Blondies WT studies

by simplesally 9 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • simplesally

    You know, I love reading Blondie's WT studies and her comments. Today, one thought is sticking in my mind: the fact that Noah had 500 years to preach and that Lot had "5 minutes".....he was trying to get his sons-in-law to go with them out of Sodom. I would suppose that the GB would say that the brothers knew Lot to be a God-fearing, Jehovah-worshipping man and that he would certainly not steer them wrong, therefore, they should have heeded his advice without question and that maybe the angels were of such beauty or noticeably were sons of God that the sons should have had no excuse.

    Now, my point is this: HAS ANYBODY HAD ENOUGH GUTS to bring up one of Blondie's points up at the meeting or in conversation with another JW to see what would be said.

    I think it would have been interesting to have commented on the Lot/Noah thing this morning.

  • wannaexit

    I bring up lots of Blondie's points in my comments at the hall. But usually no one pays attention. No one really listens to what anybody says. The meetings are made up of brain dead bodies.


  • Gadget

    I've always thought it would be good at a big apostafest for a large group to go to the meeting the next morning and give a few answers to make the congregation think....... If everyone put their hand up for the same paragraph they'd have to pick one of us, and passing ourselves off as people on holiday would be no problem. The problem would be managing to get everybody out of bed in time after the apostafest the night before.........

  • simplesally

    Has anybody else raised their hand and used one of her comments?

  • blondie

    Simplesally, I have received 2 PMs in the past where people heard others give comments just like mine at the meetings. It made them wonder if they were lurking on JWD and had read my review. If I still went to the meetings, I probably would have given some of these comments. I liked making the conductor sweat a little. I just made sure it was Bible-based or better yet a quote from a previous WTS publication.

    I did do some additional research on Lot's "preaching" and this is nothing in the Bible that said he did this. It is the WTS once again adding to the Bible account.


  • Richie

    Blondie, please tell me what you're referring to - I would love to know what kind of research you did and how the WTS misguided everyone...


    Richie :*)

  • simplesally

    Richie, read the WT that was studied this Sunday or see her comments on Comments you won't hear at this Sunday's meeting.

  • shamus

    I would LOVE to give one of Blondie;s answers at a watchtower study! The only problem is, you would have to listen to the public talk first. It would be the usual drivel, for about 45 minutes. I just can't handle that crap anymore. I couldn't even try it, because the place sickens me.

    Blondie's WT articles I read every week. I just love them!

  • stillajwexelder

    Not yet -- but when I am certain I am going to leave the Borganization for good, then I will do -- it should be fun

  • houdini

    I just read the one for this Sunday's meetings, The first one I have read and thought it very good.

    She has come to some of the conclusions that i'd already come to mtyself, that the WTS are wonderful spin doctors and Masters of twisting things and people to their way of thinking.

    I'd noticed how they take "soundbites" from the bible to make up their own "laws" as it were and always used guilt as a way of manipulating the congregation.

    They are excellently researched, my congratulations on this, they way she has used other bible segment to show the falseness of the WTS. I think that I could slip quite a few comments into the WTS without to much trouble.

    I really like the bit about they way they try to omit Jesus from the scenario altogether and give praise to Jehovah, and uses Act's to show the falseness of this.

    In fact she has inspired me to go and try this Sunday, although I think i'd fall asleep during the preceeding talk.


Share this