Is this exchange with Alex this year?
Yes, just a few days ago from his post about sexual deviancy and the Bible. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
original reddit post (removed).
Is this exchange with Alex this year?
Yes, just a few days ago from his post about sexual deviancy and the Bible. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
original reddit post (removed).
We were joking earlier (and in some cases not joking - deadly serious) in comments about his "Coming tomorrow..." post about sexual incidents in the Bible, but I noticed on revisiting that post that he was being his usual charming self in the comments with someone called "Alex" (presumably a creationist) who he had previously been supposedly due to debate with.
I'm not sure if this is the one that he tweeted about several weeks ago, but then he removed the tweet because they cancelled or failed to show up.
The point is, even if Alex did fail to show before, our friend with the sunny disposition goes on one of his usual abrasive, nit-picky and self-righteous rants at him. Looks like Alex was unaware what a tiresome and awkward PITA he can be to deal with, especially if you dare not to do everything exactly as he wants it and bow at the altar of Cedars.
Any new followers of the cult of LE are not likely to be impressed, nor are any potential guests of the channel who come across this exchange. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot in public once more...
in ancient israel many of the prophets were killed as a result of their religious assignments —from god.
even soldiers were sent out to fight against idolatrous “uncircumcised” and logically some died for example jonathan, the son of king saul.
these soldiers were said to be fighting the wars of jehovah and there was no miraculous salvation for everybody all of the time.
The question could just as easily be:
Should a person die for their political BELIEFS?
Should a person die for their personal BELIEFS?
To me, the more important questions are:
1) Does the person genuinely believe whatever it is from informed choice, or are they being coerced?
For example, many people have been forced, often for political or religious ideologies, to kill themselves or be killed. Kamikaze pilots, suicide bombers, etc.
2) Is the potential for them to die coincidental, or an intentional or required part of that belief?
Again, if the prospect of death is a deliberate and intentional part of the 'belief' (whatever it is), then that's usually not a good reason. Again, the above example of kamikaze pilots and suicide bombers come to mind.
However, if the prospect of death is coincidental - in other words, it's not inherently necessary, but happens because of, say, the action of enemies, or even simply bad luck - and the decision to face death is chosen consciously by the individual, then I don't see that it is necessarily wrong.
The third question would be What exactly is it you are prepared to die for?
People are prepared to die for all sorts of things - soldiers for their country, police and firefighters to protect others, political activists for their cause, even extreme sports people for their favourite activities - not all of them would be considered healthy or meaningful reasons to put your life on the line.
Then there's the question of whether risking your own life would endanger other people's lives? Or do you have dependents who would be harmed by you sacrificing your life?
TL;DR - I think it depends on a whole lot of other variables than simply "should you"/"shouldn't you".
I agree with BluesBrother's general point that in an ideal world, no-one should have to choose between their beliefs (religious or otherwise) and their life, but sadly, things are not always like that.
this was the 1963 assembly at twickenham.
i recall the wt deciding no more camping after this due to "immorality" having taken place.. https://youtu.be/lhcl-13dyne.
Fascinating footage.
If they were still alive now, I wonder what the older attendees in that footage (including bros from the convention committee, etc) would make of the TV evangelist, Christianity-lite, e-publisher JWs and their rock star GB of today?
As someone once said: "If they were alive today, they'd turn in their graves!"
original reddit post (removed).
A "messed up situation", you say? Let's see if we can put it into terms he might understand.
Once upon a time there was a wife who was unable to satisfy her husband's demands (for a son) - so she allowed him to turn to another woman (note: just one, not several of them regularly every couple of months for, "I'm going to say, three or four years").
But later she felt unhappy with the arrangement and asked him to stop it by sending the other woman away.
However, he refused and threw a tantrum like a man-baby, claiming everything was her fault and she was reneging on a promise to let him sleep with whoever he wanted, that she had emotional problems, and that she was projecting her issues onto him - oh wait, sorry, that last bit wasn't Abraham, was it? It was some other bearded bloke. Whatever became of him, I wonder?
original reddit post (removed).
I presume this is his personal review and recommendation for each one, a chance for him to perv over them all.
He'll rank them from 25 to 1 according to his favourites, and probably mention another 25 from his personal list of kinks that the scriptures left out.
And at the risk of being obvious, "Coming tomorrow..." is presumably meant to be spelled differently.
I hope he's learned mastery over his penis now, otherwise this video may end prematurely, if you know what I mean...
S-8 Form Slimboy mentioned.
https://imgbox.com/2yLmwOgu
new wt october 2023....first an article remembering 1923....they make changes, the had a "prayer, praise and testimony weekly meeting".. after an study article about obey, specially paragraph 18.. i have a wild guess, next year, just one weekly meeting for the borg..
I can't see them ditching the midweek meeting.
As BluesBrother says, it's their main meeting for 'training' the congregation in the ministry. Announcements are not a problem, they could be moved to the weekend, but there's no way they could have a talk, WT study and a training programme for ministry all in a single 1.5-2 hour meeting.
They won't drop the public talk and even if they cut the WT study to half an hour, you can't fit much into the remaining 30 minutes.
One meeting a week won't be enough to keep the PIMIs engaged - it's likely to increase the attrition rate.
Also, what about the twice-yearly CO visits? They have to fit his talks in somewhere too.
The weekend meeting is traditionally the 'public' one, while the midweek is the 'internal procedures' kind of meeting, so the org will probably still feel both are needed.
The only thing they might do is reduce the midweek meeting in length, maybe drop the book study. I think there's a lot of wasted time in that meeting anyway, with the unnecessary preview and review segments, the opening talk and filler items in the final section. Lately they've been cancelling regular items and showing the monthly GB video updates in that last part of the meeting too, and usually a few weeks after it's been released. What's with that? The thing is already online, and sometimes it's out of date by the time it's played at the meeting (like the recent video on preparing for the Memorial which was played at a meeting after the Memorial had happened! Duh.)
Reduce the whole thing to 1 hour max, and let the bros get away earlier for home in the evening. That might win some points with the R&F.
A bit of both, depending on the venues.
For years, the main conventions I attended in London were at the Twickenham and Crystal Palace sports stadiums and there were not many food places near them, so mostly people brought their own cooler bags, etc.
But in the past decade or so most of the conventions have moved to indoor venues like conference centres that have lots of food chain options like Costa, KFC and McDonalds, so these get packed out during the lunch break. Or they used to, pre-COVID. It will be interesting to hear the reports of what happens this year across the country. Local retailers used to love it when the JWs were in town at the weekend as they made a lot of money, but if numbers at conventions start falling, then the attraction of having them around will soon fade!
original reddit post (removed).
He's not interested in acting. He's interested in being applauded. There's a difference.
Good point, DerekMoors.
Far too much discipline required in acting for our Lloydy-boy to cope with. He would hate having to be at the bottom of the pecking order and take direction from others.
His problem though is, whatever new career path he takes he's going to have to do that. He'll be the fish out of water, the newbie, and he'll have to humble himself and learn from others. Can he deal with that?