Isambard - just my previous thoughts on the matter. For me it was the most offensive talk of the whole assembly.
https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5086785333886976/_post/4900462136393728
konceptual99
JoinedPosts by konceptual99
-
26
This convention talk offended me
by Isambard Crater inhere are my notes from the r.c yesterday, the talk called "jehovah – the greatest example of endurance".
many of you will understand why i found it offensive.. jehovah has taken the hard option of choosing to endure:.
reproach to his holy name.
-
-
-
26
This convention talk offended me
by Isambard Crater inhere are my notes from the r.c yesterday, the talk called "jehovah – the greatest example of endurance".
many of you will understand why i found it offensive.. jehovah has taken the hard option of choosing to endure:.
reproach to his holy name.
-
-
konceptual99
I hated this talk for all the same reasons above. People (esp women) loved it but I thought Jehovah came across as a whinging egotist, moaning we should be feel sorry for him whilst we all carry on regardless.
I can't believe that in a convention centred on not giving up they had the balls to put Jehovah's ego above human suffering.
-
10
What is Ibid?
by Belladonna75 inhi all, i'm diving deep into historical jw literature research and i keep seeing ibid as a frequently cited source - what is this?
i've tried the old google, but no luck.
does this stand for something (i'm probably missing something incredibly obvious) or have i spent too many hours reading 1930s the golden age magazines and depleted all my electrons already?
-
-
-
11
Reject WT Thinking - November 2017 WT article commented (p. 20)
by Master_Bob ini really liked this kind of articles when back in borg, because they address the issues i was most concerned about.
or at least i thought that they address, because they don't.
i marked all the deceptive techniques and logical manipulations they use as a mental exercise and would like to share with you.
-
-
konceptual99
Great analysis. Thanks for posting.
-
43
New Announcement At The 2017 - DF'd People To Sit At The Back Of The Hall
by pale.emperor inhas anyone else heard this?
a poster on another thread said it's a new rule brought in at this years convention.. last year they were told to shun even non df people and now this?
a religion cant force someone where to plonk their ass surely?.
-
-
konceptual99
Interesting video SBF - I'd forgotten that one. I think anyone with any experience of attending meetings will recognise that over the years DF'ed people sit at the back. I think that regardless of what the WT says about it not being a rule the practice continues for a number of reasons:
1 - practicality. Coming in and leaving during the song means it's easier to slip in and out when at the back.
2 - reserved seating. Often the back rows and/or the second school (as shown in the video) are reserved for late comers and families.
3 - culture. The rules that are rules even when the WT says they are not rules. The recent beard thing in the WT is another good example
4 - WT subliminal indoctrination. This video is a good example. "We'll tell you it's not a rule but what we show you reflects the age old cultural norm". The same happens time and time again with beards - "we've told you it's ok to have a beard and will not prevent spiritual (aka WT career) progression but we will show men shaving all the time".
As has been said numerous times on the thread, it's all ultimately about control.
-
43
New Announcement At The 2017 - DF'd People To Sit At The Back Of The Hall
by pale.emperor inhas anyone else heard this?
a poster on another thread said it's a new rule brought in at this years convention.. last year they were told to shun even non df people and now this?
a religion cant force someone where to plonk their ass surely?.
-
-
konceptual99
I should add that the above article has a footnote to confirm it updates previous direction in The Watchtower of April 1, 1953, page 223.
This is referenced by Blondie in this thread...
-
43
New Announcement At The 2017 - DF'd People To Sit At The Back Of The Hall
by pale.emperor inhas anyone else heard this?
a poster on another thread said it's a new rule brought in at this years convention.. last year they were told to shun even non df people and now this?
a religion cant force someone where to plonk their ass surely?.
-
-
konceptual99
OK - it was longer ago than I thought but here is the article about where DF'ed ones can sit.
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/w20130815/disfellowshipped-child-seating-location/
Although the title refers to children it is clear that a DF'ed person of any age can sit anywhere just so long as they respect where they are.
-
43
New Announcement At The 2017 - DF'd People To Sit At The Back Of The Hall
by pale.emperor inhas anyone else heard this?
a poster on another thread said it's a new rule brought in at this years convention.. last year they were told to shun even non df people and now this?
a religion cant force someone where to plonk their ass surely?.
-
-
konceptual99
They only published info to the contrary in the past year or two.
-
34
cleveland ohio RC notes
by nowwhat? inpeak attendance 7100. baptised 38 mixed bag of old and young.
youngest age 10. saw no brothers with beards.
better than average .50% growth.
-
-
konceptual99
There is also no real indication of how many people have serious doubts and are essentially going through the motions. I know of at least 4 brothers who are not what I would call mentally out but have serious questions about things and are drifting in terms of reaching out because they can't face pushing things they are not sure about themselves. I suspect the true number of those in a similar position is much higher.
-
11
"For God Loved the World so much that he gave his only Begotten Son in order that ....faith ..not destroyed ..everlasting life.
by smiddy inor is their an inconsistency / contradiction here somewhere .?
in genesis god allows satan after deceiving the first human pair to go relatively unpunished for thousands of years interacting between heaven and earth at will.. the so called punishment is not to take effect until thousands of years later.. in the meantime .. the wager ( ?
) between jehovah and satan over jobs loyalty in question ,and obviously satan still having communication with god in the heavens.
-
-
konceptual99
What Witnesses are conveniently choosing to forget and being conditioned to forget by the WTS is that the Bible contains the predictions for the end by their OWN interpretation.
It's Jesus that gives the signs of the times of the end. It's Jesus that talks about a generation. It's the Bible that gives a succession of events to note in Revelation. It's the Bible that sets up the establishment of a Kingdom to recover the situation lost in Eden.
Yes - the precise date is not recorded. Yes - there is counsel about the day coming as a thief in the night. But the Bible is apparently full of signs that would lead observant ones to conclude the time is close.
Yet now, whilst the supposed poor state of the world is used to make ones feel like something needs to change the fact that the Bible is clear about there being a start and, critically, an END to the last days is given less and less attention. People are told to have faith that it is imminent without any concrete evidence whilst not serving for a date whilst Jesus was crystal clear about a generation and other references like the days being needing to be CUT SHORT.
Either these mean something or they don't.
Given that the WTS cannot deny that they DO mean something then they are forced to simply go down the route of cognitive dissonance and encourage people not to think about it and kid themselves that actually timescales related to prophecies about the last times mean nothing other than it's imminent.
I guarantee that not one Witness will be able to provide a straight answer as to if the end if imminent or not, scriptural reasons for the understanding on the generation and what the reason for signs are if a date does not matter. They will deflect, obfuscate, deny, squirm, whirl - anything to avoid being straight since it simply means confusion.
If they refuse to say the end is imminent then they should watch Tony's closing remarks from the convention - "the end is imminent" - and then ask if they agree or not. As a side point - this to me is exactly like 1975 - the WTS making statements that they will never have to answer for. This is the video btw...
https://jw.servehttp.com/rc17.php?is=CO17_E_146_No52-41.mp4
They simply cannot have it both ways yet are trying their damnest to make it so.