Posts by Island Man

36

Please tell me: what is a relationship with the "person" Jehovah like?

by Maryo in

does anyone out there know of any jws that have talked about what their personal relationship with jehovah was like?

for example, hearing his voice, a certain feeling?

an intellectual understanding?

Island Man

"We do not want to make Jehovah "sad" seems ultra ridiculous to me."

I believe this is actually a PR strategy. It's an attempt to make the tyrannical monster of the bible seem less like a tyrannical dictator and more like a sensitive victim of the actions of sinners. Saying that missing meetings makes Jehovah sad sounds more palatable than saying it makes him angry. People tend to show more sympathy for a sad person than an angry person. Sadness tends to evoke sympathy and compassion while anger tends to evoke fear.

32

If Jesus had to choose his earthly organisation NOW, who would win?

by stuckinarut2 in

we all know that the society claims that jesus invisibly chose the bible students (forerunners of jw) in 1919 to be his organization here on earth.. yet, as we know, so much of what they then taught and did was wrong according to current teaching and practice.. the reply witnesses will give is something like "they were the most sincere seekers of truth blah blah...and jesus could see their potential".

so, pretend for a moment that the current organization and the 1919 organization were both in concurrent existence at the time he invisibly came to choose.... which would he choose?

the current or former?.

Island Man

It would not be a large, self-serving, self-praising organization like the JWs. It would not be an organization that claims they alone are the truth and all others are nothing, even while that organization itself has a history of error. It would also not be an organization that treats allegations of pedophilia in the manner that JWs and other large organizations, treat it.

Jesus would choose a humble non-denominational church that preaches the bible instead of boasting and promoting itself as the only true religion. It would also be an organization that truly cares for children and deals with those who abuse them, in a serious way.

The Jesus of the bible detests prideful boasting and the showy display of ones righteousness and the discounting the righteousness of all others as "nothing". (Luke 18:9-14) The Jesus of the bible hates the pharisaic practice of focusing on preserving image and outward appearances over truth, justice and righteousness. The Jesus of the bible also loves children and said woe to those who stumble such little ones.

The Jesus of the bible broke the sabbath law to show compassion to the sick saying that his father is one who 'wants mercy and not sacrifice'. He would certainly have choice words for the JW organization which advocates the opposite view, painting his father as one who wants sacrifice and not mercy, when it comes to the matter of blood transfusions. This is how you can know that the Jesus of the bible - if he exists - would not choose the JWs.

27

Quick question can a monisterial servant conduct the watchower

by poopie in

jw
friends

hello.

Island Man

Only if all the elders are off to the annual Monisterial Training School. Then they assign "capable" monisterial servants to care for the sunday meeting.

133

Why is the white race so different?

by Crazyguy in

jw
friends

what i'm saying is the white race is the only one that has a verity of eye and hair colors , so what gives?

is it that this race was influenced genetically by a group of pre humans that didn't mix with other races?

.

Island Man

I think the problem is that you assume all white people are one race. There is no one white race. There are several white races. There are also several black races. You have a very simplistic view of race based purely on skin color. The Italians are a different race from the scandinavians but they both have white skin. A race is nothing more than a very large family with persons sharing a few common genetic traits that give them common phenotypical characteristics. These large family groups with common traits arose because of populations being isolated resulting in the same genes recurring over and over and becoming very common within the group. The less isolated a group is, the greater diversity will exist within it. If there is greater diversity among people of the white races it could be due to the fact that there has been a lot of wars of conquest and migration among people in the northern hemisphere in the relatively recent pass resulting in a lot more mixing in the gene pool of the white races. But there is also a lot of diversity among other races too but maybe your eyes are not trained to notice it because you don't interact with people of other races quite as much as you interact with people of white races.

37

Circumcision....Perfect Adam....Uncircumcised....1st century Christians...circumcision ont required

by blondie in

jw
friends

i know this has been discussed many times, but i was watching a news story about female genital mutilation (not female circumcision) and segued mentally into why the hassle about male babies having to be circumcised, christians especially.

even the wts flipflops on this...... if adam, the first perfect man, not under the jewish law code, was given a foreskin by god as an aspect of his physical perfection, why then do so many "christian" people have their boy babies circumcised?.

if a health issue....why did god create the perfect man, adam, with a foreskin?.

Island Man

"The WTS has also suggested that it is a health issue."

Generally not true. There are only a few relatively rare conditions in which circumcision would be recommended for health reasons. One of them is a condition where the foreskin's circumference is prohibitively small making it painfully difficult or impossible to peel-back the foreskin to clean the glans; or makes it difficult during intercourse.

There is no medical or scientific basis for widespread circumcision of boys as a norm as is advocated in some countries. The claim that it affords health advantages in unproven and is likely actually based on cultural and religious customs while being disingenuously touted as having health benefits.

37

Circumcision....Perfect Adam....Uncircumcised....1st century Christians...circumcision ont required

by blondie in

jw
friends

i know this has been discussed many times, but i was watching a news story about female genital mutilation (not female circumcision) and segued mentally into why the hassle about male babies having to be circumcised, christians especially.

even the wts flipflops on this...... if adam, the first perfect man, not under the jewish law code, was given a foreskin by god as an aspect of his physical perfection, why then do so many "christian" people have their boy babies circumcised?.

if a health issue....why did god create the perfect man, adam, with a foreskin?.

Island Man

"In the Bible, being unircumcised was usually connected with impurity and being obstinate."

Yes, but that is not the reason for the command to get circumcised. On the contrary, the bible's negative talk about being uncircumcised is a result of god commanding the Jews to get circumcised. Circumcision preceded and gave rise to, negative talk about being uncircumcised.

45

What do You Think About Hybrid and Electric Cars?

by Village Idiot in

battery technology has been making leaps and bounds in affordability and energy output throughout the past decade.

while pure electric cars currently have limited range, the near future holds prospects for longer ranges.

hybrids, and recently plug in hybrids, have a mileage of up to 50 mpg* giving them a range of 500 miles from a ten gallon gas tank.

Island Man

What do I think? Revolutionary! Did you see the news article about Goodenough's (the guy who invented the lithium ion battery) new battery technology? If that comes on stream then gas vehicles will go the way of typewriters and pagers. Even with the latest current technology, electric cars are already an attractive alternative to gas cars.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yu3cpICjCKw

7

J.W.'s shut their minds to this teaching

by The Searcher in

one of the "elephants in the room" which j.w.

's will not and cannot question or discuss, is the org's dogma that a person's own death wipes out their sins!..

when active, i asked two c.o.

Island Man

Romans 6:7 does have a literal component to it - every metaphor does or they would have no power as a metaphor. So when it says he that has died has been acquitted of sin - that is literally true, but not in the way that Watchtower translates and applies the verse. The context shows that the writer is drawing the metaphor from the idea that when a person dies he is acquitted from sin, not in the sense that he is absolved of past wrongs, but in the sense that he is set free from being controlled by a sinful body, for the sinful body is now dead and inactive. It's talking about being acquitted from the principle or force of sin that resides in imperfect men and that compels them to sin. That's the point Romans 6:6 is making. A more equivalent rendering of Romans 6:7 could be: "He that has died has been freed from the ruling power of sin".

61

Would human settlement of Mars invalidate Bible prophecy?

by truthseeker in

jw
friends

i don't think this topic has been discussed before but yesterday i read something to the effect that trump wants a human mission to mars to be completed within his presidency.. with that being said, the watchtower teaches that what started on earth ends on earth, in other words, the fall of adam and eve would end with the passing of the 1,000 year millennial reign when christ destroys all his enemies, rebellious "perfect" humans, and the devil and his demons who are let out the abyss for a short while.

he then hands the kingdom back to his father.

an elder in my old congregation once told us during a public talk that he was an ardent astronomer but then referenced the scripture where it says, "the earth he has given to the sons of men" (psalms 115:16).

Island Man

The solution is simple: When the Bible talks about the earth, it means an overlapping Earth, that is to say, whatever celestial body that humans from earth are able to reside on. Consider: if humans did establish a colony on Mars then what will one human say to another human if, while both are walking outside, they encounter an object protruding out of the Martian soil? Will the one human say to the other: "what is that protruding out of the Mars"? That hardly seems likely. No doubt the human will ask the other: "what is that protruding out of the earth?". So evidently the word earth as used in the bible, does not refer specifically and exclusively to planet earth but rather, has an overlapping application, referring to whatever solid surface of dust that humans reside on.

115

Could a petition to make shunning illegal work?

by aboveusonlysky in

jw
friends

we're currently watching leah remini's series about scientology and the main thing she seems to focus on is the shunning policies of the scientology organization which let's face it are very similar to jw procedure.. i was wondering with all that's in the media recently about bullying could a petition be put together to get the goverment to consider making religiously mandated shunning illegal?

has such a thing been tried before?.

https://petition.parliament.uk/help says the following - .

Island Man

I don't think you can make it illegal for someone to choose to shun someone. The law can't force you to communicate with someone.

But, I think a strong case can be made that it should be illegal for an organization, religious or otherwise, to coerce members to shun others. It can be made illegal for an organization to teach members to shun a certain segment of society - including ex-members. I think there is a chance that such a law can be passed since there already exist laws that make it illegal to incite hatred of certain groups.

The key factors that have to be looked at is incitement and duress. Watchtower incites the members to shun and Watchtower uses a form of duress - the the very same threat of shunning - to coerce the members to shun those who leave.

People should be free to choose whether or not they wish to shun someone, without being incited to do so against a particular segment of people - ex-JWs - and without being coerced to do so.

So this should not be approached from the standpoint of making shunning illegal. Rather, it should be approached from the standpoint of making it illegal to publicly incite by speech or in print, to shun a particular segment of people; and to make it illegal to coerce persons to shun a certain segment of people, by the threat of being punished if they refuse to do so. This is all that needs to be done.

Once this is done, more JWs will feel free to talk to ex-JWs knowing that they cannot be penalized for doing so or else those penalizing them could face legal action with legal teeth.