in jesus day, when he and the apostles were wandering around, demonized people are everywhere.
people just pointed and said "he has a demon in him" and nobody even flinched.
like duh, eveyone knows that and it was normal.
My mom used to think that the garage could perform exorcisms... Whenever she'd buy something at a garage sale that she determined to be "demonized" she'd stick it in the garage for a few months.
I dunno about that... even possums went in our garage with impunity, so I'm not sure why the demons would be compelled to get out. Evidently it worked though, because after a few months, it seemed the items were no longer demonized and she could bring them in the house.
i used to think that this place was a good spot to recommend for exiting jws.
in some wasy, it still is.
but if they want to test the waters of doctrinal evaluation i believe it is nearly impossible.
Herding cats, auldsoul. It's illogical to assume that a forum like this- one where newly exiting JWs are flexing their powers of being contrary, and long-out exJWs are comfortable with challenging narrowly defined ideas- will adhere to a demand that ONLY a certain segment of people will respond to a topic. It's like trying to tell a bunch of cats to all walk in a straight line, with only minor deviations in pace and trajectory.
Cats are cool.
i used to think that this place was a good spot to recommend for exiting jws.
in some wasy, it still is.
but if they want to test the waters of doctrinal evaluation i believe it is nearly impossible.
LMAO @ avenger's "crapheap"
i used to think that this place was a good spot to recommend for exiting jws.
in some wasy, it still is.
but if they want to test the waters of doctrinal evaluation i believe it is nearly impossible.
auld, this place has been rough and tumble for a long time. It was in 2003 when I joined, and it still worked for me and my husband. Of course, I do tend to be thicker-skinned than most, and I had already decided (though recently) that I no longer accepted the JW version of things. Still, it was of use and value.
does doing what is right in god's eyes mean we have to use only bible terms?
i know the organization is not perfect.
is there strong evidence that he has his people here on earth that although not perfect, are doing his will?
So that's your excuse? "Jehovah, it SEEMED like the right organization because I had a good time there... Yes, I heard about the lies and the pedophiles, and the UN, and the RandCam, and the silent lambs, and the shunning, and the flipflops, and the prophecy problems, and the generation changes, and the 607 issues, and the way we treat women, and the two witness "rule" and the other stuff too... but I never saw it, and I suppose the Society must have had SOME reason for acting that way... it SEEMED like the right organization... isn't that enough?"
does doing what is right in god's eyes mean we have to use only bible terms?
i know the organization is not perfect.
is there strong evidence that he has his people here on earth that although not perfect, are doing his will?
Heehee. "Motive." It's like a guy who visits a prostitute and then says: "But the only way I could preach to her was while she was working!"
ok guys and gals, i (being the assistant to the magazine counter) have acquired the newest okm.. i have uploaded it to imagevenue.com: here.
hopefully that works!.
by the way drew, your translation was very close.
:::"As per usual, they talk out both sides of their mouths. "
Of course, one is the "truth" for public consumption, and the other (opposite) is the "truth" for the rank and file. So which one is the "truth?" That's what I wanna know.
does doing what is right in god's eyes mean we have to use only bible terms?
i know the organization is not perfect.
is there strong evidence that he has his people here on earth that although not perfect, are doing his will?
Interesting how "belief" doesn't require actual evidence. "Evidence" is something that can be documented, and usually duplicated. Saying "I see happy people," "I don't see corruption," is not evidence, it is simply your personal experience.
Also, regarding your vague "credentials", don't worry... it won't sound like bragging, but I doubt your credentials are any more impressive than many, many posters here who have objectively examined the evidence and come to very different conclusions. And just because you've done a lot of different activities for your faith, doesn't give you any more ability to approach things with clear thinking and logic - perhaps it's even a handicap.
Tell me, what do you think of this new directive from the Society which "suggests" that nobody need look any further than the Insight books when doing research? What if the publications quote a secular source? Would it be inappropriate to research the context of the quote? What happens if the context reveals deception on the part of the WT? Just saying...
ok guys and gals, i (being the assistant to the magazine counter) have acquired the newest okm.. i have uploaded it to imagevenue.com: here.
hopefully that works!.
by the way drew, your translation was very close.
7 pages, and I just skimmed, but one thought is that the implications of this directive from WT will be to quash attempts to verify secular quotes in the literature by researching the source. I wonder how much this decision was influence by articles like AlanF's and Leoleia's, etc, where they show blatant and seemingly deliberate misreprestations of quotes in order to bolster their opinion in books like "Creation" "Our Creator" "Trinity" and so on.
he's 7 weeks old, he's a chocolate lab and i named him tony.
his eye isn't messed up it just looks that way because i was trying to get his face to look forward while i pushed the button all at once.
he kept me up all night last night crying, but hopefully just like with my beagle he will outgrow that.
I'm training them at home. If I weren't godless I'd say "pray for me." LMAO!
