Island Man

Joined

• started 138 topics
• posted 2,374 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Island Man

• 
  32

  what sort of reactions have you gotten when talking to other jw when telling them the "truth about the truth"?

  by AmIright in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  its funny ive read some stories on here about how they have become so infuriated by what logic dictates as being true and their own denying of it because it completely screws up their belief and shows how hypocritical it is xd some look like a nuclear reactor about to blow xd.

  share you experiences here :) .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Island Man

  
• 
  52

  Is shunning unscriptual?

  by MrTheocratic in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  international version 1 cor 5:11. but now i am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler.

  do not even eat with such people.. if shunning is wrong.

  .how does one explain this scripture?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Island Man

  So let me see if I understand

  A person can only be shunned if they are fake Christians. For example ..Bro. Smith is trying to remain in the Congregation but won't give up immorality. He should be shunned according to this scripture.

  But once he leaves ....you can resume association with him.

  That does not seem right to me.

  The point is that if the person is professing to be a christian ("called a brother") then his conduct reflects badly on the congregation and members stopping normal association with him signals to him and others that he is not living up to what it means to be christian and his actions are all on him and should not be attributed to what the congregation stands for. They're basically showing him up as an imposter, disavowing his claim of membership with them.
  

  But once the person is no longer professing to be a christian then there's no longer any danger of his actions being attributed to the congregation. They no longer have to take extraordinary steps to show him up. He's now just another non-christian and not an imposter tarnishing the name of the congregation and its standing before god.
  

  I Corinthians 5 is dealing with persons who want to continue to be a member of the congregation and have all the privileges of the brotherhood while living in gross sin. it does not apply to someone who is no longer a member and no longer wishes to be considered as a member enjoying the privileges of membership.

  So scripturally, a person who disassociates from the JW organization and is living in sin should not be treated any differently from a never-JW living in sin.
  
• 
  52

  Is shunning unscriptual?

  by MrTheocratic in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  international version 1 cor 5:11. but now i am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler.

  do not even eat with such people.. if shunning is wrong.

  .how does one explain this scripture?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Island Man

  This text says nothing about shunning. It simply says not to associate with them. The Greek word translated as "not to associate" or "quit mixing in company with" is also used at 2 Thessalonians 3:14:

  But if anyone is not obedient to our word through this letter, keep this one marked, stop associating with him, that he may become ashamed.

  But after saying "stop associating with him" notice what the very next verse (2 Thessalonians 3:15) says, and which reveals that the term is not referring to the strict shunning that JWs practice:

  And yet do not be considering him as an enemy, but continue admonishing him as a brother.

  If "stop associating with" means strict shunning, then how is a person to "continue admonishing" such persons as a brother? Remember: the same greek term is used here as at 1 Corinthians 5:11 and its use here in 2 Thessalonians demonstrates that the term does not refer to strict shunning devoid of all communication.
  
• 
  21

  Could we use the new shunning guidelines to our advantage?

  by Island Man in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  according to new, officially published guidelines, jws can now shun a person who has not been disfellowshipped from the congregation.

  i see this guideline being abused by many jws who have an axe to grind with a fellow jw.

  for example, let's say sister peinindiass rubs sister sensitive the wrong way.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Island Man

  Is there a link to the new guidelines?

  I was referring to what was / is being said at the 2016 convention.
  
• 
  21

  Could we use the new shunning guidelines to our advantage?

  by Island Man in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  according to new, officially published guidelines, jws can now shun a person who has not been disfellowshipped from the congregation.

  i see this guideline being abused by many jws who have an axe to grind with a fellow jw.

  for example, let's say sister peinindiass rubs sister sensitive the wrong way.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Island Man

  According to new, officially published guidelines, JWs can now shun a person who has not been disfellowshipped from the congregation.

  I see this guideline being abused by many JWs who have an axe to grind with a fellow JW. For example, let's say sister Peinindiass rubs sister Sensitive the wrong way. Sister Sensitive decides she will shun sister Peinindiass. The elders ask her why she is behaving in such an unchristian way toward sister Peinindiass. Sister Sensitive responds by citing the guidelines to shun anyone who, although not disfellowshipped, has been practicing serious sin. The elders inquire if she knows that sister Peinindiass has been practicing serious sin. She says yes. She concocts a story of catching sister Peinindiass committing fornication with a worldly person that she (sister Sensitive) does not know. She says she told sister Peinindiass to go to the elders and sister Peinindiass told her she would do no such thing and that she (sister Sensitive) should shut her mouth and mind her own business. She further says that sister Peinindiass told her that even if she reported her to the elders she would vehemently deny it and it would go nowhere given that she does not have a second witness or evidence.

  Can the elders tell her to stop shunning a JW whom she knows (from their perspective) is practicing serious sin but which cannot be proved in a judicial committee to result in disfellowshipping? Can they stop her from doing it while the org teaches to shun JWs practicing serious sin although not disfellowshipped? And what would other JWs think of sister Peinindiass when they see sister Sensitive shunning her. Surely they'll think that sister Sensitive must know that sister Peinindiass has committed a serious sin and so sister Peinindiass will surely become the object of gossip.
  

  But more importantly, what if sister Sensitive is an awake JW, and sister Peinindiass is a nasty elderette who you'd like to get back at? Or what if instead of sister Peinindiass, it's elder Peinindiass who's harassing you to be out more or attend more regularly or giving you shit about your decision to go to university?

  All you now have to do is shun them under the new guidelines and when asked why you're shunning them you can just say you know certain things that you cannot prove to the satisfaction of a JC and you don't want to be accused of, or sued for slander, so you're just loyally following the guidelines to shun serious sinners even though they've not be disfellowshipped.
  
• 
  147

  Challenge to Creationists

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  in response to the 37 threads in my evolution is a fact series - see bottom of op for links - perry posted a link to an article "44 reasons why evolution isn't true".. i offered him a challenge on the thread and by pm.

  predictably he is totally ignoring it, so i am offering the challenge to any evolution-denier who thinks they have evidence to support their position.. please present one specific piece of evidence for creationism.. my task will be to refute it with evidence within 24 hours.. then i will present one piece of evidence for evolution and your challenge will be the same.. all posts must be as succinct as reasonably possible.

  entirely in your own words, without copy-paste, videos or links.. please post your interest to take part and we will set it up before the first actual post in the exchange.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Island Man

  As of right now I have to agree with Vidgun, there is no evidence that we can replicate life or create it from scratch to then one must entertain the idea that life was deposited here on earth from somewhere and it then evolved.

  Caveman living 10,000 years ago arguing with another cave man: As of right now I have to agree with Lionheart, there is no evidence that we can replicate flight or create a functioning pair of wings from scratch so then one must entertain the idea that flight is not a natural process but pure magic.
  
• 
  87

  The last video in the 2016 convention...

  by problemaddict 2 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  ...is an epic triumph is emotional manipulation.

  bringing together all of the stories they told thus far and placing them int he "new world" complete with the little boy who was killed in a car accident coming back from the dead.. i have a good friend who is stuck in with family and plays the role.

  he said everyone was crying, and the people next to him rated the videos by how many tissues they needed to dry their eyes.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Island Man

  I don't find it all that emotional. But I'm curious as to what the vocalists are singing in the musical score.
  
• 
  12

  Lett facial ticks from a stroke/aneurysm?

  by azor in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i was speaking to my mom the other day.

  she stays in the group to retain a relationship with the rest of our in family.

  she told me that she heard from one of my brothers that the reason lett makes all those weird facial gestures has something to do with a stroke or aneurysm when he was a younger man.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Island Man

  JWs will say just about anything - however silly or untrue - to defend their manipulative organization and its questionable leaders.
  
• 
  61

  Demon possesion, bunch of crap or?

  by raven in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  i've been using the forum to vent and post a lot more frequently lately as a venting purpose & way to obtain peace of mind with the craziness i've been going through recently as i fade away form the org.

  anyways today i'm sitting here at work and thinking to myself about demons... ok i know this sounds crazy but has anyone else out there been traumatized by the thought of demons?

  i had a dream the other night, just flat out spooky and i woke and couldn't help but feeling it may have been evil ole' satan and his demons at it again.. i don't want to believe that, (trying not to, & just brushing it under the rug so to speak) but have any of you out there been talked up about demons?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Island Man

  zeb: I have had demonic experiences.

  I believe you have had experiences that you erroneously interpreted as demonic.
  
• 
  90

  New DNA Study Confirms Noah

  by notsurewheretogo in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  http://www.icr.org/article/9325/.

  amazing read...go on , have a laugh if you want to.. new dna study confirms noah.

  by brian thomas, m.s.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Island Man

  The difference between science and religion is that science is always curious, always seeking answers, always following the evidence regardless of where it leads. Religion, on the other hand, is closed-minded, certain in its claims, seeking preservation of its claims, always denying and refusing evidence that contradict its claims.

  Science is the pursuit of truth. Religion is the preservation of superstitious traditions at all costs. Science embraces scrutiny - thrives on scrutiny. Religion dreads scrutiny because it cannot stand up to scrutiny because it is not about the pursuit of truth.

  Science starts with a question, develops a hypothesis then experiments to prove and disprove the hypothesis to determine if it has merit. Religion starts with an answer, then cherry-picks information and twist it to support its answer, while ignoring, discrediting and even forbidding the consideration of facts that contradict its answer.

  
  Religion is foolish, backward, self-perpetuating delusion. Science is the actual pursuit of actual truth.