read out at the service meeting this week.. ===================================.
january 21, 2013. to all congregations.
re: thirty-hour quota for auxiliary pioneering.
One brother in my Hall commented that this was a loving provision "from Jehovah" for allowing more people to pioneer. Yes, really.
I didn't notice anyone with a look of shock on their face. Maybe they weren't paying attention, as it was said in passing. Or maybe this sounds perfectly sane when you are not in the conscious class.
the may 15, 2013 washtowel has a cute little piece of artwork about what an impact they make out in serve-us.
i thought some captions might help make it clearer!.
.
Great captions, thanks for the laugh, RayPublisher!
Did the guy (really a JW) taking out the trash have to get an official dispensation to sport a day's worth of stubble?
Sadly, I give it about 50/50 odds that it's actually make-up/Photoshop stubble.
last week a sister in my new hall made the following comment,.
"a brother once told me that it is better to be wrong with the organization, than to be right and be on your own without the organization.".
wow.
I actually figured the more in line with ACTUAL teaching, the more it qualified as wacky! :)
Well, I can't argue with that :) That's why, when writing my post, I had to disclaim it by saying "in the sense of a Witness going off the rails". It's just a different brand of wackiness!
we'll see how long this lasts.... i'll write a chapter each day.
every day.. when there is nothing left to say.....it is over.. it could end up being a book nobody will every read.
or, it might be read by a few and it might mean something to somebody.
Wow, the details of this draft issue were unknown to me because (1) I was a later generation of Witness, and (2) we didn't have a draft in the years that I would have been eligible. I had no idea that Witness youths were being told to refuse the hospital work when it was initially offered. That's saddening to hear. I think alternate service is allowed now, but I'm not totally sure. Not that it does a lot of good for youths who had to go to prison during the time that the org. was standing on the other foot.
Anyway, I am enjoying the memoirs so far! But when did you get married?! In chapter 2 you're single, and in chapter 3 you mention a wife. Apologies if I missed something.
hi guys.
i'm interested in knowing whether any other faders out there ever find themselves feeling a little paranoid about establishing contact with other faders or former jws, just in case the unthinkable happens and things turn sour.. personally, i'm now fairly comfortable with the idea that i will be disfellowshipped or disassociated within the next year or so.
i see it as inevitable, and an essential transition in order to do what i want to do with my life.
Speaking of paranoia... I'm still new here so I don't know if this is ever done, has anyone ever asked the admin to delete some of their posts? On most forums, you can edit your posts even years afterward, so it makes me a little uncomfortable that everything I write here is set in stone after 30 minutes.
last week a sister in my new hall made the following comment,.
"a brother once told me that it is better to be wrong with the organization, than to be right and be on your own without the organization.".
wow.
Sadly, problemaddict, that's not even a wacky comment in the sense of a Witness going off the rails -- that's actual Watchtower teaching.
if jesus is the exact representation of his heavenly father, and if "god is love", and if there is no greater love than to give up one's own life for others, then if jesus gave up his life for mankind as the greatest act of love ever performed, why would jehovah be more concerned about his own name being vindicated and his rule being proven to be superior to man's rule than preventing untold millions of innocent persons over thousands of years from suffering and dying horribly?.
wouldn't jehovah be just like his son, jesus, and choose to sacrifice his own name and reputation out of his great love for mankind rather than permit so much suffering for thousands of years?
why would the almighty creator of the universe care so much about being 'slandered' by a rebellious spirit creature that he would have to permit so much suffering for so long?
In all fairness, if God allowed his sovereignty to be questioned, wouldn't that have meant that mankind and the angels could have left God? And then anyone born after that time would have been forced to live in an ungodly world. Think about it: as it is, a "third" of the angels turned against God. None of humanity except eight people were worshipping God before the Flood came.
If Noah and his family didn't exist... then who would there have been to save? Either God would have destroyed everyone, or been forced to allow all humans to live under the Devil's influence, because the Devil would have proven his point before all the angels, that man only served God when he blessed them and protected them in return. So God would have lost control of his creation and they would have gone on to live lawlessly for the rest of eternity.
At least, that's one way of looking at it. That was my line of thinking when I was a Witness, anyway.
...and that applies to religion as well as politics.. if someone simply believes such and such is true, it doesn't really matter whether you "prove" it or not.
people will believe what they want to believe..
I ran out of time to continue posting on this thread back on page 1, so I'm just throwing in a little postscript to explain where I was headed with my earlier posts.
(1) We can't be 100% sure of anything. Did evolution happen? Almost certainly. But nothing's 100%. To dispute the uncertainty of our knowledge is ridiculous. Are you even 100% sure that the sun will rise tomorrow? Then you are arrogant or ignorant.
(2) All of us nevertheless make certain assumptions in order to live our lives. We are free to make these "100%" assumptions in our own mind, but we have to acknowledge that we are doing this, and that everyone else does this too, when the subject of "facts" comes up.
(3) Some evidence that people find convincing is something that only they have experienced. We are not in a position to disprove their personal experiences. To mock someone for hearing a voice or seeing a vision, or simply having a feeling in their heart that God definitely exists, is also arrogant. We're free to doubt them, and to politely express our doubt, but mocking them indicates 100% certainty about something we cannot disprove.
(4) We should respect the fact that other people will not accept what we consider to be facts no matter how hard we try. Moreover, asserting that we're the only ones accepting the "facts" does nothing to facilitate intelligent conversation. While it may make us feel better to ridicule someone for not trusting science above personal experience, it only makes us look bad on a personal level, and, more importantly, our beliefs will become less appealing to that person.
So the choice is simple: (a) you can make yourself feel good by publicly announcing that only your side knows and lives by the "facts", or (b) you can acknowledge uncertainty and individuality, be humble (or at least fake it) about your own position, and either politely try to win someone over, or just agree to disagree with such ones. From the standpoint of human relations, what is and is not a "fact" is partially irrelevant. None of us are robots, and all of us have feelings.
The only reason I butted into this discussion was to express my annoyance at the threads I see where atheists are sniping at religious people and saying, "I'm just sticking up for the facts and fighting ignorance", when all you're doing is harm to your position in the eyes of the people you're supposedly trying to convince. I don't participate in any of those threads, and I probably won't discuss this topic again. I just had to get this off my chest.
we had our special assembly day this weekend.. what the district overseer stated in his talk totally stunned me, and made me feel sick to my stomach.
he said, "christ is directing us through the governing body, and we cannot get holy spirit except through them!".
i do not wish to reveal all my thoughts on his statement, but i pray to god that it acts as a wake-up call to at least some of the audience.. suffice to say that the gb is now the mediator to our mediator, and from now on, i will have to pray for holy spirit through the name of the gb!!.
See, I would think even someone dense like me would have woken up from comments like that if they were still being written that way when I was young in the '80s/'90s. That's just too creepy. It's still kind of hard for me to believe that the religion I thought was right for so long has such blatantly cult-like aspects to it.
i have just finished an article misquotes, deception and lies and would like your comments, proof reading, and any other examples that you think are important to add.
most of these already appear on jwfacts.com within specific articles, but it is more powerful seeing them included together.
there have also been a number of requests over the years for such a collection.
"Of the many thousand of early New Testament fragments" -- thousands
"the word used in this passage is not YHWH but Kupiov or Kurios"
You shouldn't write "Kupiov" in Latin letters, as this changes the word and its pronunciation (for instance, the 'p' is actually "rho", that is, an 'r'). Use the Greek characters supplied in most modern fonts, as seen here.
"This has an important affect" -- effect is the noun, affect is a verb
"that outlines rules and procedure" -- procedures
"the article Why Some Are Disfellowshipped?" -- there's no '?' in the title
Yet notice the ambiguous way in which a Witness is to deal when questioned if only Witnesses will be saved
"is to deal" is fragmentary, maybe "is to answer"?
Okay, I think I'm done
