Posts by leaving

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to this sort of recruitment, especially when I haven't turned in an application, and my RBC file is several years out of date, and I don't have the skills they are looking for anyway.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.

4

What happened to the page summaries in NWT?

by jws in

i was recently discussing the real 10 commandments in ex 34. as i recall the old nwt had topic summaries at the top of each page.

theoretically to summarize the page and help you find things.

i've seen other bibles do this too.

leaving_quietly

The reason they said they did this was to expedite translation. Since verses in different languages may not appear on the same page as the English version, it was easier to remove the headings from each page and put them at the beginning of each book.

17

What's worse, brutal murder or fornication?

by Tornintwo in

just to give you a bit of background, i've been researching my doubts for over a month, i'm convinced that although they may have some things right, they have a lot of other things horribly wrong.

i'm still clinging to a faith in god, because i see a creator's hand in nature, and i believe in jesus and his teachings, love, mercy, compassion.....that if everyone truly applied these (including jws) then all would benefit.. but i read this article in march and it's been on my mind ever since.

where isis stone a young couple to death for sex before marriage (a bit graphic).. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3017800/sickening-images-blindfolded-bound-couple-brutally-stoned-death-fornication-isis-militants-iraq.html.

leaving_quietly

Thanks, BluesBrothers... interesting that in neither instance was premarital sex forbidden or "an abomination". And since we're not under the Law today, the bride-price thing seems unnecessary, right?

17

What's worse, brutal murder or fornication?

by Tornintwo in

just to give you a bit of background, i've been researching my doubts for over a month, i'm convinced that although they may have some things right, they have a lot of other things horribly wrong.

i'm still clinging to a faith in god, because i see a creator's hand in nature, and i believe in jesus and his teachings, love, mercy, compassion.....that if everyone truly applied these (including jws) then all would benefit.. but i read this article in march and it's been on my mind ever since.

where isis stone a young couple to death for sex before marriage (a bit graphic).. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3017800/sickening-images-blindfolded-bound-couple-brutally-stoned-death-fornication-isis-militants-iraq.html.

leaving_quietly

When I read the OT about who not to have sex with, the one thing that was conspicuously missing was any command not to have sex before marriage. If it's in the OT, please show me where. I saw stuff around what we would consider incest, but nothing around normal man/woman relations. Please, if anyone can show me where the OT has that command, please show me.

This topic is of interest to me because, when I watch those nature shows, we see various animals, including primates that have plenty of non-monogamous sex. If these were created this way, then why would humans have a limitation on what seems to be the most pleasurable thing? This makes no sense to me, and is very inconsistent.

As for which is worse, I don't know that we can figure that out, but I would say that for those who go on and on about how bad homosexuality is, which is worse, fornication or homosexuality? Can a degree of "badness" be put on it? The Bible puts liars and fornicator and murderers in the same category, all as those who would not inherit the kingdom. So, which is worse?

leaving_quietly

Posts by leaving_quietly