Congratulations!!! It is always nice to squelch the naysayers! Nothing like being successful to shut people up!
Sounds like something my nephew told my wife, "You don't have to be a witness to have a happy marriage or be happy!"
hello everybody peeps.. i got married out of the troof.
they said it wouldn't last etc.. hasn't been easy.
my hubs is still my best buddy.. and i ain't a jw no more.
Congratulations!!! It is always nice to squelch the naysayers! Nothing like being successful to shut people up!
Sounds like something my nephew told my wife, "You don't have to be a witness to have a happy marriage or be happy!"
i think by most accounts, my previous posts have testified to my moving towards an agnostic stance.
i just don't know and i can't believe for belief's sake.
i came across a quote i thought quite timely in my journey.. .
Now, don't get me wrong. I am ALL for belief systems where they serve to anchor man to a set of ideals and ethics that will keep him from harming others or himself. If it helps the believer and does not harm others, than by all means, be my guest to believe as you would like. The issue here is a question of belief versus knowing. That was the intent of the Ingersoll's quote noted above.
i think by most accounts, my previous posts have testified to my moving towards an agnostic stance.
i just don't know and i can't believe for belief's sake.
i came across a quote i thought quite timely in my journey.. .
@Terry
I don't know if I quite agree with your analogy. The first little old lady is delusional as she "thinks" that she has money in her account. There is no security in that. In fact, if she tried to pay her bills, her checks would bounce. The latter, however, knows not to write the check, because he is unsure.
There is only one thing that we can totally be sure of...that we do not know. Of that I am positive. I would like to add my own analogy...
The Christian is like the child that is good cause he believes Santa has a list of those naughty and nice.
The Agnostic is like the child that is good for goodness sake and doesn't know if Santa exists, but because he is good, will get presents anyway.
SOP
i think by most accounts, my previous posts have testified to my moving towards an agnostic stance.
i just don't know and i can't believe for belief's sake.
i came across a quote i thought quite timely in my journey.. .
@ jam
Yeah, it's just like when I was a teenage witness. I knew absolutely everything about everything!!!
i think by most accounts, my previous posts have testified to my moving towards an agnostic stance.
i just don't know and i can't believe for belief's sake.
i came across a quote i thought quite timely in my journey.. .
I think by most accounts, my previous posts have testified to my moving towards an agnostic stance. I just don't know and I can't believe for belief's sake. I came across a quote I thought quite timely in my journey.
"The Christian says that he has knowledge: the agnostic admits that he has none; and yet the Christian accuses the Agnostic of arrogance."
I think this pretty much sums up where I am at. For most of us, to question things of faith is considered arrogance or pride. Little do they know that it is the truest mark of humility.
Just don't know....Just don't know. You know what I do know? I am now totally ok with NOT knowing.
SOP
during a discussion over the weekend, we exchanged ideas about recent changes in terminology related to assembly days, conventions and new titles for the higher-ups.
i commented that for years in 'security' at larger meetings we were told to talk to any that seemed out of place and ask questions that would indicate if they were apostates - antiquated terms like 'overseer' or a reference the 'truth' book.. another in our group brought up the character in the orwell book 1984 and how his job was to separate new and approved terms from old words.
this was called doublethink and blackwhite.
There is a good quote about change...."Since we cannot change reality, let us change the eyes which see reality." This is the MO of the organization. The changes are for change sake, nothing more. It is an attempt at impressing upon the R&F that the organization is progressive. "GOD's chariot keeps moving! If you aren't active, then it's leaving you behind!"
I have already heard mention of these changes in the banter that I come across with witnesses who decided long ago that every conversation must be about the ORG. Conversationalists...they are not!
This whole thing reminds me of the government. The higher ups question the middle management about their purpose and why they middle management exists at all. Middle management, in turn, makes some suggestion that sound like they are cutting-edge and state-of-the-art, progressive might be a better word. The higher-ups, easily swayed due to their own questionable abilities and talents, agree that the suggestions might have merit. The middle managers implement the change to justify their existence. The underlings, always somewhat more realistic, see through the facade of creativity, recognizing the change for change's sake. It is a lesson in futility.
What I have learned is...the ORG has to keep the R&F impressed that they are doing something! After all, you can't have all your needs taken care of by people that are barely getting by and have nothing to show for it. Otherwise, you just come across as a 40-something unmarried son that can't seem to keep a job and plays HALO all day long in the basement!!!
SOP
i was speaking to a friend who went to the circuit assembly a couple weeks ago.
he actually taped a portion of the first talk cause he said the do was pretty entertaining.
the do said something like - jehovah doesn't like laws.
I was speaking to a friend who went to the Circuit Assembly a couple weeks ago. He actually taped a portion of the first talk cause he said the DO was pretty entertaining. The DO said something like - Jehovah doesn't like laws. You know why? What do people do when they have a law? They look for a loophole! So, he helps us to know what he's thinking so that we can come decisions for ourselves...that's what you call a principle.
Now, am I misunderstanding something here? If JAH doesn't like laws, what was that whole mosaic thing about?
What is more, if we are to decide what Jehovah's thinking, then shouldn't we all be able to determine what principles apply? OR do only a SPECIAL group of people have the privilege of knowing what he is thinking so that THEY can tell us what can and can not be done?
Just a thought,
SOP
recently attended a sad.. bethel speaker was gushing about the wt's embrace of new technology, in the part of his talk warning about "apostate" web sites.. a loose summary of his comments:.
"and the brothers at headquarters have made it very safe for you to go to our website.
in fact, the brothers talked to the folks at google, and they made a special arrangement so that when you type in 'j w period' into the google search engine, it automatically shows you the jw.org website.
I am amazed at this loving provision.
Obviously, if you have a website, there are several ways to make sure that it comes up first. One is money....It is all about money isn't it. The other is meta tags...a simplistic piece of code that allows the search engine to quickly define you. Thirdly, it is about updating...the more, the better. It is not difficult to generate a program to rapidly search for the website, thus the "hit"count grows and the serach engine defines it as number one....a loving provision? Indeed!
there are a few people who are fb friends that constantly brag about themselves, their looks, their accomplishments, their bodies, their job---etc.. one particular person is too close to ignore but it's never ending.
i am thisclose to telling her, to please stop it.. any thoughts?.
FB posts of the FOOD people are eating.
It's like, "Hey, look what I get to eat and you don't!"
Just eat your food already!
recently, several comments have been made in various threads in reference to some of the recent changes to a few of the rules by which jehovah's witnesses must live their lives in unquestioning compliance.
the assertion has been made that these rules are a "relaxing" of previous restrictions.
the suggestion has been made that this somehow indicates a corresponding relaxing or loosening or lessening of the authority which the governing body (gb) holds over the rank and file (r&f) members of the religion.
Very nice analogy.
In my opinion, I can only compare the current trajectory of the GB to a boss that I had many years ago. Being in a position of oversight, I was asked into his office. He stated that BIG changes were in the pipeline and that many of the workers would be upset about the way it impacted them. In order to address this, he decided that he would increase the pay that the workers would receive per item they assembled. This, of course, would go over excellently, as the majority of the workers would be able to take home a few extra dollars a week. What he didn't tell them was that a few weeks down the road the assembling process would change substantially. This, unfortunately, would affect their overall production and they would, in fact, lose money even with the increase per item. It was a very astute plan. The increase in pay moved the workers to openly praise the boss as a generous man who cared for his workers. When the expected changes were implemented, there was little backlash against the boss. He had maneuvered things so that the criticism would fall against the quality control chief. To my surprise, no one left the company.
I believe about the same reverse psychology exists with the current GB. Any relaxing of any standard, perceived or real, is only a preparatory response. Some might argue that it all goes back to the "brazen" conduct change. Inform the elders of the change, implement the change from the top, adjust the Bible accordingly and now the change isn't from the elders...it's from GOD!
Just a thought,
SOP