Interesting, good for her!
And yes, familiar indeed...
the former king of queens star has left the church of scientology, the hollywood reporter confirms.. on thursday, the new york post initially reported that remini had decided to quit the controversial religion, citing a source's claim that the 43-year-old actress had been subjected to years of "interrogations" and "thought modification.".
the new york post's source added that remini decided to cease being a parishioner, in part, because of policies preventing members to question the leadership of david miscavige.. when asked for a comment, a rep for the church of scientology told e!
news: "the church respects the privacy of parishioners and has no comment about any individual church member.".
Interesting, good for her!
And yes, familiar indeed...
i mentioned i was cleaning the forum archive when i bumped this thread by oompa:.
damm i miss jwd...this place will always be jwd to me.... rather than turn that into a discussion of the archive, i'll answer slimboyfat's concern here.. the things i'm clearing up are either:.
time specific and non jw related (e.g.
Good point, Splash.
I agree with Data Dog's analogy too - it's like cleaning house. You could end up throwing away something that could have later proved important or even valuable. But that doesn't stop all of us from doing a periodic 'spring cleaning' at home.
Unless you're vying for an appearance on "Hoarders", you're going to have to dispose of things from time to time.
...totally freak out and drop something if your child fails to say "please.".
http://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/family/children/become-jehovahs-friend/videos/please-thank-you/.
the woman is clearly a nervous wreck, and very easily offended.. if this is her reaction to caleb forgetting his manners, i shudder to think how she will cope if she ever finds him doing drugs.. .
I'm surprised they didn't decide to name him Andre.
when i was in it, especially as a young person, it was rules oriented but not like it is now.
to me, the religion is a lot more fanatical than ever before....what do you think?
is it the same religion even as it was 20 years ago?.
Changes for the better: Fewer meetings, shorter in length.
Changes for the worse: Emphasis on obedience, lack of "deep" study material. Increasingly strict stand on df'd/da'd persons, that, as Terry mentioned, started in the early 80s.
this is the letter i wrote back in '96 about the parousia.
following the '95 watchtower that disconnected the "generation" from 1914 i began to look carefully at end-time prophecy and soon discovered what i knew were basic errors in what i had been taught.. i was a loyal jw at the time and was still serving as an elder.
i used only watchtower publications in my research.
Great letter. It reminds me of an essay written by Alan Fuerbacher. Alan F was the first to get me thinking that the prophecies about the sign and the parousia, etc, would unfold differently than what I had been taught as a JW.
As it happens, the WTS seems to be gradually shifting everything to a later fulfillment anyway. For instance, now the FDS will not be appointed over all the belongings of Christ until later, rather than since 1918.
It would not surprise me at all that one day their teaching will match your letter almost exactly.
"in a similar way, at the beginning of the 20th century, there were a number of wrong expectations among true christians regarding the last days.
(2 tim.
3:1) for instance, in the year 1914, some thought that their being taken to heaven was imminent.
This was the main stumbling point for me when the understanding of the term "Generation" was altered in 1995. I resented the implication greatly, and even though I was an elder at the time, it was a turning point and the impetus for my eventual exit.
The notorious quote:
"Eager to see the end of this evil system, Jehovah's people have at times speculated about the time when the "great tribulation" would break out, even tying this to calculations of what is the lifetime of a generation since 1914"
the man who spent 27 years in prison in his relentless effort to free south africa from apartheid has passed at 94.. he sought peace, understanding and tolerance in his efforts to reconcile the nation and the peoples of south africa.
he learned the africaaners language his captors spoke to be able to communicate and share his ideas for a better future.
when ronald reagan and margaret thatcher wanted him to remain in prison mandela forgave them.
Always verify!
The same thing happened when Joe Paterno DIDN"T die. It was all over Facebook that he died. He had not yet died.
Never rely on Facebook for such info. People run with rumors and want to be the first to post the news.
Verify!
This is why Jesus delayed two days before going to Bethany. It was all over 1st-Century Facebook that Lazarus was dead. But Jesus knew better!
if the title of the thread wasn't enough, spoiler alert.. spoiler alert.. .
okay...so...that said, i haven't seen the movie, which would be a paradox except that i read the novelization.
so...how'd you feel about the way it ended?
A guy I work with raises a similar question about the ending of Star Trek (2009):
At the end, Kirk offers assistance to Nero as his ship is being pulled into the black hole. Spock initiates a quick sidebar and disagrees with this decision to extend help (understandable, since Nero destroyed Vulcan). The discussion is rendered moot when Nero says he would rather die, blah, blah, blah.
The guy claims that this is ending goes against the Trek tradition of not killing and trying to save lives, even when it's the bad guy. He may have a point - it does seem rather un-Trek like to kill off an enemy.
For example, even during multiple encounters with Khan, Khan was never killed off (in Wrath of Khan, it was Khan who destroyed his own ship as a result of deploying the Genesis device), despite being probably the most notorious villain in the Trek universe.
Personally, I wasn't all that troubled by this scene, though I would tend to agree that it was a bit un-Trekish.
i've seen responses from a number of elders, but have any co's become enlightened?
Don Nelson's story is, well, a letdown. For me anyway. It seems he went from being a religious zealot to being, well, a religious zealot.
the answer on the faq page makes no sense.
the question is: "why don't you call your meeting place a church?".
the answer makes no sense at all.
Technically, the answer is correct, in that, if a church is indeed a group of people, and the meaning was limited to just that.
The problem is that the terms, in typical understanding, are interchangable. So when a person says "I'm going to chruch", they usually mean that they are attending a religious service that involves a group of people coming together at a given location to worship.
We all know the real reason that they don't call it a church, which has already been mentioned. Can't be like that dirty old gal Christendom now, can we?