edited to remove my book of bs quote.
here are the ten plagues:.
1: water turned to blood.
It is the legend ITSELF that misrepresents actuality. That's what urban legends do - they take on a life of their own, shedding some details and adding some new ones, over time. To what degree bible writers added their own twist is another issue.
Mile 0
the phrases still roll off my tongue, "a god of tender mercies", a god in whom there is no injustice", a god who "protects the little one.".
in spite of those worn out platitides, if i walked in to a court room and saw the name "jehovah god" in metallic letters on the door, i would ask my attorney to make a motion to have the judge recused.
i would prefer to take my judicial chances with any ticket-fixing, bribe-taking, alcoholic, mafia-controlled human judge than face the uneven, irrational and obscene judicial decisions made by god jehovah.. i cite the case of king david of israel.
Well the Bible itself has some shining examples of Jah's sense of justice. Numbers ch 31 is one of my favorites. It's got a bit of everything...mass murder including babies, plundering, and assuming from the account, the rape of many VERY young women. All per Jah's instructions.
Yeah, I'd take my chances with a red-neck judge any day,
Mile 0
All other denominations constitute Christendom.
The rest of the world is preoccupied with preventing JWs from spreading the "Good News".
JWs suffer more persecution because of their beliefs than any other denomination.
JWs are the only ones who can back up all of their beliefs with scripture.
Just some for starters,
Mile 0
edited to remove my book of bs quote.
here are the ten plagues:.
1: water turned to blood.
Ancient versions of what we today call "urban legends". Stories that contain one little speck of truth, but become re-invented over time and become these great legends that totally mis-represent what actually happened. And of course, the stories will become further embellished to satisfy the religious beliefs of the one writing them.
Mile 0
is it the law in england for elders to report child sex abuse to the police ?
i think teachers and others in a position of trust have to .
if not i dont understand why the elders themselves dont think it is wrong, if a brother confesed to the elders that he had murdered someone would they report that to the police ?
The WT is missing a golden opportunity to correct this and have an outcome that is mutually beneficial. I don't know why someone in legal doesn't say something. Maybe they are but the old farts aren't listening...
The Society should, through both their public relations dept. and to all the congs, issue a new policy. From NOW ON, when this happens, the first call is made to the authorities. Period. If an elder is the first one to become aware of something going on his first call is to the cops. This is a criminal matter now. This takes it completely out of the hands of EVERYONE except the professionals trained to do this properly. Best chance of weeding out false claims. If the public were to view the witnesses as one whose organization itself is the power behind the pro-active effort to expose abusers, the org could score serious points in this regard. At the same time, the Society could insulate itself from any legal or civil issues.
The Society got in this mess by trying to keep this a congregational matter and treated as a sin first, thereby often resulting in the obstruction of justice, IMO. This has resulted in some very bad publicity for them. And of course, it is still the Society's policy that elders don't have to report in jurisdictions where it isn't required by law.
Mile 0
...that term anymore, so are not disfellowshipped any more, but just no longer a witness, what is that?
i wonder what word it will become to describe these ones and the action taken?
we don't have one yet, but most dubs i know are still saying "he's disfellowshiped" oooo scary.
Let me qualify this by saying I'm refering mainly to the traditional mainstream JWs. I ackowledge there are decent JWs that participate on these boards who are questioning some of the Society's policies and practices and say as much on these forums.
It doesn't matter what they call it, due to the indoctrination, in a typical cong everybody guages how "theocratic" they are against everyone else. And everyone knows they are being rated by everyone else too. So although the WT will come up with a new handle and maybe even appear to "lighten" up a little re the treatment of dfed family members, and even if the Society advises congs to treat kinder those trying to be reinstated, the natural tendancy of the r&f is to notice how perhaps some particular family doesn't seem to be as "strong in the truth" as others because the dfed member of that family isn't coming back and yet is treated to a normal family relationship anyway. Well, that isn't very theocratic. The theocratic way is to be civil, but to be treated as part of the world. And if it's certainly obvious they AREN'T coming back don't bother forming too close of a relationship because the END is just around the corner and they're not gonna make it anyway. When the family takes a "tough love" approach they are deemed more theocratic. "That poor family! They certainly are making quite a sacrifice for the sake of their theocratic principles, sure must be tough on them. What a fine example they are in following their bible-trained conscience...blah, blah...."
In general, JWs are obsessed with how they are viewed by others in the cong. What JW hasn't heard this many times while, especially while growing up, the "how would this make us look to our brothers and sisters" routine, and this attitude sticks with them and certainly affects how dfeds are treated.
Mile 0
it seems to me that the borg has no right to criticize apparent wrongs in the world because their members are not allowed to take part in politics.for instance how can they call something in the worldly system wrong if they do not vote against it or do something constructive to change the status quo.. it's no use them complaining about something they disagree with and at the same time opt out of the system .in other words, it's nothing to with them so tell them to clear off and mind their own business and leave the worlds wrongs to people who are trying to do something constructive about it.. words in the waktower will not cure anything, positive action gets things done .. for heavens sake how much more ink are they going to waste and how many more trees are they going to destroy before they realise actions speak louder than words?.
.
.
I agree, edmund. I find it very hypocritical that they shun the very process that has given them the rights and freedom they all enjoy.
Mile 0
maybe someday the big stinky diaper known as the united nations will be moved off us soil so that tyrants and warlords like abnerjonadab, hugo chavez etc.
can't strut around smirking at us in our own country.
i know that many here love anything or anybody that pisses off the us.
I'm just sayin'...I'm not naive enough to think that a nuke launch by Israel or a western nation against a Muslim country wouldn't result in other un-friendlies WITH NUKES entering the fray. It appears the connection between Syria and N. Korea involves transfer of nuclear technology from N. Korea to Syria. So, I'm thinking if that's the case, N. Korea is a lot further advanced with their nuke tech. than most people think, which wouldn't surprise me given their extremely closed nature. Scary thought if they got drawn into it.
As I see it, there are NO WINNERS if this happens.
We have to be careful what we wish for.
Mile 0
maybe someday the big stinky diaper known as the united nations will be moved off us soil so that tyrants and warlords like abnerjonadab, hugo chavez etc.
can't strut around smirking at us in our own country.
i know that many here love anything or anybody that pisses off the us.
Hi zeroday,
Israel could launch a nuke at anytime, claiming they feel threatened, which I'm sure they do. But this is not 1945 - other countries have nukes. It wouldn't be a slam-dunk like Japan.
Mile 0
anyone here ever did some research on the "death of god" theological movement in the sixties, connected with names as altizer and van buren?.
summary: the central idea is that god existed once, but literally died for us, emptying himself in the creation of the world, and later completely on the stauros.
as he gave himself without holding anything back, there has been no resurrection as in mainstream theology (radical kenoma).
Excellent, BD.
Mile 0
