Is the term "worldly" outdated?
Everything this organisation does is 'worldly' they do not operate from the planet ..zog..wait!on second thoughts they are definitely zogly !!!!lol
Hey what about "worldling"? Don't take that away from us!
Sorry, slimboyfat, I'm afraid they took "worldling" away from us years ago! How about "earthling" instead? Or "soon-to-be-birdfoodling"?
I just did a search on that disgusting JW dot Org website under 'worldly'. the first piece of dog's mess propaganda that came up was this: God's Love p 144/145
3 Sadly, after the death of the apostles, who acted as a restraint against apostasy, so-called Christians who had no love of truth began to adopt pagan customs, celebrations, and “holy” days, which they dubbed Christian. (2 Thessalonians 2:7, 10) As you consider some of these celebrations, note how they reflect, not the spirit of God, but that of the world. Generally speaking, worldly celebrations have a common theme: They appeal to fleshly desires, and they promote false religious beliefs and spiritism—the hallmarks of “Babylon the Great.”*(Revelation 18:2-4, 23)
Does this mean I have to change my name??? 'Miss Unbeliver' doesn't have the same ring to it!
If you have access to the WT-CD even the 2012, you will notice that "wordly" is applied to organizations, etc, objects, ideas., not people.
Occasionally an older quote from a jw will use the term.
''Worldly'' is a derogatory word to describe people. Maybe that's why the Borg is using such terminology to describe ''things'' and not people.
So when did the change occur? Surely it was used for people in the publications back when I was in.
One observation. It only occurs in the NWT (old and new editions) at Titus 2:12 where it refers to "worldly desires." Could this lie behind the change to apply it only to non-persons?
There does not seem to be a handy replacement. "Oh, he's so non-JW" or "My, she's terribly unbelieverly" just doesn't cut it. Perhaps it's one of those tings they will limit in print but go on tolerating among the R&F because there is no convenient alternative.
Probably changing it because it's used as an insult in JWism. JWs hate "the world" while God loved "the world" enough to let his son be sacrificed for it.
And who are JWs to call anyone who believes in Christ an unbeliever? No clue whatsoever of the point of the entire Bible or what the Apostles were charged with preaching.
On a related note, what about when JWs use the word "fleshly" to describe relatives, usually brothers and/or sisters to denote they are biological siblings, not spiritual brothers and sisters.
The word "fleshly" is usually reserved for unbelieving siblings? It is even more off-putting than "worldly", in my view.
I heard a Witness use the word "fleshly" just a few weeks ago to describe her biological sisters. I wondered at the time why she didn't just call them her biological sisters - then it became clear: She was disparaging them.
"Fleshly"- still another ugly word in the loaded JW cannon.
Virtually every label in the WT lexicon was crafted to foster the "us vs them" worldview.
EDIT: I think they used the word "fleshly" so often because they were all closet BDSMers.