Posts by Onager

5 she used to sit under the palm tree of deborah between ramah and bethel in the hill country of ephraim; and the sons of israel came up to her for judgment.

Onager

So, let me get this right, there's a glimmer of gender equality in a story in the bible (which is a wildly misogynist book overall) and the WTS poo's all over it?

It constantly amazes me that women seem to be particularly drawn to this religion, it's almost like they like the abuse!

45

The Art of Hypocrisy - How Jehovah's Witnesses worship a symbol

by BluePill2 in

jw
friends

it has been a while since i've seen a witness, either in person or virtually.

searching for someone on facebook took me to the profile of a ministerial servant that i know.

i scrolled through his wall to see who is still around and found this gem:.

Onager

How is this acceptable to the general JW populace?!

55

October 2nd, 2014: The World Ends Tomorrow, Taking all Bets!

by Oubliette in

on october 2, 1914, charles taze russell, founder of the watchtower, announced that the gentile times have ended!.

tomorrow will be exactly 100 years since his historic announcment.. to commemorate this centennial occasion, i will gladly take bets in any amount of money that the world will not end tomorrow and that on friday, october 3rd, 2014 gmt, we will still all be here, for better or worse.. any die-hard jws interested in taking the other side of this friendly little wager?

still hoping the big "a" is coming tomorrow and your loving god, jehovah, is going to commit mass genocide and execute 99.9% of earth's population because they don't follow the dictates the 7 members of the "faithful and discreet slave," aka, the governing body of jehovah's witnesses?.

Onager

Well, the blood was coming up to the window of my car this morning, which is about the height of a bridle on a horse.

At least I think it was blood. Might have been autumn leaves...

38

If a parrot spoke to Eve instead of a serpent??

by jam in

jw
friends

would that change your view on the account???

that's.

plausible.. .

Onager

If the parrot was part of the episode would that mean that parrots would lose their wings? Didn't the snake lose his/her legs in this transaction that changed human history?

In New Zealand there is a parrot which has lost the ability to fly, called the Kakapo. Maybe that's the parrot that got us in this mess!

38

If a parrot spoke to Eve instead of a serpent??

by jam in

jw
friends

would that change your view on the account???

that's.

plausible.. .

Onager

African or European parrot?

49

It's a one-word question.

by new hope and happiness in

jw
friends

" dinosaurs" .

i mean why didn't the bible cover it?.

.

Onager

The way I heard it, if I can remember right, is that The creation days are figurative so the earth is billions of years old and the dinosaurs were part of Gods plan for preparing the earth for human habitation. Kind of living JCB's and diggers working away all those years ago...

109

Topics Ive Been Pondering On

by JWINQUESTION in

this is my first post on here so bear with me.

currently i am still an active jw with serious questions about the jw org.

i was hesitant signing up but really need as much input from the people on this forum to get a clear understanding on things.

Onager

I think that the words have a violent nature to them. They're not always spoken forcefully in anger, but they are designed for it and carry that feeling with them. You won't hear any five-syllable swears -- these words are short and to the point, meant to be spat out. I tend to flinch when I hear swear words, so I can understand how JWIQ feels.

I agree they are short, sharp words that intensify a sentence. I disagree that this is what they were designed for or that they have a violent nature (although I'm not sure how a word can have a violent nature...). Originally these words were normal words that were a normal part of our language. The classic example is the many roads in the UK which are named GropeC* lane (or were, they have almost all been changed now). This word was on our roadsigns! I completely understand the flinching though, I appreciate that things are different today. The question I'm asking is why these words. There thousands of short sharp words that can be viciously spat. Why do we pick on these? (my theoretical answer: because of the Normans!).

This is a bit ironic since I do swear in private, but the difference is that I am expressing my anger while others are not around. Having someone else say them to me is a bit like being swatted in the face because of the power of the words. I think it's better for relations with other people if we moderate our expressions when talking to them instead of going full-bore, and most people do indeed moderate their emotion when interacting with others, including toning down their speech.

This may just be a bloke thing, but I've noticed that the closer knit the group is, the more they hurl abuse at each other. :) It's not to upset the other person, the swearing actually intenstifies the group bond. It says "look, I can say these taboo words to you and it's ok!". It's also pretty much the only way straight men have of saying "I love you man."

At the very least, even when the swear words are not making me flinch, they at least tell me I am dealing with someone of a lower social standing. Strangers simply don't use words like that with each other where I come from. Among friends, of course, we speak in a way that we know they're comfortable with, and some groups of friends think that swearing is no big deal.

... and we're back to the Normans again! Sitting in their castles and despising the lowly Anglo Saxon peasants working in the fields. Here's another example of how our language is keeping the tyrannical boot on the common mans neck. when it's on a plate (in the castle) it's called Beef which is a French word (Norman). When it's alive in a muddy field it's called Cattle which is an Anglo Saxon word. It's the same for Pork (Swine) and Mutton(Sheep). Our whole language is one of social tyranny! (it's not really, I've gone too far).

Anyway, arguing over the denotations of the words is not useful because we these words have been given a taboo nature. We can't be expected to throw away centuries of cultural conditioning and use them like any other words. It's a faulty argument which pretends that words don't have connotations, and it's a line of thinking that no one follows when actually choosing their words carefully during a conversation so as to avoid giving offense.

Why can't we throw away centuries of cultural conditioning? That's what the Suffragettes did! Instead of burning our bra's let us burn our dictionaries!!

(I've definitely gone too far now!!)

109

Topics Ive Been Pondering On

by JWINQUESTION in

this is my first post on here so bear with me.

currently i am still an active jw with serious questions about the jw org.

i was hesitant signing up but really need as much input from the people on this forum to get a clear understanding on things.

Onager

This is my first post on here so bear with me. Currently I am still an active JW with serious questions about the JW org. I was hesitant signing up but really need as much input from the people on this forum to get a clear understanding on things. I would appreciate the replies to this topic be made without cursing or sarcastic comments.

<snip>

It is just when I see many (not all) posters and ex JW’s curse, I wonder is this how I am going to end up like after I leave.

Ok JWIQ, I have something else I'd like to address, to get away from the whole gay topic.

You seem to be very concerned about cursing. You don't want people responding to your post to curse and your worry that you'll start cursing if you leave the JWs. Have you considered why you feel so strongly about cursing?

I'm assuming that when you say cursing you don't mean the old style "May your houses burn and your cattle die horribly" curse, but rather swearing; Using "bad" words.

Have you considered why bad words are bad? I don't mean because of the way they show laziness of thought, a carelessness in speaking, but why those specific words are bad.

If you take the big 3. To protect your eyes I'll call them F, C and S. One describes a perfectly normal activity, one describes a perfectly normal body part and one is a byproduct of eating. Why is that bad? In fact there are plenty of words which describe exactly the same things: Intercourse, Vjajay, Poo, which are perfectly fine. Why?

I have a theory... :)

You see all of the "bad" words are Anglo-Saxon in origin. in 1066 the Normans invaded England and stamped their tyrannical boots over everything, including the language. Anglo-Saxon became synonymous with low-born, common peasant behaviour.

My theory is that this modern day attitude towards these words is related directly to that tyrannical invasion almost 1,000 years ago and, furthermore, any true son of England should use these words with pride! :)

What do you think?