very long story.
i've been away from this site for a while.. basically, i tried to leave.
handed in my disassociation letter, it kicked up a storm and 2 weeks later i was disfellowshipped.
pale.emperor - My daughter wont be baptized into this i can promise you all that. [emphasis added]
Calm down, cowboy! Not so fast! You don't have to promise us anything; we're not a cult trying to get people for our own cause! Promise it to yourself... That's the nice thing about not being a JW; you don't have to make promises to anyone, including the elders, that "you'll do more service next month."
"To thine own self be true" – Polonius, Hamlet I.iii
it appears that watchtower is distancing itself from the blood fractions.
the new "blood card" doesn't mention them and any mention of blood in the watchtower ignores fractions.
i wander if they are going back to their hard stance.
redpilltwice - Overlapping blood fractions maybe?
Overlapping gods, too? Trinity, anyone?
Oh, wait... That's paganism. That's right...
I do hope that this is sarcasm. I think it is sarcasm. Please, God, let me be right this time.
concise thoughts from the wtbts.
par.2) however, there are numerous situations for which the bible provides no specific command.. par.3) in the absence of specific laws, how can we know what choices will please jehovah?.
par.16) many matters could be decided one way or another, and jehovah would still be pleased.. .
When I saw this study article, I suddenly desired to attend the meeting tomorrow to give a stupid answer...
Par. 6 has a question which reads, "What should guide our decisions?" I wanted to say that we need to think independently and reject anything absurd. Then, I wanted to give an example of the "overlapping generations" and reason, very briefly, why we should "reject outright such lies." (I'm "mis"quoting Stephen Lett―something that the Watchtower seems to enjoy.) I wanted to finish the answer by saying, "I do not answer to Watchtower. Watchtower does not, and never has had, any authority over me." All this would be an answer to "What should guide our decisions?"
However, I soon realised that they would take the microphone from me anyway. But, heck, I would love to see whether any elders would want to talk to me after the meeting!
anyone detained of these hate crimes; immediate detention of their associates and family.
conviction?
guillotine the offenders immediate deportation of the rest.. march on mes ami!
zeb - Nice pronounced,.. niece.
i just frightened a jehovah’s witness lady half out of her wits!.
i just frightened a sweet jehovah’s witness lady half out of her wits.... .
she took off like a sprinter at the sound of a starter pistol!.
Coded Logic - Wouldn't it be more productive to show the failed prophecies, historical inaccuracies, and contradictions of the Bible?
I agree that there are failed prophecies, historical inaccuracies, and contradictions in the Bible. However, it is not always more productive to point them out to people who are not convinced of them. The reason is that fundamentalists will often go to the lengths of apologetics to justify those errors in the Bible. Such arguments as presented by apologetic Christians will not convince us who look for the rational Bible; nevertheless, they will convince those who already look at the Bible as the inerrant word of God, even if those apologetic arguments also involve historical inaccuracies.
i had a thought this morning and i am putting it out for discussion.. when a christian is a nutjob we call them fundamentalist but a nutjob muslim is "radical".. doesn't one detach the person from the religion while one puts them square at the root?
shouldn't we call radical muslim terrorists "fundamentalist"?
.
freemindfade - Shouldn't we call radical Muslim terrorists "fundamentalist"?
I forgot to deal with this question in the above post.
Radical Muslim terrorists are fundamentalists. Radical Muslims are not radical Muslims but radical fundamentalist Muslims. It's just too long, so we simply call them "radical Muslims" since radicalism already involves fundamentalism. (I hope everyone understands what I'm trying to say...)
i had a thought this morning and i am putting it out for discussion.. when a christian is a nutjob we call them fundamentalist but a nutjob muslim is "radical".. doesn't one detach the person from the religion while one puts them square at the root?
shouldn't we call radical muslim terrorists "fundamentalist"?
.
FayeDunaway offered a good definition from dictionary.com. A radical fundamentalist is someone who has an extreme interpretation of, for instance, the Holy Book, and seeks change or upheaval. Muslims are more likely to be portrayed as radical fundamentalists because not only do they have an extreme interpretation of Quran (when we're talking about people like ISIS sympathizers—not all Muslims), but they also seek change or upheaval in the society.
Regular fundamentalists, such as Jehovah's Witnesses (I would certainly classify them as such), simply adhere to their doctrine in a very strict way. However, they usually do not seek change in the society—with the exception of fundamentalists who don't want their relative country to accept homosexuality etc. Nonetheless, even those fundamentalists will not break the laws of the land in order to force the change upon the society, which is unlike radical fundamentalists who don't mind upheaval.
Basically, seeking upheaval in the society is what differentiates radical fundamentalists from regular fundamentalists.
Yeah, worldly Italian lady Roasted, Toasted, Deep Friend and BBQ... The worst thing ever for dinner... If someone ever does that, s/he is not the sweetest, kindest, or nicest.
just wondering who is the de facto leader of the gb these days?
when i was in, it seemed jaracz was the leader even though he was never officially the president of the wtbs.
who is the leader of the gb 2.0?.
@ lamallcool
