V

Joined

• started 120 topics
• posted 710 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by V

• 
  33

  Ex-JW on YouTube

  by seattleniceguy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  some guy started a video gallery on youtube to talk about his experiences coming out of the jws.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqfll5q6c3c.

  sng.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  V

  Thank you SNG for this!

  I was very touched watching your vid--seeing another JWD personality "come to life" on video.
• 
  22

  What are your favorite bible bloopers ?

  by 5go in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  my favorite is the scripture matthew 27:9 jesus remembers the scripture correct but misatributes it to jeremiah.. it's at zechariah 11:12. all bibles have this mistake in it.

  it's funny the nwt crossnotes it to zechariah and leaves the text alone so much for a better translation.

  what yours favorite blooper ?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  V

  The official JW explanation of Matthew 27:9:

  ---

  Watchtower 1955 9/15 p. 575 Questions From Readers

  Questions From Readers

  - Why does Matthew 27:9 attribute the words about the thirty silver pieces for Jesus’ betrayal to the prophet Jeremiah, when, actually, Zechariah recorded the words, at chapter 11 verse 12 of his prophecy?—N. F., United States.

  The name Jeremiah is omitted in some later manuscripts. Some say it was a copyist’s error. Others say it was just a slip on Matthew’s part, saying Jeremiah when he meant Zechariah. None of these explanations seem adequate. We may view as correct the New World Translation’s rendering of Matthew 27:9, 10: “Then what was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled, saying: ‘And they took the thirty silver pieces, the price upon the man that was priced, the one on whom some of the sons of Israel set a price, and they gave them for the potter’s field, according to what Jehovah had commanded me.’”

  A more probable explanation is this. The order of the prophetic books, as received by the Jews in Matthew’s time, was Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah and the twelve minor prophets. It is so found in the Babylonian Talmud, also at present in the manuscripts of the French and German Jews. The Jewish Encyclopedia, under “Bible Canon,” shows that at one time Jeremiah preceded Ezekiel and Isaiah in the listing of the prophets and that it was later that Isaiah went ahead of Jeremiah. So in Matthew’s time Jeremiah stood first in the listing of the prophets, and since it was the practice of those times to call an entire division of the Bible by the name of the first book in that division, Matthew could say Jeremiah and mean the division that it headed, and which division included the book of Zechariah.

  Jesus showed that this was the practice, to call an entire division by the first book in that division, when he said, at Luke 24:44 (NW): “All the things written in the law of Moses and in the Prophets and Psalms about me must be fulfilled.” When he said Psalms he did not mean just that one book, but all the writings or Hagiographa, of which collection or division Psalms was the first book. And when Jesus said the Prophets he meant that entire division, but sometimes they used the name of the first book in that division to mean the whole section, and then the section would be called just Jeremiah. So in this sense Matthew could refer to Jeremiah and yet mean Zechariah’s words, since Zechariah’s prophecy was in the division that opened with the book of Jeremiah.
• 
  5

  Favorite Dog Names in NYC --- Here?

  by compound complex in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  dear k-9 friends,.

  neither wishing to cur-tail your freedoms nor hound you into participating, akita understanding this thread is that early this morn it was announced on npr that the following are the five most favorite pooch names in nyc [think that's the place - the announcer did say the big apple].

  choosing your favorite, yes, peking ese allowed.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  V

  Phydeaux - for the aristocratic canine.
• 
  14

  Meet Miss Alabama! (To the sound of Dueling Banjos)

  by Sparkplug in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  my poor princess lost her tooth the other day.sadly it has adjusted her look.

  i was shocked when i saw my beautiful lil princess change so drastically as she tried to do her own hair and makeup along with a lost tooth.

  it is so damn cute tho'!!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  V

  my maternal grandfather was an Alabama native and also a dentist/dental surgeon.

  Did she specialise in pediatric dentistry? (just a joke...)
• 
  6

  animated CT Russell message....

  by kid-A in

  1. social
  2. humour

  .

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  V

  "He still hungers for your brain"

  LOL
• 
  22

  AWAKE! Urges Questions on United Nations

  by compound complex in

  1. social
  2. current

  dear friends,.

  i am hearing regularly now, from local jws and jwd, that the governing body says the end is -- this time for sure -- near or soon or at hand.

  though the following awake!

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  V

  Awake! 1991 9/8 pp. 8-10 The United Nations—A Better Way?

  The United Nations—A Better Way?

  THE preamble to the United Nations Charter expresses these noble aims: “We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, . . . and [desiring] to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, . . . have resolved to combine our efforts to accomplish these aims.”

  Did the UN “accomplish these aims”? Did it get the nations to unite their strength and maintain peace and security? No, not so far, although the UN has sincerely tried to be a significantly better way than the League of Nations. However, the generation that saw its establishment in 1945 has since been scourged by wars, revolutions, invasions, coups, and aggression in many parts of the earth. And this violence involved many of the nations that had resolved to “maintain international peace and security.”

  Not the Better Way Yet

  Critics who decry the failure of the United Nations to prevent these woes, though, may be forgetting an important fact—the strength of an organization depends on the power its charter gives it and on the commitment of its constituents to carry out their obligations under said charter. First of all, the United Nations Charter does not set up the UN as a world government with supreme power over all its member nations.

  Article 2(7) decrees: “Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state.” UNCIO (United Nations Conference on International Organization), which met in San Francisco from April 25 to June 26, 1945, to finalize the charter, deemed it necessary “to make sure that the United Nations under prevalent world conditions should not go beyond acceptable limits or exceed due limitations.”

  Did you notice that qualifying phrase, “under prevalent world conditions”? If these were to change, UNCIO claimed that this ruling could be developed “as the state of the world, the public opinion of the world, and the factual interdependence of the world makes it necessary and appropriate.”

  The chartered purpose of the United Nations to maintain “international peace and security” expresses a desirable goal for mankind. The world would indeed be far more secure if the nations obeyed Article 2(4) of the UN Charter: “All Members shall refrain . . . from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” But self-interest of member nations has repeatedly hamstrung the efforts of the UN toward achieving its purpose. Rather than living up to their UN commitment to “settle their international disputes by peaceful means,” nations or whole blocs of nations have often resorted to war, claiming that the ‘matter was essentially within their domestic jurisdiction.’—Article 2(3,7).

  Not only have nations ignored UN peace procedures but they have flouted and openly defied its rulings for settling conflicts. And their statesmen have frequently mounted the UN rostrum and delivered long speeches trying to justify their acts of aggression. This skirting of rules that were enacted to maintain peace has all too often paralyzed the UN at critical times and has severely damaged its credibility. UN officials who sit through such sessions are often frustrated. In the end, such talk usually proves to be mere sophistry that attempts to minimize or justify the violence and bloodshed taking place. No wonder UN Secretary-General Javier Pérez de Cuéllar said that the UN “was regarded in some circles as a tower of Babel and at best a venue for often fruitless diplomatic parleys.”

  There is another reason why the UN has had difficulty proving itself to be that better way. When it began functioning on October 24, 1945, “no coherent strategy of peace was put in place,” observed Pérez de Cuéllar. Without this, how could the United Nations become the viable force for securing world peace that it was intended to be?

  What Kind of Peace Could It Achieve?

  Pérez de Cuéllar answers: “Peace will not bring the cessation of all conflict. It will only make conflicts manageable through means other than force or intimidation. . . . The United Nations seeks to train our vision towards that end.” So the only peace that the UN can achieve is control of violence.

  Is this really peace with security? True, “membership in the United Nations is open to all . . . peace-loving states.” (Article 4(1)) But will a nation that is peace-loving when it joins the UN stay that way? Governments change, and new rulers bring in new policies. What if a member turns radical, with extreme nationalistic aims and covetous territorial ambitions? And what if it begins arming itself with nuclear and chemical weapons? The United Nations would now have a ticking time bomb on its hands. Yet, as recent events in the Middle East show, such a turn of events may be the very thing to move the nations to empower the UN to remove this threat to their security.

  Can the Nations Make It a Better Way?

  As never before, the nations are becoming increasingly aware of what UNCIO called “the factual interdependence of the world.” No state can live unto itself anymore. The nations are all members of one international community. All are contending with a series of common problems: the devastating effects of ecological pollution, poverty, debilitating diseases, illicit drug trade on every continent, terrorism, sophisticated nuclear weapons in the arsenals of a growing list of nations. These factors are forcing the nations either to seek peace and security through the auspices of the United Nations or to commit global suicide.

  Former Soviet foreign minister Shevardnadze observed: “The United Nations can function effectively if it has a mandate from its members, if states agree on a voluntary and temporary basis to delegate to it a portion of their sovereign rights and to entrust it with performing certain tasks in the interests of the majority.” He added: “Only in this way can we make the period of peace lasting and irreversible.”

  If this could be done, then the UN’s voice of jurisdiction could authoritatively denounce any nation threatening the peace of the world. With real power at its disposal, it could suppress such aggressors forcefully and swiftly. But will UN member nations ever give it this mandate, ‘making available their armed forces, assistance and facilities’ to secure peace? (Article 43(1)) They might—if a crisis threatened to undermine the very foundation upon which their respective national sovereignties rest. If the nations see that ‘uniting their strength to maintain international peace and security’ under UN auspices could remove such threats, this might increase their respect for it.

  Perhaps you are wondering, ‘Was the UN’s role in the Persian Gulf crisis a start in this direction?’ It could be. Many nations were confronted with the possible calamitous collapse of their economies. And if their interwoven economies crashed, so would the entire world’s. So the nations rallied together under the United Nations. The Security Council passed a series of UN resolutions to end the crisis peacefully, and when this failed, it backed a UN resolution on the use of force in the Gulf.

  U.S. Secretary of State James Baker, in calling for this resolution, said: “History has now given us another chance. With the cold war behind us, we now have the chance to build a world which was envisioned by the founders of . . . the United Nations. We have the chance to make this Security Council and this United Nations true instruments for peace and for justice across the globe. . . . We must fulfill our common vision of a peaceful and just post-cold-war world.” And he observed concerning their debate about the use of force in the Gulf: “[It] will, I think, rank as one of the most important in the history of the United Nations. It will surely do much to determine the future of this body.”

  Jehovah’s Witnesses firmly believe that the United Nations is going to play a major role in world events in the very near future. No doubt these developments will be very exciting. And the results will have a far-reaching impact on your life. We urge you to ask Jehovah’s Witnesses in your neighborhood for more details on this matter. The Bible clearly paints a picture showing that the United Nations will very shortly be given power and authority. The UN will then do some very astonishing things that may well amaze you. And you will be thrilled to learn that there is yet a better way near at hand that will surely bring eternal peace and security!
• 
  73

  Why do apostates lie about where they get their information?

  by slimboyfat in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  it does no good.

  i don't understant it - who do they think they're foolin'?.

  i have just been listening to the judicual committee that disfellowshipped rick and laverne townsend and it is cringeworthy, to say the least, to listen to them cover-up, distort and outright lie about the sources of their information and the real background to their dissent.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  V

  Of course I get all sorts of information from the internet, COC, and other "apostate" sources.

  But I do not believe what they reference from the WTS publications and statements until I see that WTS reference myself.

  Until then it is just a rumour.

  I have no moral issue presenting the WT publications as the source of 'where I get my information'. For that matter the WT quotes are the source of the apostate references anyway.

  Undermining factual information is a dirty trick of lawyers and cults. When they fight fair, so will I.
• 
  18

  JWs view of Lord of the Rings VS Harry Potter

  by serotonin_wraith in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i'm sure this will vary between jw to jw, but their choices are:.

  1) they won't watch/read either.. 2) they will only allow lotr, not hp.. 3) they will only allow hp, not lotr.. 4) they will allow both.. in my experience, 3 never happens and 2 happens the most.

  with the similar theme of magic, the occult, fantasy and monsters, i wonder what lets them think one is okay and the other is not.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  V

  The loaded language for this sort of thing is the Society's phrase, "it smacks of spiritism".

  Frankly, both LOTR and HP bitch-slap spiritism.

  But so does Star Wars and Disney.
• 
  27

  Raising kids in JW religion and the fall out in later years - Suggestions?

  by juni in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  raised 4 kids in jw religion.

  none are baptized and all are now adults.

  they all have their own issues to this day from the crap that they were raised in.. anyone else share this similar history?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  V

  juni, I really wish the best for you two and hope that you have the patience to deal with us 'males'.

  I constantly have to remind myself not to be "righteously vindicated". If my wife does something that hurts me, I quickly take the "high ground" and retreat to its unassailable position.

  It just occured to me that this might be what your husband does also, but I really have no idea--just talking from my experience.

  One thing that always destroys my house of pride, when my wife approaches me, ready to hear me rant and whine. Two things happen:

  1) I am drawn to my wife because she has made an effort to understand me and

  2) My own rants sound ridiculous as soon as they leave my lips, because of how inflated they become in the vacuum of my pride. Out in open air they are about as turgid as a popped balloon.

  In the heat of the moment it is not I, but my wife that causes this healing. She sacrifices her pride and ignors her pain to find mine. Bless her.
• 
  33

  Could satan be the good guy?

  by LtCmd.Lore in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  well i'm an atheist, so now i can feel free to think whatever i want without getting struck by lightning.

  but i've been playing with this idea for quite a while:.

  is satan just looking out for the poor little humans?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  V

  Ricky Gervais comments on Adam, Eve and Satan (first minute general comedy):

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beobgrKiDbM&mode=related&search=

  I showed this to my JW wife, she was on the floor LHAO.