Posts by problemaddict

63

BROTHERS & SISTERS - READ THE BROCHURE!

by The Searcher in

jesus always used illustrations to help people reason on the import of what he was saying.

here is an illustration followed by a reality;.

imagine that your heart went out to all those poor people who suffered when fukushima blew up, so much so, that when an internationally renowned charity asked for donations to help those in need, you donated $5000 to the cause.

problemaddict

ADCMS - I get what you are saying. It seems pretty clear. Quoting them not actual cost, but what something theoretically would cost if you had Satans people build it, is not honest. It is however interesting that the homeowner in this situation could make out like a bandit.

I guess it would be too much to ask for that person to donate some back to the branch (for materials), and then take everyone that worked on the place to dinner, and then maybe the rest given to a general fund for the community. :) Wishful thinking you say? Yeah.....wishful thinking.

As far as the assembly halls go, I think you are forgetting the very clear expenses. There are four. Electricity, water (those toilets don't flush themselves, supplies (paper towels, cleaners), and the poor sap who lives on site making sure the place isn't molested by non-believers when nobody is looking. He makes a couple hundred a month right? So yeah, 16K sounds about right. Lol.

79

Summary of WT Appeal Brief in Conti Case

by Chaserious in

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:officedocumentsettings> <o:allowpng /> </o:officedocumentsettings> </xml><!

[endif][if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:trackmoves /> <w:trackformatting /> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:donotpromoteqf /> <w:lidthemeother>en-us</w:lidthemeother> <w:lidthemeasian>ja</w:lidthemeasian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>x-none</w:lidthemecomplexscript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark /> <w:enableopentypekerning /> <w:dontflipmirrorindents /> <w:overridetablestylehps /> <w:usefelayout /> </w:compatibility> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont m:val="cambria math" /> <m:brkbin m:val="before" /> <m:brkbinsub m:val="--" /> <m:smallfrac m:val="off" /> <m:dispdef /> <m:lmargin m:val="0" /> <m:rmargin m:val="0" /> <m:defjc m:val="centergroup" /> <m:wrapindent m:val="1440" /> <m:intlim m:val="subsup" /> <m:narylim m:val="undovr" /> </m:mathpr></w:worddocument> </xml><!

if they were able to win on this ground, they could get out completely (although it could still be appealed to the ca supreme court).

problemaddict

Great summary Chaserious. Very easy to follow and understand for the layman.

Good luck on the bar. I think the most damning thing for them, is that their most recent letter on the matter to the BOE, does not preclude molestors from serving at some point in the future. What a mistep that was!

From our perspective, I think it is most telling that their lawyers, at least one of which is a local elder in San Diego, have argued

a) that they have no "duty" to protect from harm in the case of a confessed molestation in the trusting environment that is the congregation.

b) That they could violate the rights of the abuser because he had not yet been convicted of a crime.

Just from a moral standpoint, it is clear to any onlooker that the only true religion on earth, has given up the moral highground with these assertions. I think the day will come when they wish they would have just paid this, and moved on.

211

New light Watchtower magazine leaked from organization weeks ahead of general release

by cedars in

http://jwsurvey.org/governing-body-2/new-light-watchtower-magazine-leaked-from-organization-weeks-ahead-of-general-release.

if doctrinal explanations are missing from the article, it is because they are also missing from the magazine.. i would like to give my thanks again to my source for supplying me with the magazine article weeks ahead of its scheduled release.

it showed remarkable courage, because risks were taken.

problemaddict

Great job Cedars. Really man this is much appreciated and you are a soldgier.

68

Inquiry on GB 2.0 member - Did they get married?

by bats in the belfry in

it's been a while since we heard about their engagement.

did they break it off?

did they get married?.

problemaddict

Hey guys, I think this was just a photo of a pioneer girl with the visiting speaker. Nothing scandalous. Unless of course someone here knows Mark or his family.

42

Trinity, Immortality of the soul, Hell fire... Homosexuality

by irondork in

jw
friends

most people here who have spent any amount of time studying the bible will agree that the bible allows for more than one interpretation of these topics.

well, the first three topics, anyways.. reading the gay marriage discussions on this board i see a common thread weaving its way through: no acknowledgement whatsoever that there is an equally valid interpretation of the bible that does not condemn homosexuality.. once in a while i will see the word trinity mentioned on this forum and no big deal is made of it (for the most part).

trinitarian and non-trinitarian teachings are accepted as variations of the christian understanding of the bible without any judgment being made regarding the genuineness of that person's christian identity or relationship with god.. mention the word homosexuality, and there is a huge difference in attitude.

problemaddict

Hey guys,

So let me start by saying I have read two of the threads provided, but I have also heard reasoning on some other sites regarding this subject. Since I am fairly evolving into an agnostic (wether I realize it or not), let me start by saying that even if I was not, I would not consider "gay marriage" an issue. "Marriage filing jointly" is just a legal tern on your IRS form. It affords rights to people that I think all should have. But just because the government sanctions something, doesn't mean that the "church" has to bless it. It shouldn't matter anyways considering the desire for separation of church and state.

That being said, I would not consider the links provided as "evidence" of homosexuality being a-ok with the God of the bible. In fact, I think the evidence falls contrary to it. Regardless, the sexual act outside of marriage would be forbidden and be fornication, and the bible sets marriage in a non-secular setting to being limited to a man and woman when it was instituted. One could decide that anything outside of that, is considered "fornication", and therefore not cool.

The recent attempts to grasp at straws biblically speaking to say its all good to be gay from the bibles perspective, I think are born more out of a desire for the Christian right to want to win an election or two, and less about actual veracity of claim.

I'm down to tussle over it, but honestly I have no real dog in the fight one way or the other. Sometimes in looking at the atoms of an arguement, you can forget those atoms make up a greater item. I think the greater item and overview of the scriptures you have already mentioned, is that the bible never intended for men to be with men.

I could always be wrong, and I'm willing to revisit this later when I have a few more minutes if you like.

Peace!

40

James 2:26 - "faith without works is dead"

by leaving_quietly in

i was contemplating this verse this morning... what did james mean by "works"?

and it hit me like a bolt of lightning.. now, wts would have us believe these "works" are preaching and meetings.

however, could that be what james was referring to?

problemaddict

Just for the sake of fairness....

I don't think the JW point of view is that one must work for their salvation. That is not really an accurate statement. In the case of faith vs works, the reality is that one does not exist without the other. So without one, the other isn't. Its chicken vs egg and doesn't really matter. There is nothing you can do to earn salvation, neither is there any amount of "works" that can make you approved without faith from the biblical standpoint.

So that being said, one could make an arguement that the practical application of the scripture is lost on JW's as they focus heavily on works. To be sure meeting together, and preaching to others about Jesus could be called "works", although I would add that so could charity and living with the fruitage of the spirit in mind.

39

Flipping out at the meeting

by BU2B in

jw
friends

unfortunatley, i still go to many meetings as i am working on getting my wife to wake up.

for the most part i maintain my composure but there have been two or three times when i actually have gotten so upset and the frustration built so high that i have come very come close to actually slamming something down or pounding the table in the literature room, or shouting out how i felt!

has anyone else felt this way?

problemaddict

Yeah. I have gotten pretty upset. Here is what you do. Go to the bathroom, sit on the toilet, and look at the news headlines on your phone. Get some reading in for about 15 minutes, then head on back.

42

So...why is taking blood essentially viewed as unforgivable by the WT?

by sd-7 in

been hearing about this 'grey's anatomy' episode, and while i didn't see it, it brought up a question i wanted to throw out there, albeit a long-winded one, as is my usual nature.. the fact that people would rather die than take blood, as if...if they take it, they're doomed for sure to not make the new system--it doesn't make sense to me.

people both in the organization and the bible stories are forgiven for heinous crimes, murder, adultery, child sacrifice, everything up to and including denying jesus altogether.

(let's not forget child molestation and rape, apparently...) so why does it seem like this one act is presented to jws as one that's never to be forgiven?.

problemaddict

The issue is not wether they are turning a blind eye to it or not. The issue is that they still teach it is a fundamental question of loyalty to none other than Jehovah himself that you refuse any non approved use of blood.

Interestingly enough, you can more easily now be disfellowshipped for questioning the doctrine of forbiddance of blood, moreso than you can actually taking the stuff.

You just can't make this stuff up.

5