Posts by Oubliette

38

A nuclear war take place and a 1/3 of the world population is wiped from the face of the earth.

by James Mixon in

how many of you would return to jehovah, wt?

better yet, how many jws would walk???.

i do believe it will happen one day....

Oubliette

If Baskins-Robbins quit serving Raspberry sherbert, how many of you would return to Jehovah?

Is just as relevant a question.

The answer though is this: you can't "return" to a non-existent, fantasy being.

21

Double Standards in the JW world

by nevaagain in

jw
friends

no other organization has so many written and unwritten rules like the jws.

so it comes to no suprise that there are a lot of double standards.. even though the end is "near", wt is building new and bigger offices.

while the small jw should live in a closet and should make plans to have a bigger house in the new world.

In the matter of Paul v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, opined that:

"The Witnesses … have developed an elaborate set of rules governing membership."

Now if a judge from the US Court of Appeals says the have elaborate rules, then you really know they have elaborate rules!

34

Earliest Life on Earth Pushed Back Another 300 Million Years

by cofty in

researchers have found evidence of ancient microorganisms that lived in what is now western australia at least 4.1 billion years ago.

if confirmed, the discovery suggests that life originated on earth 300 million years earlier than previously thought.

.... the ancient microorganisms in question were found trapped inside zircons formed from magma in western australia.

Oubliette

Cofty, thanks for posting this, very interesting.

The article referenced in the OP also had a link to this related article:

Scientists may have worked out how life evolved from building blocks on Earth

7

Had an interesting weekend

by iwasblind in

what an interesting weekend.. went to a "worldly" conference for work.

i met the most amazing people with so many different beliefs.

even so i shared and spoke about god freely and without being judged.

Oubliette

Thanks for sharing!

362

No 'Tight Pants' policy is now official - classed as 'disturbing'

by wizzstick in

in short:- tight pants is no longer just a am3 hang up (or is that a hang up on the well hung?

)- brothers who have effeminate body language are flagged up- as are sisters with 'masculine' hair styles or dress- such dress is 'disturbing to the congregation'- the above must heed the (repeated) counsel from the elders...or they get stripped of the right to share on the ministry- however...this will not be revealed (announced) to the congregation.

wow.

Oubliette

We were clearly talking about how compelling it was to independent 3rd party observers, not what impact it had on the people concerned.

Not so.

I just re-read the first three pages of this thread and none of the comments were concerned with what "3rd party observers" would say, not even your first comment on the thread on page 3. They were all concerned with the internal effects on congregation members.

I just think a few extra rules about fashion is a tough sell.

How is it we are on page 36 of this thread and you STILL think it's about clothing?

362

No 'Tight Pants' policy is now official - classed as 'disturbing'

by wizzstick in

in short:- tight pants is no longer just a am3 hang up (or is that a hang up on the well hung?

)- brothers who have effeminate body language are flagged up- as are sisters with 'masculine' hair styles or dress- such dress is 'disturbing to the congregation'- the above must heed the (repeated) counsel from the elders...or they get stripped of the right to share on the ministry- however...this will not be revealed (announced) to the congregation.

wow.

Oubliette

I think many unconnected 3rd parties would find it perfectly reasonable and expected for a conservative christian group.

I for one couldn't give a shit about what anyone OUTSIDE the cult thinks about this. I'm concerned for people I know and care about that are INSIDE the cult and that will be adversely affected, now so even more than before.

362

No 'Tight Pants' policy is now official - classed as 'disturbing'

by wizzstick in

in short:- tight pants is no longer just a am3 hang up (or is that a hang up on the well hung?

)- brothers who have effeminate body language are flagged up- as are sisters with 'masculine' hair styles or dress- such dress is 'disturbing to the congregation'- the above must heed the (repeated) counsel from the elders...or they get stripped of the right to share on the ministry- however...this will not be revealed (announced) to the congregation.

wow.

Oubliette

Truthexplorer, don't forget your colored socks!

362

No 'Tight Pants' policy is now official - classed as 'disturbing'

by wizzstick in

in short:- tight pants is no longer just a am3 hang up (or is that a hang up on the well hung?

)- brothers who have effeminate body language are flagged up- as are sisters with 'masculine' hair styles or dress- such dress is 'disturbing to the congregation'- the above must heed the (repeated) counsel from the elders...or they get stripped of the right to share on the ministry- however...this will not be revealed (announced) to the congregation.

wow.

Oubliette

you describe two different scenarios playing out that seem to be partly contradicting each other:

The operative word here would be "seem."

You have misunderstood both statements.

I think you are determined to hear something different to what I have actually been trying to say.

Me and just about everyone else on this particular thread.

362

No 'Tight Pants' policy is now official - classed as 'disturbing'

by wizzstick in

in short:- tight pants is no longer just a am3 hang up (or is that a hang up on the well hung?

)- brothers who have effeminate body language are flagged up- as are sisters with 'masculine' hair styles or dress- such dress is 'disturbing to the congregation'- the above must heed the (repeated) counsel from the elders...or they get stripped of the right to share on the ministry- however...this will not be revealed (announced) to the congregation.

wow.

Oubliette

So one minute the elders run away with things and do things on their own, now you have the elders unwilling to do anything without the say-so of the WTS.

I have no idea where this came from. I never said either of those things.

Although I have enjoyed discussing and debating with you on other subjects, it is evident that it is pointless to discuss this one with you.

362

No 'Tight Pants' policy is now official - classed as 'disturbing'

by wizzstick in

in short:- tight pants is no longer just a am3 hang up (or is that a hang up on the well hung?

)- brothers who have effeminate body language are flagged up- as are sisters with 'masculine' hair styles or dress- such dress is 'disturbing to the congregation'- the above must heed the (repeated) counsel from the elders...or they get stripped of the right to share on the ministry- however...this will not be revealed (announced) to the congregation.

wow.

Oubliette

How does this new ruling change things? Those beliefs don't change.

True the beliefs don't change, but the circumstances of someone either still being closeted or even openly gay, but non-sexually actively do.

Prior to this, a homosexual man or woman could be in the congregation and exist with a more or less "don't ask, don't tell" kind of tolerance from the other congregation members. But now the elders not only have license to, but are in fact directed to actively confront such individuals about any behaviors that are perceived as "gender-blurring." This is a significant change in the practices, policies and relationships of individuals in the congregation.

Also, this directive could add to the "witch-hunt" hit list individuals that may not even be homosexual, but who are just suspected of being so by overzealous elders.

Won't anyone who is gay in the WTS always be feeling bad until it becomes unbearable and they leave?

Probably, but so does pretty much everyone else that stays in the religion. It's well established that many more people would leave the religion if they weren't afraid of being shunned by their family and friends. This new directive targets a particular JW subgroup based solely on behaviors which prior to this would generally have been ignored. - 1 Corinthians 6:11

Could forcing someone to make the decision earlier actually be better for them given there is no immediate outlook for any change in conservative christian beliefs about homosexuality

This is possibly true, but ignores the fact that forcing someone to "wake up to TTATT" rarely works. Also, younger ones in particular might just not be emotionally or financially ready to leave the cult.

This is one of the big problems I foresee here, it forces the issue and does so because the GB has for whatever reason decided that this is their latest cause.