Some people are really really REALLY good at compartmentalizing.
I think the law profession draws such folks disproportionately.
here is a post on reddit from mark and kimmy o’ donnell, from the crusaders documentary,.
ask us anything.. mr. o'donnell gives his assessment of why wt lawyers continue to defend the child sex abuse cases that the organization continues to fight, even though they see firsthand the deception, the lies, the withholding of facts and dirty tactics used in court.
by an organization that claims to be god's earthly representative, and the only one to hold the truth.
Some people are really really REALLY good at compartmentalizing.
I think the law profession draws such folks disproportionately.
i ask this as hebrew is read from right to left.. reasonable input is welcome..
Hebrew is read right to left, but when you write the tetragrammaton in English using English letters, you write it left to right.
Not sure why this should be controversial.
5:27; 9:59; 18:22; jn.
9:48; [21:8]; 24:47; jn.
21:12, 17;] jn.
Arguing about whether "interpretation A" or "interpretation B" of a Biblical verse is the "correct" one is the Socratic ideal of a fool's errand.
Isn't there something how the apostles drove a Honda?
They were all in one accord?
so if a man lets say is heterosexual, married and happy but likes to in the privacy of his own home wear women's cloths and his wife is ok with it.
i know a person could just shut their mouth and who would know but i am talking about jw who is very concerned about telling the truth to the dubbers.
my guess is it would not be a dfing matter but they would not be a ms or elder.
They've had assembly talks on the subject. A definite no-no.
It's not on the elder's manual list of DFing offenses though.
But if someone were idiot enough to engage in it and then for some reason feel compelled to admit to the elders, he'd be removed from every "privilege" possible (except, of course, the "privilege" of donating funds - somehow that one never gets restricted).
so, there's been a lot of talk on social media, blaming trump for the current crisis that began at the weekend.. it's a load of bullsh!t from deluded people who are desperate to blame anyone but joe biden, the idiot they voted for or at least wanted to win last november.. there is only one person, just one person, to blame: joe biden.. he has the heavy burden of making tough presidential decisions.. and after this debacle, it's reasonable to ask if he's up to making such decisions..
I dunno, I think the president who started the #$%^! thing 20 years ago ought to get a little of it.....
in a scene reminiscent of the fall of saigon, the usa embassy staff have been evacuated by helicopter.. for a third time in asia ( a fourth, if you count usa supported chiang kai shek's defeat in mainland china) usa supported forces have been defeated.
more than 1 trillion dollars wasted and a huge deathtoll (both sides) afghanistan is back to where it started,.
will the taliban behave differently this time ?
Fascinating article with an unexpected reason why Afghanistan fell so fast. Don't know how much I agree with it, but at the very least it makes some solid points.
Did America just lose Afghanistan because of WhatsApp? – Preston Byrne
So what the hell happened?
.....
WhatsApp is an American product. It can be switched off by its parent, Facebook, Inc, at any time and for any reason. The fact that the Taliban were able to use it at all, quite apart from the fact that they continue to use it to coordinate their activities even now as American citizens’ lives are imperiled by the Taliban advance which is being coordinated on that app, suggests that U.S. military intelligence never bothered to monitor Taliban numbers and never bothered to ask Facebook to ban them.
do you recall reading this passage before?
i came across this it yesterday while preparing a bible presentation on trees.
i had no idea this passage existed.
the deeper meaning of the passage
Well. something was pretty deep in Rutherford's ramblings writings.
do you recall reading this passage before?
i came across this it yesterday while preparing a bible presentation on trees.
i had no idea this passage existed.
I suspect Rutherford probably had a “prophetic” interpretation of it however.
If you look up the passage on wol.jw.borg, you can see references to a lengthy (6+ pages in the large-format WT) covering all these verses in the 1935 Watchtower. In their numbering system it is pages 100-105.
Of course they did not include the 1935 WT in their publications that can be linked to online.
I don't remember if the large-format magazines were 16 or 32 pages long so I can't figure out the date of the issue. If 16 pages each it would be the April 1 1935 edition, if 32 pages each it would be the February 15 issue.
what was your kingdom hall like when it came to overweight witnesses?
i remember counseling some people on their drinking habits.
a few snickered that if we were going to counsel them because they have had way too many at a wedding reception, what about very overweight witnesses that have a lifestyle of overindulgence?
The bible says drunkards will not inherit the kingdom. It says nothing about the occasional, social, over-drinker?
Good lord, you're dredging up more memories.
There was another elders school that got into this issue with agonizing detail. The instructor asked if someone was an alcoholic, could he be DF'ed?
In one of the rare opportunities to express opinions not pre-approved by "mother", some elders commented yes, others no.
The instructor said the answer was "no". The Bible condemns "drunkenness", not "alcoholism".
He then went on, again in excruciating detail, about how the Bible describes "drunkenness". IIRC, it was a bunch of stuff from Proverbs about "staggering around" and "eyes seeing strange things".
He said an alcoholic might not ever exhibit such symptoms, thus, strictly Biblically speaking, he would not be considered "drunk" and thus not subject to congregation discipline. Such a person wouldn't be "exemplary" and so couldn't be a pioneer, elder, MS, etc., but without that Biblical "evidence" of drunkenness, no judicial action was to be pursued.
The unspoken takeaway, of course, to the undoubted delight of a significantly high proportion of the attendees, was that if you can "hold your liquor" and not act stumblingly stupid while drunk, there was no problem.