Ummmm...
"I just got tired of being lied to"?
"I don't like pedophiles"?
Posts by Xander
-
15Apostate Goofy phrases
by ScoobySnax inok in order to redress the balance whos gonna start me?
ok i'll start..... ......they're just old men in brooklyn.
....... the wt circa.
-
-
-
10
Who believed this?.......
by Pleasuredome in"....for in the resurection neither do men marry nor are women given in marriage, but as are angels in heaven.
" matt 22:30
i know that the interpretation of this scripture was a bone of contention with some jws.
-
-
Xander
As of the last few years, their interpretation still leaned towards this applying to earthly resurrection.
And, yes, this WAS a major factor to get married early. If you died before the big 'A' - no nookie for you! EVAR!!! BWAHAHAHAHA!!!
(my, what a loving god)
In fact, this was often used to explain why the Earth wouldn't be overpopulated - which, logically, would be a problem if everyone ever born in the entire history of the human race was resurrected and lived forever. Essentially, they argued that eventually ALL humans would become 'like angels' and have no desire to procreate (after all, that's the only point of marriage/sex, right?). To 'fill out' the population, those who survived armegeddon would be allowed to continue having kids for a while.
I don't think this interpretation ever made it into an article (I might be wrong on that), but it was DEFINATELY espoused from the platform often enough.
(BTW, in another thread I jokingly pointed something out...this scripture only says there won't be MARRIAGES in the new system, right? Where does that prohibit WILD ORGIES? I don't see anything about no more SEX in the new system, just no more MARRIAGES. BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! )
-
-
-
Xander
Ah, no.
Those PSUs would cook a snake.
Hell, they'd cook a human.
*Lesson for the moment: DON'T TOUCH THE INSIDES OF A PSU WHEN THE COMPUTER IS TURNED ON*
Now returning to your regularly scheduled programming....
-
5
Persecution Complex Again.
by eyeslice inin a way this thread is related to the one on why the fixation with the nazis i started last week - http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.aspx?id=41752&site=3.
anyway, the public talk on sunday was the one persecution, cant remember the exact title but i am sure many will recall it.
the speaker was excellent and made the talk very lively but somehow missed what i would consider the major point.
-
-
Xander
Am I grateful that the JW's spurred the creation religious freedom laws that protect us all today
*scratches head*
Are you really, REALLY sure about that?
I mean, think of some of the whack-job religions out there.
You SURE that the rights the witnesses have one through snivelling lawyers is a victory for humanity?
Just wondering...
(In any case, I'd rather the victories over the appearance of state sponsorship of religion have been won by any group BUT another religious group - atheists, scientists, etc.)
-
83
What if the U.N doesn't find anything in Iraq?
by kril init hit me a few days ago.
what happens if the u.n. searchs iraq and they find nothing?
i mean it's kind of scary to think what will happen to bush's job approval rating if that happens.
-
-
Xander
....continuing from above....
In short, the thing to remember is:
Our planet is finite. It is here now, and it sure is nice.
It won't be here long, on the stellar scale. Indeed, near all life on the planet is exterminated on a fairly regular basis. I don't see any real plan to preserve life as we know it (by colonization or comprehensive space defense capabilities as a short term) coming from one single country.
Those who don't like the idea of the UN because it is anti-one country and it essentially groups all humanity together as one group really need to think about that. In the end - we ARE all only one group, and will, as a species, live or die as one group.
An asteroid heading towards Earth doesn't care how superior the US democracy is. It also doesn't care how cruel Saddam was.
When the sun gets around to going nova, it won't be concerned with much the French dislike several other western nations. Neither will it care what the current policies to subdue the masses in China are.
Sadly, we are far too short sighted as a species, and may be doomed to extinction because of it. (IE., we won't act until far, FAR too late to effect a means of survival).
It's enough to make you want to shake someone and slap them.
"You're squabling and WASTING LIVES over oil! OIL!! WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU!?!?!" *slap* *slap*
"And you! YOU! Over there!! You're squabling and WASTING LIVES over religion! RELIGION!! That's MORE STUPID than squabling over OIL!! WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU!?!?!" *slap* *slap*
-
83
What if the U.N doesn't find anything in Iraq?
by kril init hit me a few days ago.
what happens if the u.n. searchs iraq and they find nothing?
i mean it's kind of scary to think what will happen to bush's job approval rating if that happens.
-
-
Xander
I for one am not ready to cede the right of self protection to the UN
Note that the above hypothetical was never to cede the rige of self protection to the UN, merely the ability to conduct offensive actions - IE., my troops or equipment in your country can only be done under UN control.
a body that is pretty antiamerican
I wouldn't go that far. Consider the US State -> Federal government relationship. Would you say the USA is anti-Ohio? Or anti-Texas? To someone in Ohio or Texas it could sometimes seem that way when the Federal gov't drops a military base or nuclear storage location somewhere, takes your land to build an interstate, etc.
However, on the whole, the government is not anti any-particular-state. Just pro whole-as-a-collective.
Is that bad?
(To be sure, if it worked on the scale the UN is, no, it wouldn't be. I'm afraid it doesn't work, though. So don't blast the idea of the UN, it's a good idea. Execution needs a little help, but it IS a good idea.)
-
55
everone is in confusion
by zolensky ini joined this site last week hoping to meet people that would steer me back to the organization.
instead the people i have talked to her are all trying to tell me too see the light and get out of the organization.
in my opinion, not that it matters, i really think that if a person had the truth deeply ingrained in them, they would never leave the truth.
-
-
Xander
Multipart response, but needs feedback. Please answer:
the difference between me and other people who are confused or out of the organization is that i know im wrong
According to who?
-
83
What if the U.N doesn't find anything in Iraq?
by kril init hit me a few days ago.
what happens if the u.n. searchs iraq and they find nothing?
i mean it's kind of scary to think what will happen to bush's job approval rating if that happens.
-
-
Xander
However if you want to develop a world ruled by "law" it must be done under the auspices of some kind of general organization like the UN
That would, of course, be the ideal solution.
Not sure how well it would work, but it would be the ideal solution. Reduce members nations capabilies down to what we have for our states - defensive only. The offensive capabilies would be controlled by the UN, as a world government.
Ever work? No, of couse not. But it sounds good.
The US thought nothing of terrorizing Japan's homeland with two atomic bombs. But I guess its better to kill their civilians than to have your soldiers die.
There were three options in 1945:
1) Beat Japan back to their homeland and leave them be, blockaded against future expansion.
While this sounds nice, it has at least 1 critical flaw - Japan doesn't produce - BY FAR - nearly enough food to feed its population. It would starve to death rather gruesomely as the military leaders began hording what little was left for themselves.2) Beat Japan back to their homeland and invade.
It has been documented in countless places what this would involve. Remember the Kamikazes? That wasn't even the start. Japanese children were taught how to strap bombs to themselves, and be 'rescued' by soldier to be taken back to their camps to blow themselves up taking the most enemies with them. Women were given anti-tank charges on pikes and taught how to roll under a tank to detonate them at their weakest point, etc.Would most people do such things? Probably not. Would it stop the invasion? Well, no. But the cost in lives.....
3) Drop a few atom bombs and get Russia to declare war.
Well, Japan surrended, didn't they? (To be sure, even after the atom bombings, when the Emperor wanted to sue for peace right away, there was a miltary coup. It was actually put down, but it tabled peace talks until Russia entered the war and Japan realized they had no hope at all) -
26
Internet banned?
by gilwarrior ini know that this subject has been talked about many times, but i am convinced that if the wts gets more fanatical, they will eventually ban witnesses from going on the internet.
yeah, i know it sounds goofy, but there are so many witnesses who are leaving as a result of what they have found on the net that the wts will have no choice, but to do it.
they will probably find some "new light" and probably sight some bible scripture.
-
-
Xander
Right, what I'm saying is that the filter blocks the pages as they load. It could (theoreticall) preload any site replacing instances of the actual date Jerusalem fell w/ '607 BCE'. Any site - ANY SITE - that has the text 'UN' and 'Watchtower' in the same sentence doesn't get loaded - period.
So it wouldn't matter if it was an apostate site or official UN site. Obviously, the filtering logic would have to be pretty comprehensive to limit out just information that goes agianst the WTBTS propoganda, but it could be done.
OTOH, they may just let it go. Almost as bad as freedom of information is people in the org who doubt. Letting the internet issue be - just planting seeds of doubt in the minds of the loyal, as they have done so far - may work well to sift out the potential disloyal ones.
My bro, when I talked to him about the UN thing (and other stuff) is a CLASSIC example of WT indoctrination. It didn't matter that the society was listed on the UN site, it didn't matter what official sites showed of ANYTHING.
Internet = satan's world. Note that he does use it, but anything even *remotely* WT related falls into one of 2 catagories:
'Good' = their great invisible friend in the sky providing for them/fulfilling prophesy/etc
'Bad' = satan trying to mislead themThe site or information in question is completely irrelevant. If it brings doubt, it is satan's lies. Remember, he controls all media sources, all governments, all businesses, essentially everything on the net, and his one, single mission he pursues with all his time and supernatural energy is simply to place doubt in the mind of a loyal JW....at least, that's what they believe.
In short, if something on the net makes them doubt, they were never 'strong' to begin with, and the bOrg just might WANT to let them go.
Or not.
Then we'll see filtering software real soon.
Who knows?
Edited by - Xander on 9 December 2002 14:29:27
-
26
Internet banned?
by gilwarrior ini know that this subject has been talked about many times, but i am convinced that if the wts gets more fanatical, they will eventually ban witnesses from going on the internet.
yeah, i know it sounds goofy, but there are so many witnesses who are leaving as a result of what they have found on the net that the wts will have no choice, but to do it.
they will probably find some "new light" and probably sight some bible scripture.
-
-
Xander
Banning the net is impossible, it's simply come along too far without the society putting the brakes on. IE., with TV, music videos, etc, they were able to start out w/ negative propoganda before the technology caught on, so many witnesses never got into it.
They were too late with the net - it was already a factor of day to day life before they starting targetting it.
What they MAY do is what several other religions have talked about/done - given their members special filtering software (akin to parental filters) to filter out the 'bad' sights. In fact, all other distributions of such software I'm aware of has clearly been child protection only (IE, porn filters, hate site filters, etc). I'm not aware of any religion yet requiring it's adult members to surf through their gateway software, but the JWs would be the first if it ever happened.
That way, they can block a site by content alone. If the software sees 'UN' and 'Watchtower' in the same sentence, for example, it won't load the page, et al.