The Addams Family
Oubliette
JoinedPosts by Oubliette
-
112
Silly TV Programs From The 1960s to the 1970s
by minimus inmcmillan & wife with rock hudson is what i just saw on tv.
watching rock hudson kiss his wife while smoking a cigarette is pretty funny.
and he solved a murder case as he lit up another cigarette at some wealthy person's party.....good stuff!.
-
-
-
112
Silly TV Programs From The 1960s to the 1970s
by minimus inmcmillan & wife with rock hudson is what i just saw on tv.
watching rock hudson kiss his wife while smoking a cigarette is pretty funny.
and he solved a murder case as he lit up another cigarette at some wealthy person's party.....good stuff!.
-
-
Oubliette
The Munsters
-
112
Silly TV Programs From The 1960s to the 1970s
by minimus inmcmillan & wife with rock hudson is what i just saw on tv.
watching rock hudson kiss his wife while smoking a cigarette is pretty funny.
and he solved a murder case as he lit up another cigarette at some wealthy person's party.....good stuff!.
-
-
Oubliette
HR Pufnstuf
-
112
Silly TV Programs From The 1960s to the 1970s
by minimus inmcmillan & wife with rock hudson is what i just saw on tv.
watching rock hudson kiss his wife while smoking a cigarette is pretty funny.
and he solved a murder case as he lit up another cigarette at some wealthy person's party.....good stuff!.
-
-
Oubliette
Get Smart!
The first SMART phones!
-
112
Silly TV Programs From The 1960s to the 1970s
by minimus inmcmillan & wife with rock hudson is what i just saw on tv.
watching rock hudson kiss his wife while smoking a cigarette is pretty funny.
and he solved a murder case as he lit up another cigarette at some wealthy person's party.....good stuff!.
-
-
Oubliette
The Man From U.N.C.L.E.
-
42
Can you help me encourage Reopened mind.
by TotallyADD inas most of you know we got a very angry letter from our oldest son.
it hurt her very much.
i feel so bad for her because he attacked her for what i feel was very unfair.
-
-
Oubliette
Well if my JW spouse was like you, I'd still be with her!
It's not surprising she is depressed. Nothing can hurt as much as being shunned by your own children. I haven't been shunned by my parents, so I don't know what that's like, but I suspect it's worse to be shunned and rejected by your own child, particularly if you tried your best to be a good parent.
Keep showing her lots and lots of love.
Oubliette
-
112
Silly TV Programs From The 1960s to the 1970s
by minimus inmcmillan & wife with rock hudson is what i just saw on tv.
watching rock hudson kiss his wife while smoking a cigarette is pretty funny.
and he solved a murder case as he lit up another cigarette at some wealthy person's party.....good stuff!.
-
-
Oubliette
Petticoat Junction
Did the townspeople know what was in their water?
-
63
JCPenney removes a billboard after.....
by Iamallcool injcpenney removes a billboard after complaints that the tea kettle featured resembled adolf hitler.
does it look like hitler to you?
does it offend you?
-
-
Oubliette
Hitler in a Tea Kettle, Jesus in a Tortilla ... what is the world coming to?
It must be proof of an afterlife!
-
132
NEW video on Youtube MUST SEE! the elder's meeting is ridiculous!
by Newly Enlightened inbrother of the hawk, newly enlightened & gojira, recorded an elder's meeting on 5/7/03.
both does a great job of defending me and making the elders look foolish!.
thank you raypublisher/jj and jwstruggle for the awesome job you did on it.. follow up story was not recorded but we will post it here hopefully over the weekend.. enjoy, it's pretty hilarious how they try to control us and come after me on a work of fiction!.
-
-
Oubliette
If I'm driving down a road and I see my brother committing fornication am I obligated to apply Matthew 18?
If you're driving down the road and you see someone, anyone, "committing fornication" you should roll down your window and scream:
Get a room ya' fuckin' pervert!
Seriously, that was a weird analogy, but I understand why you said it. What was priceless was the "deer in the headlights" response from the two elders!
They could see where you were going and knew they were fucked. Of course you should apply Matthew 18 (assuming you're still in the Bible mindset)!
But they knew that if YOU should apply Matthew 18 to a REAL case of fornication, then the "STUMBLED ONES" in the congregation should be applying it to a fictional case of fornication.
You had 'em by the short and curly ones and they knew it.
Trouble is, it ain't about doctrine or scripture or anything else remotely along those lines. It IS all about obedience and authority to the WT heirarchy.
When you challenge that, you're in trouble!
-
37
Are you really an Apostate, according to the WT ?
by Phizzy inperusing the coverage of the 2013 dc spewings about apostates, the wt claims that apostates are "liars" and speak "twisted things".
this is their definition of apostates.. now, the reality is that sites such as paul's excellent jwfacts.com, books like coc and isocf, by ray franz, the works of olaf jonsson, penton and others, all write what is true !.
we are careful on here to present that which is true, at least i hope we are !.
-
-
Oubliette
YES, I AM AN APOSTATE
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
BluesBrother, thanks for posting the info from the, Shepherd the Flock of God (STFOG) book.
If we cut through all the phony rhetoric we're left with the simple truth that for Jehovah's Witnesses anyone that disagrees with current WT doctrine, teachings AND practices is an apostate. Anyone that gives voice to their disagreements is likely to find themselves in a Judicial Hearing that will probably lead to their being disfellowshipped. It does not matter if what they say or think is correct and the WT is wrong, it only matters that they disagree with what is currently published "Truth."
If you are forward thinking enough to anticipate a doctrinal change before it is published and you express that idea you are an apostate. If, on the other hand, you do not accept a changed doctrine but continue to hold to a previously taught "truth," you are also an apostate.
What is true, really true, unchangeably true, does not matter.
That being said, let's examine some of the language describing "apostasy" from the STFOG book:
Apostasy: Apostasy is a standing away from true worship, a falling away, defection, rebellion, abandonment.
Implicit in this definition is the premise that what JWs practice and what the WT teaches is in fact "true worship." If it is, then this would be an accurate and acceptable definition. But the problem is that what the WT teaches and what JWs practice is demonstrably NOT "true worship." Since the premise is false the conclusion is also false.
But this doesn't matter if you're a JW, because the organization is based upon the premise that they, and they alone, are the one true religion, any disagreement is an act of apostasy. It's a fait accompli .
The only way that anyone that questions or disagrees with any WT teaching or practice could prove that they are not an apostate is to prove that JWs are not practicing "true worship." But that can never happen (at least not to or with anyone in a position of authority within the religion) because they accept the premise that they do practice "true worship." According to the WT definition of "apostasy" even attempting to disprove their authority and status as the "one true religion" automatically defines the questioner as an apostate and the discussion is over before it even got started.
It's a rigged game. The house always wins.
Let's look at some more of the loaded definitions:
It includes ... Celebrating false religious holidays: (Ex. 32:4-6; Jer. 7:16-19)
Even though this additional explanation includes that comment that "Not all holidays directly involve false religion and require judicial action" the fact remains that the WT decides what is and what is not a "false religious holiday." If they say it's false, then it's false. Your opinion is neither wanted nor welcomed.
• Deliberately spreading teachings contrary to Bible truth as taught by Jehovah's Witnesses: (Acts 21 :21, fin.; 2 John 7, 9, 10)
You really have to appreciate this statement for what it is: a powerful piece of language that gives incredible discretionary authority to elders to control anyone that doubts or questions any WT teachings, doctrines or practices.
If it had merely said, "Spreading teachings contrary to Bible truth," then most people would probably find that an acceptable explanation of "apostate" acts. But they add the phrase "as taught by Jehovah's Witnesses" which gives them absolute control over the definition and interpretation of "apostasy."
The very point at issue, whether or not what is "taught by Jehovah's Witnesses" is indeed "Bible truth," is unassailable. Again, if you question the premise you are an apostate.
It might as well just say anyone "spreading teachings contrary [anything] taught by Jehovah's Witnesses" is an apostate. That's much simpler, it's easier to understand and it is in practice the reality of being one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
What is do think is curious is that they included the word "deliberately" in this part of the definition. Intent is a very difficult thing to prove. Anyone up on charge of apostasy should try to play this card and play it hard. It probably won't help, as noted above this is a rigged game and the elders play with a marked deck, but it's worth a try. What have you got to lose? If the elders are out to get you, they've more than likely already made up their mind before the Judicial Hearing even gets started.
That being said, there is a bit of wiggle room for someone accused of apostasy. It is the "Sincere Doubter" ploy:
Any with sincere doubts should be helped. Firm, loving counsel should be given. (2 Tim. 2:16-19, 23-26; Jude 22, 23)
Tell them you have "sincere doubts" and request their "help." This will mean listening to some "firm, loving counsel" without questioning, commenting or disagreeing in any way, shape or form. You absolutely must keep your big mouth shut or you will likely be disfellowshipped for apostasy.
In case you haven't figured it out by now, the elders (not all, just most) are on a power trip and imitate the narcissistic, control-freak behavior modeled by the Governing Body. They do not like to have their authority questioned. It's really all they've got going on in their pathetic little lives.
If one obstinately is speaking about or deliberately spreading false teachings, this may be or may lead to apostasy. If there is no response after a first and a second admonition, a judicial committee should be formed.
This is pretty much the same as above. Although the "this may be or may lead to apostasy" clause is curious. It implies they can't make up their minds what is or isn't apostasy. I have come to conclude that whoever writes this stuff is either one of two things:
- Unsure and indecisive when it comes to these types of matters, and/or
- Deliberately giving conflicting and confusing instructions to create a sense of uncertainty among their followers, even among the elders. This is a typical control tactic of abusers in codependent relationships. It keeps their enables linked to them by making them dependent, in this case for "more direction."
This is merely speculation on my part, but I've seen so much of this kind of language from the WT leadership that I can reach no other conclusion.
Le's see what else do they have to offer:
• Causing divisions and promoting sects
Of course, this still is based upon the premise the JWs are the "one true religion," but I don't think many would disagree with this basic idea if they just kept it at that, but they don't. They continue:
This would be deliberate action disrupting the unity of the congregation or undermining the confidence of the brothers in Jehovah's arrangement.
So again, it is all about the organization. Never mind that the constant doctrinal changes, flip-flops and illogical doctrines might be the actual cause of any disunity in the congregation or lack of confidence in "the brothers." As always, the underlying implicit and unquestionable assumption is that this IS Jehovah's organization and any comments to the contrary or wrong.
The short answer to the question in the OP is: Yes! I am an apostate. But only an apostate of the religion known as Jehovah's Witnesses. Although I am NOT guilty of any "deliberate action disrupting the unity of the congregation" I am "spreading teachings contrary [anything] taught by Jehovah's Witnesses" by writing this post.
I absolutely disagree with the WT premise that they practice "true worship." I am absolutely convinced that the WT leaders are a legalistic group of hypocrites that make the Pharisees of the Bible look like complete amateurs.
The one comfort that I take is this: I became a Christian 30 years ago because I loved the teachings of Jesus and admired the stand he took against the religious leaders in his day. His courage and outspokenness were and continue to be inspirational.
From the perspective of the religious leaders of his day, Jesus was an apostate. He is my role model and my hero.
But we can't forget what it got him: dead.
No wonder JWs shun apostates. They'd nail us to a tree if they could get away with it.
Oubliette
