I gave a lot of funeral talks at local chapels and cemeteries. People would call the missionary home because other churches charged money. We were free. I would always find out a lot about the person first so I could include that in my talk. I would limit the funny stories about the person because in that country the culture really doesnt want any humor at a funeral. I would read four scriptures and would use their Bible, but only after talking about the deceased's qualities. I learned from older missionaries how to do it.
I am getting the feeling I am not welcome here. Several have told me in no uncertain terms. I guess a troll is someone who doesn't identify himself, but I said at the outset I am a Witness. As far as my real name, I thought none of us are identifying ourselves. Do I have to agree with everyone in order to be accepted here?
I can kind of see now why the Society is saying be careful about coming on here. I only got three posts that have interesting reasoning in them. The rest are mostly personal slams.
MutualRespectPlease2
JoinedPosts by MutualRespectPlease2
-
41
B - I - NGO?
by MutualRespectPlease2 inhello friends its me, mutualrespectplease.
i messed up my earlier registration, so now i am mrp2.
i have been doing a bunch of research on the different responses i got from you regarding my posts from the beginning of august.
-
-
MutualRespectPlease2
-
41
B - I - NGO?
by MutualRespectPlease2 inhello friends its me, mutualrespectplease.
i messed up my earlier registration, so now i am mrp2.
i have been doing a bunch of research on the different responses i got from you regarding my posts from the beginning of august.
-
-
MutualRespectPlease2
Another good point. But what is the motive of using a swimming pool compared with the motive of pursuing religious freedoms? Plus, is there really a comparison between the two? I went into a chapel recently to give a funeral discourse for a man who was not a Witness, his wife was, but their family wanted me to give the talk, but if I decided to go to services there every week as a member, would that be a good idea? People are saying that the WTS is corrupt because of they way they are going about trying to achieve religious freedoms. I think we are not looking at the big picture here.
-
41
B - I - NGO?
by MutualRespectPlease2 inhello friends its me, mutualrespectplease.
i messed up my earlier registration, so now i am mrp2.
i have been doing a bunch of research on the different responses i got from you regarding my posts from the beginning of august.
-
-
MutualRespectPlease2
Good point
-
41
B - I - NGO?
by MutualRespectPlease2 inhello friends its me, mutualrespectplease.
i messed up my earlier registration, so now i am mrp2.
i have been doing a bunch of research on the different responses i got from you regarding my posts from the beginning of august.
-
-
MutualRespectPlease2
Hello friends its me, MutualRespectPlease. I messed up my earlier registration, so now I am MRP2. I have been doing a bunch of research on the different responses I got from you regarding my posts from the beginning of August. The first one is the United Nations NGO. I am working on the Barbara Anderson CD now. but back to the NGO.
I don’t think what they did was wrong.
I read tons of stuff, not just two or three websites. I read the UN Charter, the requirements for an NGO, the Society’s responses both here and in England, some of the past forums here.
Why do I not think the Society was wrong?
What were they trying to accomplish? Running for political office? Trying to become members of the U.N.? I get the feeling you are all looking for any reason to blast the WTS. I think if you step back and look at the whole picture, you can see that the WTS is trying to gain religious freedoms and rights in Europe. There are laws and organizations and meetings and judgments involved. Are any of you experts on those laws? How would YOU go about getting preaching “legally established”? It’s easy to jump on the bandwagon and say WTS is hypocritical but how would YOU do it in Europe?
No one on these forums seems to address that the goal here was to establish rights to preach in those countries. The WTS is not just sitting down in an office doing nothing and waiting, they are trying and trying. And you guys are criticizing them? Do you think that’s fair? Do you think that they are benefiting somehow from doing this? Are they getting money? Prestige? Power? No one on these forum ever addresses the fact that individuals in the WTS are not getting rich or powerful, as is the case with cults.
I lived in Bethel, I have been in their rooms, I have been on cheapo flights with them, I have seen them go to work everyday for no money. I have driven with them in their gross old cars, or driven in those Buicks that they don’t own with a Bethel driver. Big deal. So if some of you would just sit back and think MOTIVE then you would realize that the WTS is just trying their best, and is not perfect. Check out any other organization that is a cult and you will see the guys at the top getting RICH and POWERFUL.
Not this one.
Give me some names of those in the WTS that are getting rich people, or cut the easy point-the-finger criticism. -
1
B - I - NGO?
by MutualRespectPlease2 inhello friends its me, mutualrespectplease.
i messed up my earlier registration, so now i am mrp2.
i have been doing a bunch of research on the different responses i got from you regarding my posts from the beginning of august.
-
-
MutualRespectPlease2
Hello friends its me, MutualRespectPlease. I messed up my earlier registration, so now I am MRP2. I have been doing a bunch of research on the different responses I got from you regarding my posts from the beginning of August. The first one is the United Nations NGO. I am working on the Barbara Anderson CD now. but back to the NGO.
I don’t think what they did was wrong.
I read tons of stuff, not just two or three websites. I read the UN Charter, the requirements for an NGO, the Society’s responses both here and in England, some of the past forums here.
Why do I not think the Society was wrong?
What were they trying to accomplish? Running for political office? Trying to become members of the U.N.? I get the feeling you are all looking for any reason to blast the WTS. I think if you step back and look at the whole picture, you can see that the WTS is trying to gain religious freedoms and rights in Europe. There are laws and organizations and meetings and judgments involved. Are any of you experts on those laws? How would YOU go about getting preaching “legally established”? It’s easy to jump on the bandwagon and say WTS is hypocritical but how would YOU do it in Europe?
No one on these forums seems to address that the goal here was to establish rights to preach in those countries. The WTS is not just sitting down in an office doing nothing and waiting, they are trying and trying. And you guys are criticizing them? Do you think that’s fair? Do you think that they are benefiting somehow from doing this? Are they getting money? Prestige? Power? No one on these forum ever addresses the fact that individuals in the WTS are not getting rich or powerful, as is the case with cults.
I lived in Bethel, I have been in their rooms, I have been on cheapo flights with them, I have seen them go to work everyday for no money. I have driven with them in their gross old cars, or driven in those Buicks that they don’t own with a Bethel driver. Big deal. So if some of you would just sit back and think MOTIVE then you would realize that the WTS is just trying their best, and is not perfect. Check out any other organization that is a cult and you will see the guys at the top getting RICH and POWERFUL.
Not this one.
Give me some names of those in the WTS that are getting rich people, or cut the easy point-the-finger criticism.