RO, your brain must have hurt after that mindless exchange
Proof that shows just how intelligent JW's are!!!
by Sour Grapes 20 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Free!!
Not surprised at all... We all know JWs have a superiority complex. Let's be honest what better way to make yourself feel better about your lack of education, money, freedom and thinking ability than to make others look like complete morons??!!!....
Geeez! every time i read something like this i feel happier and happier that i am not longer part of the freaking brainless cult!!!
-
thetrueone
A constant profusion of fear and ignorance on to people has the effect of weakening their critical thinking capabilities as well
their broad based intellectual maturity, this isn't solely unique to just JWS though.
I heard some very stupid things come out of JWS mouths over the years when I was one, glad I don't have to listen to it anymore.
-
ziddina
"My wife said that she could meet her at the hospital after she buys groceries. The sister asked my wife if she will be wearing slacks and my wife said yes. The sister then proceeds "well, you can come to the study but you can't count your time if you are not wearing a skirt." ...OP
Ah, HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!
Whew!!! Thanks!!!
That one made my Monday...
-
ziddina
"Since when did Jehbooboo care if the women are wearing slacks or not??..." civicsi00
Ah, actually, I think that during the time that "Jehbooboo" was having those nomadic Middle-Eastern good ol' boys write up "his" bible, "he" insisted that the MEN wear skirts...
Hee hee hee heee!!
-
Terry
I remember a sister in the congregation lecturing me in my own house after I stopped going to meetings.
She: "Do you want your children to die at Armageddon?"
Me: "I trust that Jehovah will always do what is best. If killing my children is a good thing in His eyes, I'm all for it!"
She: "You're missing the point, you have a direct influence on how Jehovah judges your kids!"
Me: "I had no idea I had such power over Almighty God!"
She: "You can't give your children what you don't have yourself."
Me: "No, but I can give you the Watchtower's advice: women do not exercise authority over men and are not permitted to teach. I feel like you might be trying to teach me something. I'm scared this violation might mean you'll die at Armageddon along with my children!!"
She left quite angrily.
-
panhandlegirl
Terry, brilliant and witty response !
-
respectful_observer
wha happened...yes, it did indeed hurt my head.
In a recent similar exchange someone repeated the claim that the growth in the number of publishers and pioneers was evidence of Jehovah's blessing and approval and went on to lament the fact that fewer and fewer men are willing/able to serve as "appointed" men to help with the growth.
Person #2: "Oh, you mean how the elders are aging, dying off, and no one younger is stepping up to serve?"
Person #1: "Yes, it's really sad. At every Elders' school, it just seems to get worse."
Person #2: "Wait, are you trying to say that since the Organization is crying out for brothers to serve as MS/Elders-- but still doesn't have enough "appointed men", and shows no signs of being able to-- it means that the MS/Elder arrangement DOESN'T have Jehovah's approval or blessing???"
Person #1: "No, of course not! What would ever make you think that?!"
Person #2: "Well because you just said that growth indicated Jehovah's blessing and approval. I just inferred you must feel that the opposite was true as well."
Person #1: "Don't worry, I don't."
-
Disillusioned Lost-Lamb
Thanks for a laugh.
But reality check witlesses!
Every other religion, since the dawn of man, acted with the full belief that their "God" was backing THEM; because why else would they be doing what they are doing/did?
DUH! Such stoopidity!
And the skirt issue, come on.
I don’t remember anything in Genesis saying, "and the devil proceeded to deceive Eve by getting her to wear pants"; well, unless it’s part of the “inspired writings” that didn’t make it into the final Bible cannon cut.
-
blondie
SLACKSWTS COUNSEL OF THE PAST
1951
*** w51 10/1 pp. 607-608 Questions From Readers ***
When Deuteronomy 22:5 says that a woman should not wear a man’s clothes, does it mean that women should not wear slacks?—J. P., Pennsylvania.Deuteronomy 22:5 (Da) reads: "There shall not be a man’s apparel on a woman, neither shall a man put on a woman’s clothing; for whoever doeth so is an abomination to Jehovah thy God." This text certainly was not recorded with the thought in mind of preventing modern women from wearing slacks. Men did not wear slacks or trousers when this was recorded, but what we would view as dresses today. In parts of the Orient, in fact, the men wore dresslike robes and the women wore pajamalike trousers of varying styles. So the wearing of slacks or even work pants, such as around a farm, is not forbidden by this text and is an individual matter. The women can use good judgment as to time and place and what is accepted as proper in the section where they reside. In some sections where winters are severe many women wear trousers or ski suits or some similar garment that covers and protects their legs. Such is not Scripturally wrong.
At Deuteronomy 22:5 the Bible is not dealing with fashions or fretting over styles, but apparently it is here forbidding persons of one sex from wearing the clothing of the opposite sex for purposes of deceit, to appear of the opposite sex, to hide the true facts. Men should not try to deceitfully dress like women to hide the fact that they are men, nor should women try to dress in men’s clothes to hide the fact that they are women. Being more specific, the Bible seems to be striking a blow against the sin of sodomy. It was a disgrace for a woman’s hair to be shorn like a man’s, and it was a dishonor for a man’s hair to be allowed to grow long like a woman’s. (1 Cor. 11:6, 14) The woman was not to appear masculine by having short hair like a man’s or by wearing clothes like a man’s. It might suggest to others that she was available for unnatural sex uses. Likewise the man. If he wore long hair like a woman’s or garbed himself in women’s clothes he would certainly appear effeminate and open to propositions from men for unnatural sex use. So it is this deeper meaning with sodomy in view, and not a mere switching of clothes in itself, that brings this practice under prohibition and makes it deserve the severe judgment: "Whoever doeth so is an abomination to Jehovah thy God.
1972
*** w72 11/1 p. 672 Questions From Readers ***The fact that Christians are not under the Mosaic law but are guided by its principles calls for them to use discernment, good judgment and to exercise their conscience. A Christian woman appreciates that whether it would be proper for her to wear slacks or pants depends upon factors other than her personal likes. She would not want to be the cause for stumbling others or bring reproach on the Christian congregation. Clothing that may not be looked on with disfavor if worn in the privacy of one’s home or at work may be objectionable if worn at Christian meetings and when publicly proclaiming God’s Word or carrying on other public activity. Attitudes, too, may differ from area to area
1984
*** w84 7/15 pp. 24-25 Deuteronomy Exhorts Us to Serve Jehovah With Heartfelt Joy ***22:5—In view of this prohibition, is it proper for a woman to wear slacks?
male and a woman like a female. For an Israelite to act contrary to this internal sense of propriety could have led to homosexuality. Although both men and women then wore robelike garments, there was a difference between the garb of males and that of females. Similarly, in some parts of the earth today, both men and women wear slacks, though the styles differ for each sex. The principle in this text would not rule out a Christian woman’s wearing slacks sometimes, as when working around the house or on a farm.
