you all spend all your time bickering about religion and doctrine and god and evolution and atheists, not to mention all the discussion about athiests too.
you are totally ignoring an important subject.
we haven't had one fucking decent discussion of dr. who in at least a year!!!.
konceptual99
Off to the 50th anniversary event at Excel on Saturday.
Hey so am I! HAve booked the seats for two panels too.
Weird how so may JW's and Ex-JW's are Who fans. I wonder why?! From a JWs perspetive it's very atheistic and occasionally 'demonistic' "The Daemons", "Image of the Fedahl", "Stones of Blood", "The Impossible Planet" come to mind. Not that I'm complaining.
for you ex-jehovahs witnesses...and even you current ones...have you ever contemplated your future existence in paradise earth, should you be fortunate enough to end up there?
during those raucous, fun moments at the kingdom hall when you were contemplating eternity and having the times of your lives...did you ever speculate about what life would be like?
for example, would you have to walk everywhere or would you be able to fly around like superman?
Which religion is worse? LDS or JW's?
There's only one way to find out...
FIGHT!
(The above is only funny if you're from the UK and know Harry Hill)
cruising down to the city this afternoon we were behind a group of j-dubs on the train.
part of the conversation centered around the "generation" teaching.
all of them clearly trying to wrap their heads around it.
How do they expect to mention such a concept without raising more questions than answers? In what way has this invivible reign been great, and for who? Does Jesus still have another 1000 years to reign, or is there only going to be a 900 year paradise under Jesus?
Really good point Paul. It doesn't work either way. The Bible talks of a 1,000 years only so...if the Big A were to come in 2014 (for arguments sake) that means either:
a) Christ rules for for 1,100 years (100 years in heaven and a 1000 years over earth) or
b) Christ rules for 1000 years (100 years in heaven and 900 years over the earth)
All in all a bit messed up.
14. In a similar way, at the beginning of the 20th century, there were a number of wrong expectations among true Christians regarding “the last days.”
But SPFW - when did the apostles, or anyone in the Bible(!), preach 'wrong expectations' as fact. And enforce those 'wrong expectations' with the threat of disfellowshipping?
Hmm?
in my plan to exit the jw i thought it would be good if i adhere to another faith group, not cultish as the jw but non trinitarian.. this is decided for the sake of my children (two sons)'s spritual safety.
i researched the internet and in the non trinitarian groups i found these christadelphian.
any idea about this group?.
They are certainly very similar:
http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/similar-religions/christadelphians.php
You sure you're not just wasting their time though? Have you really researched the Bible objectively?
since leaving the jw religion,what can you say that you have learned about life/people in a positive way that you probably would have never experienced.
if you had remained a witness ?.
my story is regarding this :.
Like others on this thread it was (and still is) to stop looking down on others (worldly) people.
That appalling smug superiority that JW's possess is sometimes still there in me. That I'm better as I know something they don't. So I pull myself out of that and start to do nice things for other people like offer my seat on public transport and it's very humbling. Things that for some reason I rarely did as a JW.
JW's really are self made social outcasts due thie attitude they posses and I'm currently fighting.
i would like to meet so many people!
actually hang out with them and see if we get along after meeting in person!.
here's my list:.
Besty said:
we met up with wizzstick and his lovely wife and family a few weeks back - its always nice to meet new people
We did indeed, and it was fab! Lovely time and great company.
Aside from Besty and Sweet Pea I've met a few Ex-JW's once before at the UK premier of Truth Be Told. Great to chat and swap stories of life inside.
Looking forward to meeting more soon.
in the field service, during my preaching to a householder, she interrupted me and said: i would ask something, after getting answer you can continue!
i said ok. she said: i was not believing in the existence of a god until recently.
last month, in the middle of the night, i got an emergency call from my hospital to attend to a complicated caesarean case.
Well the real answer was provided by the gang.
I asked them why they remained around my car, as though guarding me and my vehicle. They said they are actually criminals. But they knew that the place is very dangerous for a woman to be alone in a car. Hence they thought of guarding me. When they saw the hospital vehicle arriving, they left.
They were human beings looking after another human being. A simple act of kindness. Nothing divine happened. Which explained why others have been attacked in a similar situation. They did not find themsleves with humans who looked after other humans.
Strange she should read so much into it. But then people 'want' to believe.
i got this from this link.
http://users.adam.com.au/bstett/jwblooddoctrineorigin10.htm here is the information.
after reading it all, it really made how the doctrine developed look very ridiculous.
Thanks - marking for future ref.
so the new jan wt article on "100 years of kingdom rulehow does it affect you?
" is up, which i think has its own thread.
but over on jwr poster cg4205 has noticed something that demands a seperate thread i think.. at the top of the article, in the can you answer box, it says:.
Thanks all, and thanks for the quote AnnOMaly. 2+2=5 - that is very funny.
Still seems an odd way of expressing it as the text only mentions Jesus.
so the new jan wt article on "100 years of kingdom rulehow does it affect you?
" is up, which i think has its own thread.
but over on jwr poster cg4205 has noticed something that demands a seperate thread i think.. at the top of the article, in the can you answer box, it says:.
I seem to remember that too - but that point is not discussed in the article. It's Jesus that is referred to as king.
So a (really) embarressing typo I guess.
