Posts by konceptual99

The point of the new generations definition is to try and give some flexibility to the timescale whilst maintaining a sense of urgency and expectation.

The old "era" approach does not hold water when you are knocking 100 years since 1914 and has less implication of a definate end.

The new overlapping generations thing is specifically limited to two. It does give you the theoretical possibility of spinning things out for the best part of 200 years as per jws' post. However, the society are trying to minimise this however. On at least two occasions at conventions and CA they have suggested this overlap consists of those that have served together. So, you might have someone of the 1914 stock that has served with someone of a younger stock since the 70s/80s. The old one is at best 100 now, the younger in their 50s/60s. That leaves things fluid for maybe 30 years yet is no so far off that everyone thinks it is a load of old tosh or cools off because they think it's years away.

I can't recall an exact reference to this in print but we've had it at the orignal DC and at a subsequent CA. They reiterated it again at the recent Brighton DC this year.

The last few years have seen the WTS harden their stance on a number of things to re-establish a sense of urgency and expectation, keep people focused on the ministry and maintain their unconditional loyalty to the organisation. This attempt to try and present logic that explains two essentially mutually exclusive situations is just another example.

22

guilty mate (need Blondie)

by scary21 in

jw
friends

jw always speak of the innocent mate is free to remarry.

how about this...jw man divorces his jw wife after a very very short period of time... (.wife is bummed ).. before his marriage to her.he had never been married and does not plan.

to ever marry again .

konceptual99

AFAIK the situation comes down to forgiveness and the persistent refusal to live as a couple and to resume sexual relations over time counts as an implicit lack of forgiveness. The act of fornication has broken the marriage contract and gives grounds for scriptual divorce. The innocent party is at liberty to forgive but that forgiveness has to be demonstrated.

Not an easy one for the legalistic elders to handle but that very situation has just happened locally.

33

Blondie's Comments You Will Not Hear at the 08-12-2012 WT Study (SHORTLY)

by blondie in

jw
friends

http://exjehovahswitnessforum.yuku.com.

http://www.jwsupportforum.com/index.php.

http://www.jehovahswitnessrecovery.com/.

konceptual99

@splash

I wondered about the western intellectuals thing. To be fair however there are people like Dawkins who are vociferous in their desire to see the back of religion in all it's forms. In fact they are pretty evangelical about it ;-)

I also wondered if the reading of Dan 7:24 means that there are 10 horns and the "British" one happens to be one of the 10 horns or if it is actually an extra horn (an 11th) that appears.

33

Blondie's Comments You Will Not Hear at the 08-12-2012 WT Study (SHORTLY)

by blondie in

jw
friends

http://exjehovahswitnessforum.yuku.com.

http://www.jwsupportforum.com/index.php.

http://www.jehovahswitnessrecovery.com/.

konceptual99

I answered yesterday and made sure the point about when the seventh world power became a world power was brought out. I linked the footnote in the study to the QfR and then the footnote in that article that as a by the by mentions this changes the Daniel book. I also pointed out that this was a return to the understanding the in the late 70s. The elder thanked me but gave me a look that said anything but thanks.

I was going to point out the other two glaring flip-flops about the toes and this being the last king but did not want to draw too much attention to myself. I was glad however that both of these points were raised as changes by others in the cong.

I was speaking with my wife and a trusted friend afterwards however and neither of them seemed bothered by it. They don't seem to think it matters that much but I guess that just reflects what most witnesses are like when it comes to this sort of thing.

12

Does "god" exist?

by yalbmert99 in

here is a short analysis of that question and a video at the bottom of the page with stephen hawking, physicist, who said "there is no god".. http://www.watchtowerlies.com/watchtowerlies_166.htm.

konceptual99

This is the sort of reasoning that makes Witnesses look like morons when talking to anyone with any kind of understanding of how evolutionary natural selection theory works.

If you read a book like The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins you would get a compeling, reasonable and scientifically justifiable explaination of how natural selection works.

Of course, not all "evolutionists" (to use a broad term) agree with everything that Dawkin's proposes but that does not change the overwhelming concensus on natural selection as being a scientific fact.

I would also say that it is possible to argue a Witness friendly view of most of Dawkin's views - I don't see them as mutually exclusive - but not on "chicken and egg" type arguments, just as claiming evolution must be false because we still have monkeys shows a complete ignorance of the science.

If you are going to argue for the existence of God and for a creative process in harmony with the Genesis account then you have to use reasoning that is based on logic that fits with generally accepted science.

71

Were You Ever Comfortable Going From House To House?

by minimus in

jw
friends

because i was raised a witness, i don't think i was "uncomfortable" knocking on strangers' doors.

(weirdo).. but as i got older, i simply didn't want to bother anyone so i was at there door for no more than 30 seconds.

at the end i hated being there..

konceptual99

Never liked it.

Still hate it.

I've not been on the doors for almost 8 weeks now and it's great. I will have to go back out soon as I cannot keep using RBC work as the excuse but am planing on not using any literature.

Funny how my report keeps bubbling around the cong average though... That family study and informal witnessing sure adds up!

If it wasn't for the fact it ain't so simple for me as simply stopping I'd feel a super hypocrite.

67

What Are The Funniest Sitcoms That You Have Enjoyed?

by minimus in

jw
friends

i was watching the beverly hillbillies the other night and i have to say, the writing and the acting was terrific!.

another classic is all in the family.

loved that show!.

konceptual99

Flight of the Conchords is BRILLIANT

Father Ted is one of the best comedy programmes ever made

Alan Partridge

Blackadder

Fawlty Towers

Only Fools and Horses

Simpsons

plus loads and loads more

DOWN WITH THAT SORT OF THING!

48

I called Bethel about shunning family, unexpected response.....

by EndofMysteries in

konceptual99

Ha the good ole' conscience conundrum. As any questioning JW knows you can have any conscience you like as long it it's the same as Elder Bully's.

48

I called Bethel about shunning family, unexpected response.....

by EndofMysteries in

konceptual99

If you are DF'ed or DA'ed (and I mean properly DA'ed through writing a letter yourself and it being announced) then the situation is that everyone should be shunning you with the exception of necessary family contact amongst family members. There is of course scope for "abuse" of this arrangement by family members hence the recent crackdown on this as per the WT article above.

If you are not DF'ed or have formally DA'ed yourself then the situation is much more grey. There are some circumstances by which you can be considered having DA'ed yourself by your actions (taking blood, joining another religion or partaking in religious ceremonies/holidays, joining the army etc.) but if you have simply drifted away and not attended for a long time then you are not DF'ed or DA'ed.

What does happen, however, is individual witnesses can then determine that they are going to shun you anyway and consider you as a DF'ed person. For example, if you were inactive for years and then started living with someone then self righteous witnesses who knew that may shun you out of their own volition. One family I know very well treated one of their sons as if they were disfellowshipped when he left the org and got a girlfriend in the world. He never lived with her but their open statement to all their kids were that if you leave the truth then that's how you will be treated. He was baptised but never DF'ed as he simply wanted out. He has, in the past 18 months, come back to the org. He had a JC but was never DF'ed, just put on restrictions.

The reality is that being DF'ed, DA'ed or inactive are legalistic, procedural terms that in the most part have absolutely no scriptual backup. Elements of shunning do have some scriptual basis but the extent and context is clearly being overused by the WTS. I've tried arguing this in the past and have sucessfully used some aspects of the org's own rules against them to thwart bullying elders but overall it makes little difference. If someone wants to treat you badly whilst maintaining a self-righteous stance then they will, regardless of what the procedures, let alone Christ like love, suggest. As a currently active JW in good standing I have had to fight tooth and nail in the past to prevent injustices from my own BoE - as an inactive one displaying attitudes contary to those accepted by the org then you have little chance of winning.

The point that has been made to me on this board several times now, however, is how much should you care....? it's their rules and if you are out then you have no obligation to accept them.