how does (or did) feel to be a jw, gay, and female?.
I certainly hope so.
All my life I've been looking for a woman who shares most of my interests. I have found few that shared my sexual attraction to women, and wouldn't you know it: none of them found me sexually attractive - something about me not being their type. How can a man who has so much in common with them not be their type? I just don't understand it.
something that has always been a pet peeve of mine- public prayers.
is that even scriptural?
i know many churches (along with the jws) do it.
Jesus didn't condemn public prayer. Jesus himself prayed publicly on occasion such as when he raised up Lazarus. What Jesus condemned was praying publicly for the purpose of impressing others with your righteousness.
1 Corinthians 14:16 refers to public prayer within the christian congregation as there is mention of one praying and others saying "amen" in response. So public prayer is scriptural.
But I still sympathize with your sentiments. I don't like public prayer either. It always smacks of an opportunity - no, a temptation - for the one praying to try to make or maintain a good impression with others. I can't help but think that the one praying will always be self conscious of what he is saying and trying to do a good job so as not to embarrass himself. It's only human for someone speaking before a crowd to exercise care that he speaks well and does not embarrass himself. This means that the one praying publicly can never give a 100% sincere prayer to God. He is always, in a sense, praying to the audience.
Also, aren't you not supposed to say the same things over and over?
Speaking of that, you will notice that every public pray-er seems to have his own mental prayer outline or prayer manuscript that he repeats when he has to pray. Again I believe the reason for this is pressure to make a good impression and not embarrass yourself publicly. That pressure tends to force the pray-er to develop a "safe" prayer that he can repeat every time without the risk of embarrassing himself if he were to be more spontaneous.
As a side note, if it is really true that it is wrong to repeat the same prayer by rote or from a prayer book whenever you pray, then how can it be acceptable to God to repeat the kingdom songs by rote or from a song book when you sing? Furthermore, it is a fact that the bible book of Psalms contains prayers that were written with Hebrew acrostics for the purpose of making them easy to remember for easy recitation. So why would God inspire psalmists to write prayer songs in a manner to make them easy to remember and recite if he does not approve of repeating prayers by memory?
JWs must be wrong about this teaching about not repeating the same prayer by rote. I believe the translation of Matthew 6 where it says not to say the same thing over and over again is actually an erroneous translation. The greek text actually says "do not multiply words". I believe this is referring to make very long, wordy prayers, thinking that God will consider you more spiritual if you talk to him for a very long time. The reason I say this is because elsewhere in the gospels Jesus also condemned the practice of making long prayers for a pretense.
In fact the very mistranslated verse in the NWT indicates that it is about the wordiness of the prayer and not about repeating the same prayer by rote when you pray:
"When praying, do not say the same things over and over again as the people of the nations do, for they imagine they will get a hearing for their use of many words" - Matthew 6:7
Did you see the phrase "their use of many words"? That phrase does not match the first part of the verse which is rendered as saying the same things over and over again. A person can have a short prayer with few words that he says by rote whenever he prays. So clearly its not about praying by rote when you pray. It's about having unnecessarily long, wordy prayers, imagining that the length of the prayer determines God's interest in it.
this question is known to be posed by jws to other jws as an acid test of loyalty.
i'm not the first to notice what i'm about to point out and comment accordingly, but today i felt compelled to add a short article on my blog highlighting the new language that governing body member geoffrey jackson supplies as a response.
a person who honestly hesitates to respond with a robust "yes!
Today I thought of another response that might also work:
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it true that Jesus is the one appointed to make the judgment as to whether his disciples in position of authority proved to be the faithful and discreet slave and appoint them over all his belongings; and that that judgment takes place in the future when he returns to execute judgment?
Therefore, I beseech you brothers to give Jesus' authority, to Jesus, but my human limitations to me. My bible-trained conscience tells me it would be presumptuous of me to make a judgment as to who is or is not the faithful and discreet slave. I leave that Judgement for Jesus to make. It is even so written at 1 Corinthians 4:5:"Therefore, do not judge anything before the due time, until the Lord comes. He will bring the secret things of darkness to light and make known the intentions of the hearts, and then each one will receive his praise from God."
So the brothers whom Jesus will finally judge as having proved to be the faithful and discreet slave do not need my judgment or approval of them being such - it is for Jesus to make that judgment and approval - nor do they need me to praise them as being the faithful and discreet slave - it is better that they get their praise from God rather than men. Don't you agree?"
via /r/exjw.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lc7vhu8l88k.
we have the convention this weekend and many jw families are arriving.
one family that ive known for many years from new mexico stopped by to visit my mom.
hes been an elder since the 80s.
You sure shut down his judgmental, "come back to the Truth" prodding "like a boss"!
this question is known to be posed by jws to other jws as an acid test of loyalty.
i'm not the first to notice what i'm about to point out and comment accordingly, but today i felt compelled to add a short article on my blog highlighting the new language that governing body member geoffrey jackson supplies as a response.
a person who honestly hesitates to respond with a robust "yes!
imitate the desert god.
yep.
the ca for the upcoming year is entittled "imitate [insert desert god name]" so for the public at large its jesus but *wink wink* we really mean the desert god.
hi i've been reading a web sight called borean pickets.
http://meletivivlon.com/2015/05/09/may-tv-broadcast-on-tv-jw-org/.
although the guy writes some real thought provoking stuff, i sort of don't know what to make of it.
Initially he was pro-JW but awake to the shortcomings of the organization and its teachings and not afraid to point them out. He considered the Governing Body as being perhaps honest-hearted but wrong, while still believing that JWs are Jehovah's people.
Over time he has come to the conclusion that the Governing Body are deliberately misleading JWs. He now does not think it necessary to be part of the JW organization and thinks true christians are not limited to the JW group and any one group.
i believe that the bombings shortened the war in the pacific and probably saved countless lives.
i am not an expert on this subject but given the times it was probably the correct and moral thing to do.. what say you all?.
It was definitely a war crime. How can anyone honestly argue that detonating an atomic bomb over a city filled with civilians (twice!), condemning many of them to a slow agonizing death as their badly irradiated flesh dripped from their bones, was a justified act and not a war crime? How can deliberately killing tens of thousands of civilians not be a war crime? There is no justification for this.
Had this act been done by Hitler or any other country at war with the US it would most certainly be called a heinous war crime. But when the US does horrible things in war while fighting the "bad guys" their horrible actions is given special treatment.
A bomb could have been detonated over an uninhabited nearby atol to demonstrate to the Japanese that they were out-gunned and needed to surrender. The war was already winding down. I don't buy the explanation that it saved more lives by cutting the war short.
Had the bombs not been dropped, the war would not have continued for much longer anyway. Also, in conventional war the lives lost are mostly soldiers who go out to fight knowing the risk to their lives. It would have been mostly soldiers who would have died had the war been allowed to run out its last few days and not the tens of thousands of innocent civilians that were killed by the atomic bombs. There is a difference between killing soldiers and killing civilians.
I think the motive for dropping the bombs were more about testing their capability and effects than about ending the war.
man, this mahamantra is some real hypnotic music!
it's weird, pleasurable, hypnotic and cult-like all rolled into one.
lol.