Awesome
grumblecakes
JoinedPosts by grumblecakes
-
23
So you want to leave the Jehovah's Witnesses?
by Watchtower-Free inhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynxo8nj-jpo.
.
from roguepixel100 on youtube.
-
-
-
17
Are we not overlooking the obvious?
by newbie2013 inthis is my first post.
however, i have been reading this board for some time (call it stalking or trolling...lol).
so, hello to all.. i have had time to reflect on the agm since yesterday and my thoughts are that indeed the nwt needed much revision.
-
-
grumblecakes
Hamsterbait-Very good point. We are to accept anything published by the WTBS as being from God himself ("spirit directed organization") yet it is frequenly inaccurate in need of "getting brighter". All rather dubious.
Newbie- Welcome and thank you for your interesting perspective.
-
14
Food for thought
by braincleaned inwhy is it said that we "inherited" sin?
we all know the old 'dented cake mold' illustration... but it doesn't follow logic.. .
it was obviously not obligatory that we "inherited" sin.
-
-
grumblecakes
Braincleaned-I've often wondered this same thing. Never made any sense to me. Especially considering JWs claim that God is perfect in justice...
Also, why so much suffering when you have the power to stop it?
"Oh, its to show his sovereignty"
If you're all powerfull though, why not go about it a better way? The sheer amount of human suffering over the entire history of humanity is way out of porportion. The point (assuming it was a real one) would have been proven looong ago. If you can accomplish anything you want, all powerful, all mighty, then there has to be a better way.
Also, all through the old testimate, thousands of men, women, and children were slaughtered merely for not being born Isrealites...but they had no control over that. If God ultimately created ALL humanity (albeit through Jesus) why would he create non Isrealites only to punish them by death for being created by him?
Why would God allow miracles to prove his existence during only one period in time? Why would God provide inspired texts, but make them so vauge and wide open for interpretation that realistically know one could ever be sure what the hell was meant by them.
If God wanted loyalty and love from people, wouldn't it make sense for him to make his existence plain and irrefutable, in which case anyone who chose not to worship him did so because they were clearly disloyal and not because they were just mistaken and confused?
-
58
GAH!! AGM!!! >:( (Or "Grumblecakes is Disgusted")
by grumblecakes infirst of all, big "thank you's" to everyone who put up the goods after attending!
why im disgusted.
the new bible (no, it doesnt have a new name, for all who are asking) is a huge f**king monstrosity!
-
-
grumblecakes
Apognophos-
No misunderstanding. Yes, they said they are substituting words (all over the place) for ones that are less ambiguous...
But, silly me. I'm sure these extensive revisions are for the actual benefit and spiritual health of the R&F. They are honestly very, very concerned about accuracy and actual truth. Not at all about indoctrination and information control. Not at all. They would never abuse the scriptures. Im sure there is no selfish motivation behind this massive overhaul.
Just 8 lowly, humble men, who just want the honest truth, whatever it maybe. They just want so bad to help.
Seriously, I'm not trying to be overly alarmist. However, I am highly suspicious of these guys.
-
31
Anything new BESIDES new bible release at the annual meeting?
by EndofMysteries inso was it all just a new bible release or was there any doctrine changes, etc?
.
-
-
grumblecakes
"See Genesis 31:35; Leviticus 15:19-27."
LOLOLOLOL!!
-
58
GAH!! AGM!!! >:( (Or "Grumblecakes is Disgusted")
by grumblecakes infirst of all, big "thank you's" to everyone who put up the goods after attending!
why im disgusted.
the new bible (no, it doesnt have a new name, for all who are asking) is a huge f**king monstrosity!
-
-
-
58
GAH!! AGM!!! >:( (Or "Grumblecakes is Disgusted")
by grumblecakes infirst of all, big "thank you's" to everyone who put up the goods after attending!
why im disgusted.
the new bible (no, it doesnt have a new name, for all who are asking) is a huge f**king monstrosity!
-
-
grumblecakes
Gen 3:6
"Consequently, the woman saw that the tree was good for food and that it was something desireable to the eyes, yes, the tree was pleasing to look at. So she began taking of its fruit and eating it. Afterwards, she also gve some to her husbandwhen he was with her, and he bagan eating it."
-
58
GAH!! AGM!!! >:( (Or "Grumblecakes is Disgusted")
by grumblecakes infirst of all, big "thank you's" to everyone who put up the goods after attending!
why im disgusted.
the new bible (no, it doesnt have a new name, for all who are asking) is a huge f**king monstrosity!
-
-
grumblecakes
Oh and...
I was looking forward to hearing in what context the term "sister proof" was used...what the hell does that mean?
When he said "witness proof" everyone (in actual attendence) laughed. When he said "sister proof", it was a weird 1/2 1/2 mix of laughter and low "oooh".
THERE WAS NO EXPLINATION "SISTER PROOF"!
What the hell did he mean by that? Your guess is as good as mine.
Also, they read 2 complaint letters RE: the unavailability of NWTs...the first one he said "is from a SISTER" and lifts his eyebrows and pauses in lighthearted distain...To thunderous laughter!?!? It was seriously like being in the twilight zone.
-
31
Anything new BESIDES new bible release at the annual meeting?
by EndofMysteries inso was it all just a new bible release or was there any doctrine changes, etc?
.
-
-
grumblecakes
Myelaine: LOL. Nice.
-
58
GAH!! AGM!!! >:( (Or "Grumblecakes is Disgusted")
by grumblecakes infirst of all, big "thank you's" to everyone who put up the goods after attending!
why im disgusted.
the new bible (no, it doesnt have a new name, for all who are asking) is a huge f**king monstrosity!
-
-
grumblecakes
Seriously, try to go online and watch it (they said it would be available on JW.org). Its so infuriating.
David Splane's talk is at the end. He said the probem with the previoous edition was that too many words/terms could be interpreted too many ways (like "routine") and that whole talks, albeit well meaning talks, were built around something other than what the scriptures intended...
Then he added...
It was not entirely these well meaning brothers' fault, our publications at times said the same (or similar?) things based words and phrasings in the NWT that were just too broad.
