Posts by undercover

102

New BLOOD Watchtower - June 15, 2004 Issue!

by UnDisfellowshipped in

the watchtower, june 15, 2004 issue, pages 14-24:.

" for the benefit of current readers, the answer is reprinted on pages 29-31 of this magazine.

19 near its conclusion, the reprinted answer on pages 29-31 says: "does the fact that opinions and conscientious decisions may differ mean that the issue is inconsequential?

This bothers me

by Soledad in

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/10/national/10mlk.html?pagewanted=print&position=

may 10, 2004 honor for dr. king splits florida city, and faces reversal

by abby goodnough

Why do so many cities feel the need to name a street after MLK? I can understand naming streets after him in his home town, any cities where famous speeches were given or have any other notable point of historical value. The city I live in has an MLK street. All the major citites in the state have a street named after him. The man never gave a speech here, never stayed overnight here, never stopped here on the way to somewhere important. He never visited some of these other cities either. Nothing of any historical value with him involved happened at any of them. Yet they all have streets named after him. I don't see the need to name a street after someone who really has no local connections. The only exception to that may be Presidents and then only in certain cases. Washingtons, Lincolns and Kennedys are okay, Bushes, Clintons and Johnsons, I don't think so.

25

FORMER ELDERS CAN YOU PLEASE HELP??

by MZINDEPENDENT in

jw
friends

hello, i am writing because i was disfellowshipped a week and a half ago.

i have not been to the meeting in over two and a half years.

you would think they would leave me alone.

undercover

Is your husband still an active JW or is returning to them? If so, I'm guessing that he's found another woman but can't date her until he proves that you were unfaithful. Or maybe if you still have a lot of contact with family or friends that are still active and your independant streak seems to influence them negatively, they may want to eliminate your influence on them.

Otherwise, I can't see why the elders would bother with trying to DF someone who has been inactive for over a year. Or it could be that you just really pissed someone off good and they won't let it go and are bound and determined to get even.

14

New Awake , "Lonely but not Alone"

by boy@crossroads in

jw
friends

has anybody seen the june awake.

its entitled "lonely but not alone".

there must be a lot of jw's that can't find friends.

undercover

Shouldn't it be titled, "Alone, but not lonely"?

If it's aimed at singles who can't find a "suitable mate"(tm) it doesn't help to stigmatize them with the word "lonely". You can live alone, be alone but not be lonely. I loved my single years. I was never lonely. Today after many years of marriage, I cherish my alone times. My wife threatens at times to make it permanent however.

25

FORMER ELDERS CAN YOU PLEASE HELP??

by MZINDEPENDENT in

jw
friends

hello, i am writing because i was disfellowshipped a week and a half ago.

i have not been to the meeting in over two and a half years.

you would think they would leave me alone.

undercover

Are you sure they didn't announce that you had disassociated yourself from the congregation? While the end result is the same, they can announce your disassociation if they know if any of your activities were of the kind to show that you no longer wanted to be a JW. Granted, most elders don't go to that much trouble with an inactive person, but if they were "out to get you" then this could be their way of doing it and not having to deal with all the meetings and procedures. Just a thought.

21

To The Opposers of George W. Bush and The War In Iraq

by L_A_Big_Dawg in

as i read grenpalmtrees post to those of us that support president bush and the current iraqi war, i was reminded that i needed to do something concrete to show me support for this situation.

so i contacted camp pendleton (a marine base which has lost a number of troops in iraq), and spoke with an officer, and asked what i could do to support the families of those that have paid the ultimate price in this war.

he gave me a list of accounts, and i have since donated money to those accounts.

undercover

My .02 on the war in Iraq:

When Bush and Blair were in their war-mongering stage, I hoped they were right. I hoped that if they did invade they would find WMD and connections to Al Quaida - but I had my reservations about going in so strong when so many other nations and the UN were against invasion. Bush's speeches were a lot of rhetoric without a lot of proof. I felt like that we, the everyday people and other nations, needed to see more proof before we committed to battle.

Now, a year into it, we see a lot of things were wrong. This is one f**ked up mess - but it's too late now. We're in it. We've got to finish it. How? I can't even imagine how. It's a mess. But we made it, we gotta clean it up. I knew we were in trouble after Bush called an end to "hostilities" or "battle" so early. You can't just go in, take out the government and then sit back and watch. We(the US/UK) should have occupied that country. Ruled it militarily until the complete country was stablized. Then and only then, set up a new Iraqi government. That can't be done in a year. It takes years if not a decade to do that. But Bush was so trying to convince the world that we weren't trying to "take over" Iraq but "free" Iraq that he made many tactical mistakes and this is the mess we are now.

102

New BLOOD Watchtower - June 15, 2004 Issue!

by UnDisfellowshipped in

the watchtower, june 15, 2004 issue, pages 14-24:.

" for the benefit of current readers, the answer is reprinted on pages 29-31 of this magazine.

19 near its conclusion, the reprinted answer on pages 29-31 says: "does the fact that opinions and conscientious decisions may differ mean that the issue is inconsequential?

undercover

I discussed this with my (elder) brother. He doesn't understand it as 'dying rather than stumbling' but that such decisions are private, and should someone decide to take fractions they wouldn't broadcast it. Bit like the oral sex thing really.

You could ask your brother this: Then why go to the trouble of printing all of that about stumbing others? If it's okay to take fractions and you're not going to broadcast it to the congregation then what's the point of making a big deal about stumbing others by taking fractions? It makes no sense whatsoever.

What it boils down to is controlling the flock. They're gonna leave a legal loophole to use in courts and such, but to the R&F they'll make them feel guilty for even considering it. Later, when someone dies, the WTS can say, "hey, we told em it was okay to use fractions but they chose not to."

49

Catholic "Just War" Doctrine vs JW Pacifist Doctrine

by rocketman in

having been a practicing jehovah's witness for 30 years, i had been exposed to their pacifist doctrine, which taught that christians were not to enlist in armies or participate in warfare on any level.

this doctrine was later modified somewhat to allow for non-military "alternative" service as a matter of conscience.. i had always thought of the jw doctrine as lofty.

it was based on bible verses such as isaiah 2:4 and matthew 26:52. the idea was that, if all people were jehovah's witnesses, carnal warfare would be eliminated.

undercover

BTW if a JW was on the plane that went down fighting they would fight. JWs are not pacifist and many are violent and abusive. It is propaganda on both sides to assume JW practice non violence.

I think, maybe, that your missing my point. You're right, Individual JWs are not pacifist and many are violent and abusive. The religion, on the other hand, is a pacifist religion. It teaches non-violence. It teaches no involvement in political affairs. It teaches no military involvement, battle line or otherwise. The scenerio I created earlier consists of political ideal, war and violence. A JW with a well-trained conscience(read brain-washed) would not and could not allow himself to participate in any action that might regain control of that plane. If he did, he would not have remained neutral in the worlds affairs. He would be quilty of political involvement and sharing in warfare.

The world is not a black and white place as the WTS would have us believe. It is much more complicated, even more so in the last few years. Their idealistic, pacifist thinking does not always fit in with what is happening. Sticking your head in the sand and waiting for some savior to protect you from evil just ain't gonna happen.

102

New BLOOD Watchtower - June 15, 2004 Issue!

by UnDisfellowshipped in

the watchtower, june 15, 2004 issue, pages 14-24:.

" for the benefit of current readers, the answer is reprinted on pages 29-31 of this magazine.

19 near its conclusion, the reprinted answer on pages 29-31 says: "does the fact that opinions and conscientious decisions may differ mean that the issue is inconsequential?

undercover

As to taking in blood fractions, some have thought, 'This is a matter of conscience, so it doesn't make any difference.' That is faulty reasoning. The fact that something is a matter of conscience does not mean that it is inconsequential. It can be very serious. One reason is that it can affect individuals whose conscience differs from ours. We see that from Paul's advice about meat that might have been presented to an idol and was later sold in a market. A Christian ought to be concerned about not 'wounding consciences that are weak.' If he stumbles others, he could 'ruin his brother for whose sake Christ died' and be sinning against Christ. Hence, while issues about blood fractions are for personal decision, those decisions should be taken very seriously.

My first thought when reading the above:

So I should maybe avoid fractions even if it means "stumbling" someone? Meaning that it's better that I die than someone be "stumbled"? F**k that s**t.

19

Reason for going to Bethel

by pratt1 in

jw
friends

.

for those of you who are x bethelites, why did you choose to go to bethel?.

was it because of you love for jehovah, or to get away from your home town and live in new york, or some other reason?

undercover

I didn't go to Bethel even though I was encouraged to. I knew deep down that it wasn't for me. The regimented schedule, living in a big city, working your ass off, etc, etc. I knew I wouldn't be happy. So, I don't have an answer as to "why" one would want to go. However...

I have known bunches of Bethelites. Most of them went because it was the "thing" to do. There were some who actually believed that Bethel was heaven on earth and that Jehovah meant for them to be there, but they were the few and far between. Out of the ones I knew, I'd say less than 20% really believed that Bethel was a special calling.

I have noted also that those leaving Bethel seem to fall into two categories:

1. Super Dub. Move into whatever territory and are instanty appointed elder, pioneer, etc. They are usually Type A personalities, but usually friendly. Occasionally one has a real attitude problem. Bethel was actually a good thing for them. Taught them control and discipline. These Bethelites usually come out into the real world ready to start their own business. It may be a cleaning/painting/landscaping business that we make fun of, but it is still a daunting task to run your own business (not to mention get 70+ hours a month in service). They are successful at their business and in their ministry. They are usually company men though.

2. Disallusioined Dub. Spend the minimum amount of time(or even less if they can't hack it) at Bethel and come back home. Live with Mom & Dad, work several part time jobs, do the minimum required at the hall so as to not be "counseled". Never really find their niche in life back home. If you know one of these closely enough, they may tell you horror stories of things that happened at Bethel. It's almost like they are suffereing from post-traumatic syndrome.