last weekend was regional convention and mark sanderson was the bethel speaker for the last talks every day.
his talks were video streamed from zurich to other cities in switzerland, austria and germany.
one interesting point was that he wore an apple watch, stainless steel edition (link).
Sparky - your opinion is not petty and I don't mean to imply such. All I am saying is that it's my opinion that it's a small cog in the big engine of hypocrisy and I suspect that the casual visitor or observer would see it as such. If others disagree then fine, at least we're both moaning about the WTS somewhere along the line.
Just a side point... Jesus supposedly had a seamless under garment. A pretty luxurious item it would seem and not strictly necessary for his ministry.
can a parent slap or use a "rod of discipline" on their kids?
i know it's politically incorrect and perhaps illegal, but is it a personal decision based upon the scriptures or is it taboo these days?.
@LUHE
Just to clarify, it is not illegal for a parent to smack their child in the UK. They can also give permission for a nanny or other carer to do so. There are limits on this and if it is deemed "unreasonable" then could be classed as an offence.
In terms of the WTS they have toned down the language they use in recent years and avoided saying kids can be smacked but they have never gone so far as to clearly say it is unacceptable under any circumstance. The JWFacts article covers this in detail.
Smacking children is still acceptable from what I see going on at halls and conventions. It is not uncommon to see parents take a child out into the foyer and give them a smack to try and stop them fidgeting. Not much calm reasoning going on there.
There was a discussion about this recently on a pro-JW site. The view that smacking was unacceptable was very much the minority.
last weekend was regional convention and mark sanderson was the bethel speaker for the last talks every day.
his talks were video streamed from zurich to other cities in switzerland, austria and germany.
one interesting point was that he wore an apple watch, stainless steel edition (link).
There are plenty of pioneers, elders and so on with smart phones, tablets, fit bits, Apple Watches etc. Sanderson is not unique in being a low income earner (supposedly) and having some more expensive tech. If he bought it then it's his business, he might even have got it at a discount as part of a mobile phone deal. If he was gifted it then more fool the donor. If it was paid for with donations as some kind of perk of his position then that would be more controversial.
I do agree that there are messages such as those raised by DD but I think it's a question of perspective. Far more hypocritical is the paying of $4000 a day to keep embarrassing documents away from the authorities. Far more hypocritical is the sale of billions of dollars worth of real estate whilst asking for ice cream money to build nice new homes in the US, UK, South Africa without doing anything for the real needs of suffering people on the ground.
Sure, another brother might have been counselled about a showy display of one's means of life and certainly, Sanderson might have shown some discretion but, given we don't have any idea how he came into the owning the watch, the danger is that the indignation can be seen as petty point scoring by those who think all apostates do is scrape around for silly points of contention when there are some really serious issues around how the WTS goes about it's commercial operations and charitable works.
last weekend was regional convention and mark sanderson was the bethel speaker for the last talks every day.
his talks were video streamed from zurich to other cities in switzerland, austria and germany.
one interesting point was that he wore an apple watch, stainless steel edition (link).
the so called bunker video isn't just getting attention here but among jws as well.
i've heard a fair share of cracks, some half joking half serious about the prospect of the video playing out in real life .
but something else i've heard is that the video was meant to be figurative, an illustration representing the 'interior rooms' prophecy..
Re the potential that the GB will claim it's figurative the speaker at the RC I attended was at pains to say how it was just a dramatisation and we didn't know how things would pan out.
the so called bunker video isn't just getting attention here but among jws as well.
i've heard a fair share of cracks, some half joking half serious about the prospect of the video playing out in real life .
but something else i've heard is that the video was meant to be figurative, an illustration representing the 'interior rooms' prophecy..
The feedback I hear is them all lapping it up....
"They are really preparing us for something big"...
"They really must think it will be soon"...
"It's so important to be loyal now"...
etc. etc. etc....
so the elders called wanting to meet with me and my husband.
most likely because i told a concerned jw friend of mine that i really care about that i wasn't coming back and a couple of the issues i had.
i didn't bring up any so-called "apostate" information, just told her about the australian royal commission and that there are a lot of unscriptural teachings and that the gb apply scriptures that are about jehovah and jesus to themselves, which is idolatry.
Great advice searcher and freddo. Keep calm, Stick to your guns. Referencing Matt 5:23,24 & Matt 18:15 is excellent advice. You are under no obligation to divulge anything to them but they will try and make you admit to something so the less you say the better.
your qualifications are way above mine so i'd love to hear more about the specifics of what you have researched and how that supports the existence of a deity.
k99, i am not really convinced that you're interested in my conclusions.
in nature amino acids formed to then form dna.
I've just got in from a long day Kate and trying to digest your comments. Maybe I need to sleep on them as right now all I seem to be getting is a message that you now accept that there is empirical evidence to support a purely naturalistic solution to the question of why there is this l/h bias in nature yet still attribute this bias to a supernatural entity. You are also not prepared to offer this l/h bias as evidence for the existence of a supernatural entity.
It seems to me that at some point you read or were otherwise persuaded that the l/h bias was evidence for God and simply cannot give up this desire to think there is a greater consciousness out there. To be fair you're not the first person to do so - the WTS even offered up another chemist on the boredcasting (mis-spelling deliberate) recently saying the same thing. Like others, you can't even maintain an open mind that makes no conclusion. You seem to have to maintain a belief yet you cannot explain, reason or justify this belief. It's so nebulous, so woolly and abstract that you are even prepared to suggest that it's an entity of your own definition.
Please correct me if I've misunderstood your position. If not, then it has to be the most bonkers position I have heard in a long time.
your qualifications are way above mine so i'd love to hear more about the specifics of what you have researched and how that supports the existence of a deity.
k99, i am not really convinced that you're interested in my conclusions.
in nature amino acids formed to then form dna.
I don't really remember you. Have we spoken before?
I don't think we have. I just enjoyed your comment to Perry and how much it brought back all those times you've shown no sufferance for that type of foolish nonsense in the past.
hi simon - the site seems to be stripping out links.. can work around it by pasting the url but it was neater to be able to embed the link in some text.
is it a temp glitch?.
Affected in what way?
