were you a "weirdo single hovah dude"?.
some examples i know of:.
single 'hovah dude, 40ish, mic handler, non-elder/ms, huge pot belly, rotten teeth.
Sorry, TR, missed the point, I think.
That was an attempt to describe as gay a gay as they come. But, of course, the JW singles in question AREN'T gay - because 'that's wrong'.
At least the guys I knew who fit this description would have been a LOT happier had the bOrg not regulated their sexuality.
when you all were dating jws, did you have to have a chaperone everytime you went out?
did you always adhere to this rule?
how did you get around it without getting caught?.
That's *exactly* how we were taking. Always had a chaperone. Mostly at the then-GFs insistence.
It was probably because we both had lots of....mmm...?bad?....thoughts, and always felt guilty as a result. Thus, we felt the society was always right (guilty = we must be thinking wrong thoughts = must need chaperone!).
No, we weren't brainwashed at all!
were you a "weirdo single hovah dude"?.
some examples i know of:.
single 'hovah dude, 40ish, mic handler, non-elder/ms, huge pot belly, rotten teeth.
Hmmm...neither so common by us. We DID have a few of:
Single 'hovah dude, 30ish, MANY cong. duties, well groomed, fashionably dressed, well-built. Lives in smartly decorated (and color coordinated!) small 2 or 3 room studio. WT litter-ature stacked neatly. Older model computer on desk with Sunday talk *always* being written on it. Likes sad movies. Can't find a sister 'spiritual enough'. Or, 'interesting enough'. Or always 'too emotional'. Loves Bette Midler, Barbra Streisand, and Cher. Thinks Paul was probably right about the whole 'staying single' thing. Really enjoys spending time with other, similar, spiritual brothers for encouragement.
while it is not impossible to have a happy marriage in the jw religion for many it is hard, for some it is very hard to maintain happiness in their marriage.
the watchtower raises the bar so very high in every aspect of life, marriage included.
the watchtower literature encourages a jw married couple to be practically perfect, or at least that is the goal set before them.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=31673&site=3
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=28156&site=3
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=26841&site=3
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=28169&site=3
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=25260&site=3
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=20050&site=3
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=22432&site=3
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=27387&site=3
And, sadly, these are just the threads started on this topic in the last few months. It's....uhhhh....a hot topic around here.
Short answer? I don't believe it is currently 'banned', just strongly discouraged (as is anal sex and genital manipulation). You can get yourself disfellowshipped by discussing it with others in the congregation (as in 'my spouse and I have...').
EDIT: Just to add - it has been strongly banned in the past (along with the others mentioned), but now it is not. They have just left it as a 'conscience matter'. You know, one of the 'God and Jesus will hate you if you do it, and you'll grow giant warts on your head, and surely die slowly and horribly at Armageddon as your whole family watches on, laughing -- but, it's a conscience matter, we wouldn't want to force our opinions on you.'
Edited by - Xander on 8 August 2002 10:25:51
scientific american runs an article rebutting some of the most common creationist arguments.
short and to the point.. this is the first page.
click for the following ones.. see http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleid=000d4fec-7d5b-1d07-8e49809ec588eedf&catid=2.
Did you think I knew? If I don't, does that make me stupid???
No, it just makes you not qualified to argue the validity of the experiment.
THAT'S the problem here. That you don't know enough about the topic to debate it isn't a problem - lots of people don't.
But, then...here's the key....if you DON'T KNOW enough to debate something. DON'T.
Don't use YOUR life experiences as if they have any kind of meaning at all in regards to evolution.
Because they don't.
What happens at a molecular level and smaller really has very little, if any, similarities to how anything you can observe behaves.
None of the things in my life were ever done by accident either
Right - here you go again.
SO WHAT!
None of 'the things in your life' have any relevance to molecular science, do they?
i met a lady...as i have mentioned here before i am going thru a divorce and it hasnt been the nicest thing in the world...i met someone who has been very nice to me and patient with me and doesnt expect anythin out of me other than for me to be myself..she is a non-jw..we have been kind of just seein each other randomly.
i like her...i am a bit nervous about gettin into any type of relatinship just now and she understands that and accepts that.
i feel sooo scarred by what happened to me in that horridly destructive marriage that i dont know if i am ever going to be able to completely trust women in general but this one has been proving herself to be nothing but trustworthy and honest.
and those love nips he gives me sometimes on all my sensitive bits are just sooooooo cute
Does MrMoe know you're seeing other...uhhh...mammals?
this is a call to all ohioans, especially those in the cincinnati/columbus areas..... silent lambs has an appeal committee hearing this sunday.
i might be able to attend, especially if i can go with a group.
any that want to go call me at 513-531-2327. this is joe frantz as you all know.
Since when do they let anyone but themselves speak?
This is a JW committee, right? Or did something go awry in a trial?
this is about the most ambitious book title i can remember.
religious studies have been able to collect and present millions of facts about the world's religions, and made a lot of fascinating general theories about belief, myth and rituals, but it would be stretching the truth a lot to say that any general theory of religions stand out as totally convincing.. so far, nobody has even been able to produce a totally convincing defintion of the word "religion".. but if anyone can produce a book actually explaining religion in a credible way, it must be pascal boyer.
i read his book the naturalness of religious ideas: a cognitive theory of religion for my master's exam, and it was really an eye opener in many ways.
Oh, so you missed the thread with my butt, then, eh?
LOL! And what a fascinating contribution to the discussion, too. I can't even think how to turn it back on topic, so, uhhhh....
life's complexity defies demand for a designer
by tom siegfried / the dallas morning news
life is complicated, and explaining it is more complicated still or so it would seem.
Hmmm...little pro-evolutionary comments. I guess I'll chuck mine in.
As usual, many of you seem to be missing the entire point of the analogy.
A clock can do one thing and one thing only - keep time. That's it. It has no other purpose. Thus, it is 'simple'. How difficult it is to make has nothing to do with the matter at hand - only that it has 1 function, and it has to be as complicated as it is to do that 1 function well.
Take an ink blot test, for example. It could be seen as a butterfly, star, elephant, bird, tree, etc. It can be essentially anything. Useful for art, examining someone's mind, etc. In its simplicity, it gains many uses.
If you want it to be useful for one thing and one thing only, you must start adding rules. Adding complexity.
What the author is saying, basically, is that the human mind is more like the ink blot test than a clock. It DOES NOT have one and only 1 function - it has many. Literally, it can be used for anything at all. Thus, it's design is 'simple'.
At least, that appears to be his point.
I don't happen to agree, but at least I have an open mind about it.
this is about the most ambitious book title i can remember.
religious studies have been able to collect and present millions of facts about the world's religions, and made a lot of fascinating general theories about belief, myth and rituals, but it would be stretching the truth a lot to say that any general theory of religions stand out as totally convincing.. so far, nobody has even been able to produce a totally convincing defintion of the word "religion".. but if anyone can produce a book actually explaining religion in a credible way, it must be pascal boyer.
i read his book the naturalness of religious ideas: a cognitive theory of religion for my master's exam, and it was really an eye opener in many ways.
"clear thinker" . . . . translation,,,"he says what I believe
If you honestly believe that's what someone means by saying another is a 'clear thinker'....
That's sad. That's just sad.
Why does the idea of reading questions about faith and religion frighten you so much?
