Jump to content
JWTalk - Jehovah's Witnesses Discussion Forum


Full Access Users
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Bob last won the day on May 7 2016

Bob had the most liked content!


About Bob

  • Rank
    Platinum Member

Personal Details

  • Gender
  • First Name
  • Displayed Location
  • Publisher
  • Baptized

Recent Profile Visitors

3,388 profile views
  1. Well, I understand on one hand how they're want to make sure conscientious objectors are practicing what they preach, but at the same time, this is a clear invasion of privacy and a violation of your right to play whatever sort of video game you want. Yes, a brother objecting to military service but playing shooting games can be seen as a hypocrite, but my biggest fear is the subjective precedent that can be set. What subjective criteria will they now use to determine if an objector is lying? Owning a pocket knife with a blade longer than a certain length? What constitutes a violent video game? I'm just saying that this opens the door for even more human rights violations when the ruling should have done the opposite.
  2. Yeah, I was honing in on the word "cult" and how loosely its tossed around and even attached to what people simply don't like. And GordieGrirl has a point as well. You can work in a bad environment but that doesn't make it a "cult".
  3. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/08/facebook-culture-cult-performance-review-process-blamed.html?fbclid=IwAR2g5T3IOoUJ92fuPVm6xDOhkexOrvy3EiLiqJNTTYY0MEI5P0vzr1PBr_w I read this and just laughed a little about how "apostate" thinking is really based more on a person's attitude, and that it spills right into the workplace. As long as things were going the way these former employees agreed with, it was a wonderful place to work, but now since they disagree, they hide behind anonymity and call the workplace "cult-like".
  4. I personally do not like the term "the Society" because it gives the impression that we are subject to a publishing company. but its certainly not a "sin" worthy of correcting a brother or sister for saying, because most times, its uttered out of an old habit.
  5. I listened to this twice. He appealed to the logic of his listeners, and really helped them to appreciate that for freedom to be enjoyed, you have to deal with the minor inconvenience of having a Witness knock on your door on a Saturday morning. I also loved how he showed, from the Bible and the statement by Lillian Gobitis, that we are not enemies of the State and that we are loyal citizens of our countries up to the point of the State trying compel us to violate our beliefs. Another point I loved was that he showed the FIRST cases of religious intolerance took place, ironically, in the United States in California of all places. Most people were probably unaware and/or shocked that Witnesses were first discriminated against in the US which lead to the very first court case we fought. There were many good points to be taken away from that presentation. But I think the point was that we are all enjoying freedoms, because Jehovah's Witnesses fought for theirs.
  6. I can't wait for the King of the North talk(s).
  7. Brother Losch's interview was very good. They had a lot of challenges, in particular with the "mole" false brothers trying to infiltrate the organization. Satan has always tried to use the divide and conquer method. He's done it for a long time and is continuing to do it.
  8. No one really knows or sure. Growth tends to ebb and flow anyway. Some countries are less religious than others, and those people don't have an interest in religion or discussing it. Some are scared away from us. Some only talk to us when they going through stuff, and when they solve the issue, they see no need for us. Or there are cases in which we simply haven't reach some people. That's why we keep going to the people.
  9. I somewhat agree with you here. The tendency appears to be that we could be judging our success based on the size of our wallets, or in this context, growth rates and baptisms. I have to admit I did not even bother to look at the number of Bible studies conducted and hours we spent preaching -- I went right to whether we have positive or negative increases in membership, as if nothing else matters. Of course, we all enjoy seeing membership growth, but our success is predicated on how effectively we are preaching the message Jesus preached. We can loosen our standards and dilute the message and have tens of millions of members in no time, but we would be failing to do what God wants.
  10. I think they call it "partakers" because they cannot say for certain who is going to Heaven or not. All they "know" is who partook. That's all the can know as they don't select the anointed -- God does. So I believe it has meaning as a means of keep accurate numbers of those who partook, but they aren't meaningful as those who are truly anointed. We simply do not know.
  11. https://www.worldreligionnews.com/entertainment/anti-religious-programming-play-role-increase-hate-crimes I found this article interesting, primarily because the point of anti-religious programming is for the sole purpose of turning people against said religion. No, I do not believe that such programming turns ordinary people into mass-murderers, but I do believe that such programming has emotional and psychological affects on uninformed people. This programming clearly attacks the emotions and gets people witch-hunt mentality ramped up, so there is a correlation, though I don't believe we can make a casual link between hate shows and violence.
  12. Question: how is a nativity scene a violation of separation of church and state any more than appointing a judge who is a devout “Christian”? What I am asking is how is an inanimate nativity scene a violation, but a animate religious person not a violation? These atheists are trying to legislate religion out of the public square. This is not about fairness and impartiality in the law. I have never seen a nativity scene discriminate and favor one religion over another. I’ve seen religious PEOPLE do it all the time.
  13. Nice to see some positive publicity come from these heart-breaking events.
  14. I wasn’t aware of that. Richard’s point makes sense now. Sorry brother Richard.
  15. I am positive they did take a look at those, but I am not sure how an unidentified arsonist can be identified via judicial cases.

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

JWTalk 18.9.15 by Robert Angle (changelog)