ezekiel 18:20. .
the soul who sins is the one who will die.
the son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son.
Mankind is not inherently morally imperfect--man has to be taught that.
This statement confuses me...
Nature has no objective "morals", and so I suppose it's fair to say that we have to be taught
that we are "broken", but your statement seems to imply that left to their own natural devices
mankind would be MORE "moral" than they are today.
What is this claim based on?
[inkling]
darkest.
episode.
yet.. even visually, there are scenes that are so gloomy, they are very nearly .
or "frak"(correct spelling, I think)
Indeed.
I know, becuase this last episode, "FRAK EARTH" was spray painted
on a Galactica hallway wall.
it may be "frakking" not "fraking", i'm not sure...
I also love the plural "Gods dammit" thing
[inkling]
the witnesses know how to getcha to "do more".
guilt is their main weapon.
if you feel guilty over something no one might ever know about, the watchtower society has seen to it that even whatever you might have thought of or done in secret will be revealed.......were you ever guilty of a secret sin??
yes.
several times a day during my youth.
we`ve all heard it...."jehovah`s witness`s the fastest growing religon on earth!!
".....it must be true..the wbt$ says it`s true!..........................................................................................................................................how many of you remember the endless line-ups just to get into a kingdom hall,any kingdom hall?!
!..people are lined up around the block just to get in!..there are never enough seats..it`s standing room only,in every kindom hall!
"Jehovah`s Witness`s the Fastest Growing Religon on Earth!!".....It must be true..The WBT$ says it`s
Do they? I mean, in print?
[inkling]
ezekiel 18:20. .
the soul who sins is the one who will die.
the son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son.
Why do these texts appear to be contradictory? Because they are taken out of context.
This is code-word for "becuase your cognitive dissonance reduction device is broken"
[inkling]
someone told me yesterday that she had studied with witnesses "up to chapter 3"...whatever that means.. she said that a man and woman came to her house one day after she had been studying and that the woman put on a head covering or veil when they started the study.
she asked the woman why she did that and the woman replied they do that when in presence of a brother.. i think she must have got jws mixed up with some other group...i just never heard of the veil thing before.. is this a jw practice?.
.
if women were to rule as kings in heaven, then why did they have to be submissive to men on earth?
Becuase, as everybody knows, that which has a penis rules that which does not,
but in heaven, everyone get a penis and a white beard.
They pass them out at the door, along with the shiny long golden rods with the
bulbous sceptre tips.
duh.
[inkling]
someone told me yesterday that she had studied with witnesses "up to chapter 3"...whatever that means.. she said that a man and woman came to her house one day after she had been studying and that the woman put on a head covering or veil when they started the study.
she asked the woman why she did that and the woman replied they do that when in presence of a brother.. i think she must have got jws mixed up with some other group...i just never heard of the veil thing before.. is this a jw practice?.
.
I had also forgotten the bald-faced sexism revealed in their reasoning here:
The Law of Moses in various ways reminded Israelite women of the preferred position that men occupied before Jehovah so that they would not lose sight of man’s headship and fall into the error made by Eve.
Thus the identifying physical mark that distinguished Jehovah’s covenant people was one that applied only to the male, namely, circumcision. Then again, the period of a mother’s uncleanness for giving birth to a baby girl was twice as long as for a baby boy. When Jesus miraculously fed the multitudes his apostles counted only the men present: “Those eating comprised about five thousand men, besides women and young children.” “Those eating comprised four thousand men, besides women and young children.”—Ex. 12:48; Lev. 12:2, 5; Matt. 14:21; 15:38.
Likewise in the Christian congregation, by means of the head-covering provision the theocratic position of the woman in relation to the man is stressed. In addition to its rich symbolic significance, it works in the interest of harmony and peace.
This is them saying in a very straight forward manner "Yeah, in Israelite time, women were second
class citizens in every aspect of life. We, as a group of old men, think this is such a wonderful idea
that we are pleased to announce rules for a modern day system that echoes it."
Oh, and the fact that this system "keeps women safe" so that they follow their husbands rule and
don't fall into the trap of that uppity wench Eve who dared to make a decision on her own and effed
everything up.
HOW are JW sisters ok with this???
[inkling]
someone told me yesterday that she had studied with witnesses "up to chapter 3"...whatever that means.. she said that a man and woman came to her house one day after she had been studying and that the woman put on a head covering or veil when they started the study.
she asked the woman why she did that and the woman replied they do that when in presence of a brother.. i think she must have got jws mixed up with some other group...i just never heard of the veil thing before.. is this a jw practice?.
.
This is my favorite part... after two pages of very specific rules they say:
The Society would soon be compiling a set of regulations as voluminous as the Talmud if it endeavored to prescribe specific rules for all the varying cases.
In fallen man under Satan’s influence there is always the tendency to substitute rules for principles.
Ha, ya think?
[inkling]
someone told me yesterday that she had studied with witnesses "up to chapter 3"...whatever that means.. she said that a man and woman came to her house one day after she had been studying and that the woman put on a head covering or veil when they started the study.
she asked the woman why she did that and the woman replied they do that when in presence of a brother.. i think she must have got jws mixed up with some other group...i just never heard of the veil thing before.. is this a jw practice?.
.
Well, "veil" implies a covering of the face, so I wouldn't call it that,
but there are "headcovering" rules that would apply to the situation
you discribed:
Questions From Readers
-- Is it necessary for a sister to cover her head when praying in the presence of a dedicated brother not her husband? Is it necessary for her to do so when conducting a Bible study under such a circumstance, as in the presence of a servant of the congregation who is training her or when the circuit servant accompanies her?—M. S., U.S.A.
There appears to be no reason why a dedicated woman should ever lead in prayer in the presence of adult dedicated males. (1 Cor. 11:3) At the Brooklyn Bethel home no sisters are ever called on to lead the family in prayer. So long as an adult dedicated male is present, in the congregation or in the home, he should represent the rest in petition to Jehovah God. If an undedicated husband wishes his wife to lead in audible prayer, she may do so, but then out of respect for his headship she should have her head covered. (1 Cor. 11:5, 10) When the husband is absent but dedicated male minors, sons, are present, the mother should also have her head covered if she prays. At such times it would be at her discretion either to offer the prayer herself or ask one of her dedicated sons to offer it. But never should an unbaptized son represent dedicated members of the family in prayer. When only dedicated mother and dedicated daughters are present in the home, the mother may call on one of her dedicated daughters to pray if she so desires. In such cases none need cover her head.
There may be instances, however, when it is advisable for a sister to conduct a home Bible study in the presence of a dedicated brother, such as those mentioned in the question; or she may be conducting a home Bible study with a brother newly baptized and who still needs help. What then? In such cases the dedicated brother should offer the prayer, and the sister may conduct the study with her head covered. This she does out of respect for theocratic order because he, as well as she, is a member of the congregation of God, and in the congregation the man should do the teaching. (1 Tim. 2:11, 12) If a dedicated sister is conducting a study with her undedicated husband or with another person but in the presence of her undedicated husband, she should also have her head covered. This would be in recognition of the fact that the husband ought to be the one giving Bible education in the presence of his family as represented by his wife.
The Law of Moses in various ways reminded Israelite women of the preferred position that men occupied before Jehovah so that they would not lose sight of man’s headship and fall into the error made by Eve. Thus the identifying physical mark that distinguished Jehovah’s covenant people was one that applied only to the male, namely, circumcision. Then again, the period of a mother’s uncleanness for giving birth to a baby girl was twice as long as for a baby boy. When Jesus miraculously fed the multitudes his apostles counted only the men present: “Those eating comprised about five thousand men, besides women and young children.” “Those eating comprised four thousand men, besides women and young children.”—Ex. 12:48; Lev. 12:2, 5; Matt. 14:21; 15:38.
Likewise in the Christian congregation, by means of the head-covering provision the theocratic position of the woman in relation to the man is stressed. In addition to its rich symbolic significance, it works in the interest of harmony and peace. It also serves to caution Christian women against exerting undue female influence and alerts Christian men against succumbing to it as did Adam, Samson, King Solomon and those in the congregation of Thyatira.—Rev. 2:20-23.
and...
-- Is it necessary for a woman to cover her head when conducting a home Bible study? When such a covering is or is not required is causing much discussion in our company.—P. W., Ohio.
She would not need her head covered for the conducting of a home Bible study, as it is not a congregational meeting, but one that she has arranged herself. It is not a case of her being appointed to conduct a congregational meeting. However, if her husband were to attend this home meeting, she would cover her head if she prayed at the opening or close of the study. This would harmonize with the instruction: “Every woman that prays or prophesies with her head unveiled shames the one who is her head.”—1 Cor. 11:3-16, NW.
We view a head-covering necessary under two conditions: (1) when a sister receives an appointment through the congregation or theocratic organization to keep order and conduct congregational meetings, and (2) when she is married and must show submission to the one God has made head of the family, the husband. These two principles enable one to decide for herself the requirement of varying situations.
A few examples may aid in grasping these principles. In a company composed entirely of sisters, the Society appoints sisters to positions ordinarily held by brothers. When such sisters serve from the platform at congregational meetings, they will show recognition of the theocratic headship of the man and that they are serving in the man’s place only because circumstances require it. This recognition they show by wearing a head-covering, such as a hat or scarf or other suitable covering. Any sister conducting or presiding over a part of a congregational meeting should do likewise, whether she is a servant in the company or not.
While sisters presiding at the service meeting or Watchtower study or company book study wear head-coverings, other sisters who merely read the paragraphs in sum-up at such meetings, or who participate in demonstrations, or relate experiences, or answer questions from the audience, do not need to wear such a covering.
Sisters leading in prayer at congregational meetings should have their head covered. The woman’s hair is not sufficient as a covering. If it were, the question would never have been raised.
But when a sister finds interest in the field, follows it up and establishes a home Bible study of her own, she does not thereby become a conductor of a congregational meeting. Only if her husband is present must she wear a covering when she prays, for his presence brings into the matter the second principle, that of showing subjection to her family head. Of course, if the husband is in the truth he should do the praying, and if this is done then the sister, his wife, may conduct the meeting without head-covering.
In the case of prayer at mealtime, the man of the house should do the praying. If he will not do this for one reason or another, and calls on his wife, her head should be covered to show recognition of the theocratic principle of man’s headship in the family relationship. If her husband is not present, she may pray with uncovered head, just as she does in her individual prayers privately uttered. If the sister praying at mealtime is unmarried, having no husband as her head, she need wear no head-covering, whether she is in her own home or a friend’s home or a missionary home. Of course, in all instances if a brother is present he should pray.
So the matter resolves itself to this: Is it a congregational meeting where the sister is presiding or praying? If so she should have her head covered. If not a congregational meeting, does a husband-and-wife relationship exist for her to show recognition to his headship, if he is present? If yes, then she should have her head covered. She would not show this sign of subjection to another woman’s husband. Nor would a single sister or widow show this sign of subjection to another woman’s husband. Such unmarried sisters have no male head as does a married woman. The only time the single sister would concern herself about a head-covering is when she comes under congregational conditions calling for it.
This has been answered at some length, since it comes up often in the United States. It is no question in many lands, where women customarily go with heads covered or with veils. In view of all that has been said on this subject, we suggest that each sister henceforth decide for herself when the covering is required, doing what she conscientiously believes right in situations not specifically covered herein, but which can be determined on the basis of the principles herein set forth. If she is in doubt and unsettled in conscience over a particular situation, she should wear the covering to be safe and at ease in mind and in conscience.
Knowing now the principles involved, let us show Christian maturity and apply these for ourselves, conscientiously, and not have to ask others on every imaginable situation. The Society would soon be compiling a set of regulations as voluminous as the Talmud if it endeavored to prescribe specific rules for all the varying cases.In fallen man under Satan’s influence there is always the tendency to substitute rules for principles. It is so much easier to conform the conduct to a rule than to make a principle inform the whole life. Moses prescribed rules; Christ inculcated principles. Rules are for children; principles for men and women mature in Christian growth. So now show maturity in applying the principles herein given regarding head-covering, making your decisions conscientiously, and you will not properly be criticized by others.
darkest.
episode.
yet.. even visually, there are scenes that are so gloomy, they are very nearly .
Last night's show was especially dark. Maybe the next few episodes will be a little more hopeful.
Yeah, the show does offer the occasional bright moment of hope and triumph...
And, because they are contracted with the gritty dismal nature of most of the show, they feel
especially valuable and satisfying.
I think that's the point.
But still, it's hard to watch sometimes.
[inkling]
