Posts by bemused

33

Thank God For Disfellowshipping!

i had the misfortune of being born into the jw faith.

however, i thank god every day that i was disfellowshipped otherwise i would never have found the truth.

good riddance to the watchtower bible track societys false publications, especially that book they claim contains the holy scriptures it is deceitful and full of darkness, and gets darker with every revision!

bemused

Hi. Welcome to the site.

56

Who REALLY believed in the idea of living forever on earth??

by stuckinarut2 in

seriously.....even when you were 100% in "the truth", did you really believe in living forever?

?

bemused

I was never a Witness, but the faith I grew up in (Catholicism) also had the living forever carrot. I guess I must have believed the doctrine as a child because I recall being worried that it might be a tad boring after a while (after say the first 500 million years or so).

11

"Neither can salt water produce fresh water." - James 3:12, RNWT

by 88JM in

i noticed this verse the other night and thought it looked so obviously ridiculously provably untrue that there must be something more to it.

surely even a bible writer must understand that desalination isn't witchcraft?.

new american standard bible:"nor can salt water produce fresh.".

bemused

I think in the Koran they go further and say that salt water and fresh water will not mix, i.e. they will remain distinct. Complete nonsense of course and very easily disproved.

27

Letter From My Elder Uncle

by freemindfade in

ok guys, this is long, so i am sorry, but i think it is important to publish.

this is a glimpse into a 4 page letter (love that song) from my uber elder uncle.

as some of you may know i got tired of being in an email chain and finally lost it and lashed out.

bemused

If you are going to reply perhaps just say that you are indeed an atheist and don't believe in God OR Satan.

All of his rantings about Satan are kind of pointless then.

5

BBC blatantly begins advertising!

by The Searcher in

the bbc receives miion$ every year from the tv licence fee which is imposed on folks with a tv.

due to that source of income, they cannot advertise as other channels do to raise money.. however, the bbc has changed its web site to include video adverts which have to be viewed prior to seeing the news video - bank of america in this one.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-32158049.

bemused

Can't see any problem with the BBC getting advertising revenue for foreign viewers, who don't pay a licence fee. In fact, as a UK TV licence payer I'm strongly supportive of their stance.

28

Newbies , Are We Seeing An Accelerated Increase? This Past Year ? Newbies Feel free To Respond Please .

by smiddy in

jw
friends

is it just me or does anyone else see more newbies joining this site this past year and especially in the last few months .. we would love to welcome you with genuine friendship ,support ,encouragement ,a place to vent ,and not judge you.. you have the freedom to express whatever view you like and you won`t be kicked off the board.. and to learn more about the "truth" about the truth , you will not hear at a kingdom hall .. smiddy.

bemused

I'm well over a year now, so don't count as a newbie. I agree though that there seems to have been quite a large number of new members commenting recently. I hope this is evidence of an upwards trend and not just a temporary blip. The more that leave, the more doubt that will sow in the minds of those remaining.

Now that the WT isn't making commitments to any specific date for Armageddon then I suspect it's the DF/DA threat that's keeping a large proportion of the congregations in. The irony is that you could have a whole family of doubters but no one says anything because they fear losing contact with their relatives; it's like living in some sort of Stalinist regime.

11

What's with the hijab?

by jws in

jw
friends

the hijab is one of a few headdresses worn by muslim women.

from what i can tell, it is supposed to hide the femininity of the woman.

because i'm sure as a muslim, it's going to all be the woman's fault if a man acts improperly due to attraction.. i don't agree with it, but hey, it's their religion and it doesn't hurt others, so have at it if you want to wear it.. let's face it.

bemused

I suspect they are not at all committed to their faith but while they can get away with tight clothes and make-up, there is no way their families would accept them not covering their hair because there is a specific religious edict against that (no concerns about Spandex in the dark ages). As you say though, it's completely ridiculous because the purpose of the hair covering is to reduce attractiveness and they are circumventing that aim in other ways.

When I was on holiday once I remember a young Muslim couple that were guests at the same hotel. For swimming the woman wore a suit that left only her face, hands and feet bare. However the suit was thin and skin tight and showed off her figure much better than the usual costumes worn by the other women round the pool. Her outfit might have met the letter of the Koran, but definitely not the spirit.

11

JW child taken out of hospital - now cured of cancer

by Xanthippe in

jw child cured according to bbc this morning.

if you remember the child's parents took him out of the southampton, uk hospital against the doctors' advice to have proton beam therapy for his brain tumour in prague.

interesting follow-up article..

bemused

Great news. Isn't science wonderful?!

28

JW Child Abuse Makes 'Private Eye'

by Joe Grundy in

following on from the recent thread about wt losing an appeal concerning the uk charity commission (sorry, i can't do the link) i'm pleased to report that this matter is covered in the latest 'private eye' (20 march - 2 april issue).. it's a one-third page article (p.34) under the heading 'child abuse' and the headline 'silent witnesses'.

it reports the case accurately, mentions several criminal cases and the ongoing high court compensation case.

it includes some of judge mckenna's comments..

bemused

Vidiot - 'Or they could be trying to provoke some sort of crisis because they're both stupid and arrogant.'

Yes, I guess they might think that they can somehow paint themselves as victims and thus keep the support of their congregations who might otherwise begin to wonder what all the fuss is about. Doomed to failure I'd have thought, especially on this issue, but desperate people do desperate things.

28

JW Child Abuse Makes 'Private Eye'

by Joe Grundy in

following on from the recent thread about wt losing an appeal concerning the uk charity commission (sorry, i can't do the link) i'm pleased to report that this matter is covered in the latest 'private eye' (20 march - 2 april issue).. it's a one-third page article (p.34) under the heading 'child abuse' and the headline 'silent witnesses'.

it reports the case accurately, mentions several criminal cases and the ongoing high court compensation case.

it includes some of judge mckenna's comments..

bemused

The WT really have been monumentally stupid here. Actually, the evidence requested might arguably be disproportionate, but for some pig-headed reason they knowingly went down an incorrect legal route (judicial review) and then timed out on the correct channel (charity tribunal).

I suppose they could be trying to provoke some sort of crisis but it seems more likely that they are just both stupid and arrogant.