greetings all.. i decided to follow the recommendations and check this place out.
i'm curious, who runs this joint, and what are their rules of conduct.
i see fred hall posts here, so clearly apostates are welcome.. anyway, just saying: hey, y'all.. seeker (got my old handle back here)
Wow! A real live goddess! hehe, well, I'll be nice to you, but normally I don't take kindly to gods and goddesses. However, since your the local goddess, I may throw a few offerings your way from time to time, or at least be respectful.
Seriously, a friendly discussion place sounds fine by me.
this is normie thoughts on the threads about the truth..... i have huge doubts about a lot of things about the org.
i have been a jw for 20 yrs and still active(family reasons).
but nobody but nobody has refuted to my mind, the fact nobody does the evangelizing work jesus did.
No disrespect intended, Norm, but you don't really seem to want to discuss your topic very much. You tend to give glib, short responses to long arguments. And I don't see you saying anything about what AlanF brought out. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts about his reasons why what JWs preach is not the same sort of thing Jesus did.
As for the idea that only JWs preach the kingdom (which isn't true of course, since other religions do this as well), I would only ask you this: If you were to ask 100 householders what JWs teach, how many would say, "They preach about God's kingdom"? Probably none. Most people have no clue what Witnesses believe, other than that they don't take blood, or that they push the Watchtower magazine. Why is that? When Jesus preached, it was to talk about the kingdom in a very direct manner. When JWs preach, they talk about whatever the cover of the Awake happens to be, and householders never have a clue that they are preaching about the kingdom.
How can this possibly be compared to what Jesus did?
from the bbc:.
serena williams showed real maturity to come from behind and win the indian wells title with a 4-6 6-4 6-2 victory over rising star kim clijsters in front of a hostile crowd.
the younger of the williams' sisters incurred the wrath of the crowd because of her route to the final - elder sister venus pulled out of the their semi-final with a knee injury.
LOL, typo alert! I meant to write that ratings "soar" when the Williams sisters are involved, NOT "sour". Talk about undermining your own argument...
from the bbc:.
serena williams showed real maturity to come from behind and win the indian wells title with a 4-6 6-4 6-2 victory over rising star kim clijsters in front of a hostile crowd.
the younger of the williams' sisters incurred the wrath of the crowd because of her route to the final - elder sister venus pulled out of the their semi-final with a knee injury.
In fact, the Williams sisters are so popular on the Tour, they are the number one draw on the women's Tour. Ratings sour when Venus or Serena do well, so the networks love them. They are very popular among viewers and fans.
So although there is some racism among the players, the fact that they are black had not one thing to do with the boos this weekend. They are popular, so for them to get booed means something happened this time. If it were because they are black, they would get booed every time.
from the bbc:.
serena williams showed real maturity to come from behind and win the indian wells title with a 4-6 6-4 6-2 victory over rising star kim clijsters in front of a hostile crowd.
the younger of the williams' sisters incurred the wrath of the crowd because of her route to the final - elder sister venus pulled out of the their semi-final with a knee injury.
SevenofNine, the reason Serena was booed this weekend had little to do with all the resons you cited. This was a specific case, not a general attitude. What happened was this:
When it became apparent that Serena and Venus were going to meet in the Semis, another tennis player, when asked what she thought the outcome would be, said, 'Ask Richard, it's up to him' or something like that. She expressed what many have been suspecting, that the Williams family orchestrates the outcome of the matches between Serena and Venus.
Then, before they could play, Venus who showed absolutely no sign of injury in her previous match, suddenly announced that she could play in the Semis. Coming right after the accusation that the family decides who will win, it looked like a set up to let Serena get to the finals.
Not only did the audience not get to see the Venus-Serena match they paid for, there was suspicion of throwing a match. That's where these boos came from. If a white tennis player had pulled the same dirty stunt, they would have been booed just as loudly (witness the way Martina Hingis was loudly booed during last year's French Open, for instance, even though she is a popular star on the tour).
greetings all.. i decided to follow the recommendations and check this place out.
i'm curious, who runs this joint, and what are their rules of conduct.
i see fred hall posts here, so clearly apostates are welcome.. anyway, just saying: hey, y'all.. seeker (got my old handle back here)
Hello Simon!
Thank you for shovelling the coal. I think you'll find that although I'm willing to take on anyone, I try to do so without resorting to insults (doesn't always work). However, this place doesn't seem to have the combative feel of H2O, so I guess I'll slip back into my preferred mode: answering questions about the sociology of JW life.
was luther an apostate, or hus or wykliffe or calvin.?.
and what about the lollards the waldenses or the anabaptists were they all apostate?.
or were they just standing up for what they thought was right?.
wendy,
Ah, I see the angle you are focusing on. I misunderstood and thought you were one of those ex-JWs who see one of the Society's shifty moves and thinks the whole teaching has been overturned and proceeds to tell the world about the new light that isn't really new light at all.
What do I think of this deceit? I find it one more sign of the mainstreaming of JWs. We all know that the brothers in Malawi sure could have used this maneuver to save their lives, but back then the policy was not only not to compromise, but to make sure no one even THOUGHT you were compromising. Now this new, mainstream, version of the Society seems to be saying, "Go ahead and do whatever is expedient to make others think you are just like them -- but don't really do it, just pretend for their sakes." So much for standing up for what is right!
Now if a JW in one of those countries goes to the polls just like every other citizen, can you imagine the conversation they would later have at the door of someone who saw them "voting":
Householder: Hey, I saw you vote! I thought JWs don't vote!
JW: We don't. Just because I went to the poll, it doesn't mean I necessarily voted.
Householder: Huh? What do you mean? What else would you be doing there?
JW: Leaving a blank ballot.
Householder: Oh, so it's not OK to vote, but it is OK to let others think you are voting by using deceit?
Oh the tangled web they weave...
Seeker
greetings all.. i decided to follow the recommendations and check this place out.
i'm curious, who runs this joint, and what are their rules of conduct.
i see fred hall posts here, so clearly apostates are welcome.. anyway, just saying: hey, y'all.. seeker (got my old handle back here)
So this is H20 Heaven? That would explain the angelic picture (hi, Chag!). :-)
OK, I'll check this place out and see what's what. It's certainly faster, that's for sure.
was luther an apostate, or hus or wykliffe or calvin.?.
and what about the lollards the waldenses or the anabaptists were they all apostate?.
or were they just standing up for what they thought was right?.
Mommy,
The Society has not changed it's stance on voting, though I can understand where you would have gotten that impression. All the QFR changed was the idea that if someone goes into a voting booth, outside observers cannot make any definite determination what went on in the booth, and therefore they are not to automatically DA the JW as they previously might. This change was made for those countries that force its citizens to go to the polls. So a JW there can go, step into the booth, do nothing (or void the ballot, or write "Jesus" or whatever), and leave without getting in trouble with the authorities. Of course, if they really did vote, and this came to be known, they would be in trouble as they always were before. But the elders can no longer assume they voted just because they saw them go into the booth.
One U.S. Circuit Overseer, when asked about this QFR, said, "Oh, that doesn't apply here [U.S.]", so you get the idea that the Society hasn't really changed anything other than to give an out to some JWs in certain lands to "pretend" to vote so as not to get in trouble.
To repeat, the policy on voting has NOT changed in any substantial way.
greetings all.. i decided to follow the recommendations and check this place out.
i'm curious, who runs this joint, and what are their rules of conduct.
i see fred hall posts here, so clearly apostates are welcome.. anyway, just saying: hey, y'all.. seeker (got my old handle back here)
Greetings all.
I decided to follow the recommendations and check this place out. I'm curious, who runs this joint, and what are their rules of conduct. I see Fred Hall posts here, so clearly apostates are welcome.
Anyway, just saying: Hey, y'all.
Seeker (got my old handle back here)
