(John 3:16) . . .“For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, in order that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life.
(John 8:24) . . .Therefore I said to YOU, YOU will die in YOUR sins. For if YOU do not believe that I am [he], YOU will die in YOUR sins.. . .
(Acts 3:22, 23) . . .In fact, Moses said, ‘Jehovah God will raise up for YOU from among YOUR brothers a prophet like me. YOU must listen to him according to all the things he speaks to YOU. 23 Indeed, any soul that does not listen to that Prophet will be completely destroyed from among the people.. . .
Island Man
JoinedPosts by Island Man
-
26
Jesus died for US...technically
by enigma1863 infor god so loved the world he gave his only begotten son and then took him back.
that's not love, its a big legal loophole.
people have technically died in the past, and by the standards of diagnosing death in bible times you could definitely beat 48 hrs and return.
-
-
Island Man
-
15
Is the UN really the disgusting thing?
by StarTrekAngel inbeen dwelling on this for a while.
was there any particular history on this or anywhere where the wt picked up someone else's doctrine?.
in most cases, the bible uses the word "disgusting thing" to refer to idols, idolatry and false religion.
-
-
Island Man
Ditto to what Londo said. By the way, given that the gospels applied that particular story in the saga of the king of the north and the king of the south, to the Roman desolation of Jerusalem, how is it that Watchtower applies some of the earlier prophecies in the same saga to events that have happened in more modern times?
The saga of the king of the North and the king of the South is clearly written in chronological order so the earlier prophecies before the disgusting thing that caused desolation can't possibly be interpreted as applying to times later than the Roman desolation.
-
26
Jesus died for US...technically
by enigma1863 infor god so loved the world he gave his only begotten son and then took him back.
that's not love, its a big legal loophole.
people have technically died in the past, and by the standards of diagnosing death in bible times you could definitely beat 48 hrs and return.
-
-
Island Man
Here's what I don't get about the whole Jesus died for us thing:
Adam sinned for us consigning us all to death whether we believe in Adam or not. So we all automatically "benefit" from Adam's sin. But when it comes to Jesus dying for us, we don't all automatically benefit. We must believe in Jesus to benefit from his death. And yet, in spite of this clear difference, the bible has the gall to say this:
But it is not with the gift as it was with the trespass. For if by one man’s trespass many died, the undeserved kindness of God and his free gift with the undeserved kindness by the one man Jesus Christ abounded much more to many. - Romans 5:15
"The undeserved kindness of God by the one man abounded much more to many?" Really? How can you say that when fewer people are being saved by Jesus' death than are being condemned by Adam's sin? How can you say that when one has to put forth effort to benefit from Jesus' death while no effort is needed to "benefit" from Adam's sin? Truth be told, the condemnation of God by the one man's sin abounds much more to many than the undeserved kindness to be had by the death of Jesus.
-
23
Putin the Pressure Up!
by snare&racket inhttp://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/05/nato-rapid-reaction-force-counter-russia-ukraine.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2015/02/08/russia-investors-on-war-watch-wednesday/.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/11397924/ukraine-crisis-europe-and-us-debate-how-to-handle-russia-live.html.
-
-
Island Man
I think the govts think that Putin is just craving attention and that's why nobody is making a big deal about it - or making less of a deal about it than the incidents actually warrant. They see Putin as a desperate attention seeker trying to make himself and his country relevant and they're retaliating against him by not giving him the political and military attention that he craves. -
-
-
Island Man
Do both! By going to college, you could be a higher-education pioneer (i.e. trail blazer) in your JW family.
-
24
We Need a Video like this one
by TerryWalstrom inthis is very easy to watch and completely informative.. does anybody have the talent to put one together regarding watchtowerism?.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vkt4hrbtuk.
-
-
Island Man
I like your script, EndOfMysteries!
-
24
We Need a Video like this one
by TerryWalstrom inthis is very easy to watch and completely informative.. does anybody have the talent to put one together regarding watchtowerism?.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vkt4hrbtuk.
-
-
Island Man
I went to YouTube and left the following comment under the video:
+Saved XMormon: "Many members of the LDS church that are posting to this video are claiming the short containes lies and inaccuracies."
This behavior is not unique to LDS members. This is standard behavior for those who are part of extremist groups with embarrassing teachings and practices. I see the same kind of response from Jehovah's Witnesses when their embarrassing teachings and practices are plainly exposed to the public without any of the spin that Watchtower dresses it with for public consumption.
All such extremists, out of desperation, resort to falsely accusing their critics of lying whenever they critics expose the plain truth about them. You see, deep down the members of these extremists groups know it's rubbish but for one reason or another they live in denial about this and pretend to themselves that it's all true and makes sense. They use all manner of rationalizations, excuses, mental gymnastics and other coping mechanisms to suppress the reality that its utter rubbish. Being in close regular association with fellow group members who espouse the same belief system also helps to give them a sense of validation.
But when they see videos like this the reality that its rubbish is brought to the forefront of their minds, giving them a rude bout of cognitive dissonance, painfully jolting them back to reality - a painful reality that they are presently unable or unwilling to accept - and so, in a knee-jerk fashion, they lash out with the dishonest claim that the critical information presented about their group is malicious lies.
-
22
Seriously, Why Can’t Jehovah’s Witness Women Wear Pants?
by Watchtower-Free ini found this.
http://jwvictims.org/2014/02/05/seriously-why-cant-jehovahs-witness-women-wear-pants/.
seriously, why cant jehovahs witness women wear pants?.
-
-
Island Man
The forbidding of JW sisters from wearing pants really has nothing to do with decency or modesty. The real reason is their antiquated male chauvinist view that pants is a man's clothing and women should therefore not be wearing them.
In Watchtower's twisted antiquated mindset, pants symbolize masculine authority so any woman who wears pants is encroaching, somewhat, on the male headship arrangement. She is either a domineering woman or she's a lesbian or at the very least, they would claim that that's the impression she might be unwittingly giving to others.
You mentioned that wearing business suits makes a woman look authoritative and well educated. Watchtower doesn't want JW women to look authoritative. Watchtower wants them to look submissive. Watchtower also does not want JW women to look well educated. Watchtower often associates being well educated, (secularly) with being opinionated and Watchtower doesn't want opinionated JWs and especially not opinionated JW sisters. Watchtower wants JW women to look like they should be - servile, naive and minimally educated. Anything more and the woman is overstepping the bounds of her God-ordained role of subjective servitude.
-
21
Giving comments at meetings that cause cognitive dissonance while keeping yourself below elder radar for apostasy
by Brokeback Watchtower inwell i'm sure we can come up with clever comments that make people feel uncomfortable by serving to decompartmentalize things that have been compartmentalized in the thinking of the average jw.
or comments that make the cognitive dissonance stand out plainly, these have to be said in innocent manner and with an apparent obliviousness to the contradiction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/compartmentalization_%28psychology%29.
-
-
Island Man
Another method that I've mentioned on another thread is to nonchalantly restate Watchtower's extremist cult-like teachings or positions without any of the spin or euphemisms that Watchtower would usually employ to cover over its ugliness. But it has to be done very nonchalantly with an innocent tone of voice.
For example, while commenting about the importance of not associating with disfellowshipped loved ones so that they will return, you could say something like:
"This experience shows the importance of shunning our disfellowshipped loved ones so that they will be forced to return to the organization in order to have association with us once again. If we fail to shun them then we give them no good reason to return."
-
21
Giving comments at meetings that cause cognitive dissonance while keeping yourself below elder radar for apostasy
by Brokeback Watchtower inwell i'm sure we can come up with clever comments that make people feel uncomfortable by serving to decompartmentalize things that have been compartmentalized in the thinking of the average jw.
or comments that make the cognitive dissonance stand out plainly, these have to be said in innocent manner and with an apparent obliviousness to the contradiction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/compartmentalization_%28psychology%29.
-
-
Island Man
A good statement to have squeezed in while commenting on paragraph 9 of this week's Watchtower study is to say
"... Jehovah has not always had an organization on earth...".
This statement should induce some serious cognitive dissonance because it sounds very familiar, while sounding very wrong, while being very much correct and in harmony with paragraph 9. You see, JWs often make this statement to justify the existence of the organization and the need to be in association with it to have God's approval:
"... Jehovah has always had an organization on earth..."
So when you make the former statement in the comment it induces ones memory of the latter statement while contradicting it. And in contradicting the latter common statement it also harmonizes with the point made at the end of paragraph 9. Thus it exposes JWs' foolish, contradicting, double-position about God always having an organization - did he or did he not? Watchtower dishonestly states both positions at different times depending on which is most expedient to their propagandistic objective at the given moment. But of course they always take care to word the two opposing statements with different language so as to make it less obvious that the two contradictory statements are actually contradicting views on the same point.