Aye, pr_capone. You gets the gold star-r-gh, matey!
Your turn.
Aye, pr_capone. You gets the gold star-r-gh, matey!
Your turn.
This may not work very well, but I'll try it:
D - G N O
U I
O N
R A G
Really needs photoshop to work right, but you may get the idea.
LOL Brenda! That's cute.
my 30-year old daughter committed suicide on 11-13-2004. we had both been jw's who had left the borg.
she had been diagnosed as bipolar.
i did a search from the top of the page to see if this topic has been covered but it did not work.
(((Rico))), you are welcome to share whatever you want, whenever you want. I am so sorry for your loss.
with the latest insider news regarding the awake magazine going to a monthly publication, now would be a good time to examine a brief history of how jehovah has blessed the organization by simplifying it.
1993 paid for literature went to donation-based literature.
mid 1990s no food at assemblies and conventions.
The change in baptismal question c. 1985 was called a simplification, too. It was actually a change to a verbal contract with the Orgnaization? instead of with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost holy spirit.
i can view all their material but it wont let me post.it is a very lame site and is not very active(surprise huh)im shocked that some of the dubs have the rocks to even go online.has anyone else ever been on there?
Cool! The NGO thing fits the requirements perfectly! It is absolutely true, could only be considered defamatory if the site mods believe it to be damaging to the reputation of the WTBTS (and what would that say, hmm?), and is public domain information.
some big fat liar made sumthin up again!
looky here what i went and found in the bible!
remember that little dove that desended down on jesus right after he was baptised by john?
Narkissos: I don't think OldSoul is a "fundamentalist Bible apologist". I just wished to point out a very common logical pitfall: the fact that you can explain away any "Bible contradiction" doesn't mean it is right to do so.
Right you are! On both counts. I was not attempting to explain it away. I was challenging the certainty of the dogma gumby spouted. My point was merely that it is unkind to impose my view on anyone else when I cannot state with absolute certainty that my view is correct. It is fine for me to have a viewpoint and allow it to influence my decisions as much as it will. It becomes an unkindness when that view is emphatically spouted at others as though my view should influence their decisions.
When I start dogmatically preaching my viewpoint to others and asserting my thinking as absolute to those who have not yet arrived at my understanding of things, I have crossed the same threshold that I accuse religionists of crossing. I have become the opposite side of the same coin. I have validated the religionist's claims against me and my viewpoints.
So, my decision is to protect the views of others while they grow. My decision is to create, to the best of my ability, an environment where it is easy for people to discuss their infant-like newly formed personal ideas without fear of attack or censure from dogmatists of any stripe. If that means taking the side of someone with newly forming ideas to advocate for their freedom of ideation, then so be it. Otherwise, I demonstrate fear that they will not come to the same understandings on their own.
Respectfully,
OldSoul
my wife and i have been disassociated for about 2 months now.
every day in our small town we are being shunned by former friends.
one in particular annoyed me today.
u/d: How about, Christ didn't even shun Judas Iscariot!
some big fat liar made sumthin up again!
looky here what i went and found in the bible!
remember that little dove that desended down on jesus right after he was baptised by john?
Schizm is waaaay funner that you are.
Wasn't trying to be funny. Can you state with certainty that John the Baptizer was not imprisoned more than once? You haven't answered that question anywhere in this thread.
i'm asking your opinion today and probably venting my spleen a little as well, i'm afraid.. we all agree, i've noticed that shunning, for the jw reasons is wrong and even downright wicked.. however, my husband will no longer speak to or acknowledge his parents, after years of being a very good, infact, too good a son to them.. i posted a while ago about the ongoing problem with our jw families.
we wanted to take in my husbands very elderly grandfather but his parents would not allow it because we are faded jws.
we found a letter while reading through grandpa's cards in which, my mother-in-law had slandered us terribly and my family.
Gill: But it compounds our exasparation with them now, that money is all that THEY have been after and yet what we are accussed of being after.
(((Gill))), from their standpoint it makes perfect sense. If they, being money grubbing, absent natural affection, and materialistic spiritually atuned and friends of the brothers of Christ, are starry-eyed for that "money" then of course their worldly son who has been stabbed over stabbed himself over with many pangs must be a lover of money to an even greater extent.
I am very sorry for your pain. I don't think your husband will always feel the way he does unless his parents continue to refuse to soften. From your description, it seems out of character for him and once the pain they have caused subsides he would likely forgive them. When we suffer abuse at the hands of others, cutting them off from our life is not always an unhealthy reaction. If he needs to do that to cope, just be as supportive of his emotional needs as you can. Children aren't the only ones who can be abused in terribly damaging ways.