment wouldn't happen. Impeachment is, in essence, the legal process of revoking the right to rule. Same with God. His sovereignty, authority and right to rule were never questioned by Satan, thus the JW organization is chasing a red herring on this one.

7

Turning disassociation around on the org

by tim3l0rd in

recently i was researching the scripture used to justify why da'd ones were to be shunned the same as df'd ones and decided that this could easily be turned around.

they use 2 john 9-11.. 9 everyone who pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the christ does not have god.+ the one who does remain in this teaching is the one who has both the father and the son.

10 if anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him.

leaving_quietly

They don't even have to be called prophets.

However, there also came to be false prophets among the people, as there will also be false teachers among you. - 1 Pet 2:1

16

Learners

by freemindfade in

if you were at the watchtower how many times did you hear this idiotic condescending word?

i think i must have heard it 500 times.

the learner.

leaving_quietly

In the previous week's lesson, the term was explained:

For the sake of simplicity, the articles will refer to those giving training as "teachers" and those receiving it as "learners." - w15 04/15 p. 5 par. 11

To be fair, what else would you call those receiving training? Better than "trainees", I think. Someone mentioned "Padawan". I liked that.

leaving_quietly

Posts by leaving_quietly