Jump to content

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

Jack Ryan -
Shiwiii -
20
379

Top Posters


Recommended Posts

As a born-in black JW in the US, Watchtower tried to teach me to be ashamed of my natural body and black features. There would always be talks about how dreads, braids, and afros are dirty, unclean, and unprofessional. According to JWs, being seen with them out in the ministry would bring reproach on Jehovah or judgement from the householders (as if the householder wouldn't see my skin and still be racist if they so choose). In the Watchtower's eyes, just naturally the way our hair grows and is culturally handled is a sin apparently.

I noticed many black men that convert to Da Troof shave their heads. Before I finally escaped and became POMO, I remember a young dude who converted recently. He had a beautiful high top afro that must've taken so time and energy to grow! But afros are bad. So he shaved his hair off. My own father shaved his afro, and said he would never grow it because he doesn't see any other black men in the hall have afros.

Women are pressured into putting chemicals that can literally BURN the skin off their scalps, to be accepted by Jehoover. I only got a perm for a few months of my life, but it was excruciatingly painful. I had huge scabs and wounds all over my scalp. Racism that we face because of our hair is a broad problem in the US at large that's been getting better in recent years, but it just shows that the bORG isn't the racial sanctuary they try to say they are - despite their incredibly vile racist past.

Has anyone else noticed this or been faced this?

- faerykid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously you do not know much about the Rastafarian movement.   They smoke pot and wear dreadlocks. 

It has nothing to do with race but all about this "brand of religion" worn as a visible symbol. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Arauna said:

Obviously you do not know much about the Rastafarian movement.   They smoke pot and wear dreadlocks. 

It has nothing to do with race but all about this "brand of religion" worn as a visible symbol. 

 

wow, so you do align with the view that Jack Ryan was describing.

 

Singling out someone and making assumptions based on looks.

 

Nice example of stereotyping! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since “Blue Jay” has forgotten scripture John 17:16 in lieu of humanity, to be accepted by this world, it doesn’t matter what opinion this person now has in this forum. This person is nobody just like any opposer.

Maybe being as forthright about other religions might give you credence, Might!

Maybe you should try going to other Christian forums to have endless criticism of their church and see what happens. Hint, start with your own first. Does your church know you dishonor their church and Christ by going against scripture just to argue nonsense SHIWIII in this forum? Maybe your Pastor should know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

divergenceKO:

I think you are a windbag of Graf Zepplin proportions.

Why?

Because you accuse others of "going against scriptures" ... without EVER giving an example.

Actually, it is YOUR opinions that have no value, because without backup ... they are ONLY your opinions, which have even LESS than normal credence, because of your opinions that people that oppose YOUR viewpoint are "nobodys".

You may want to look up the term "Narcissistic Personality  Derangement" for some insight as to how you present yourself to everybody else.

Anybody that disagrees with me on this (except you, as your opinions are not worth considering), please speak up and defend divergenceKO from my observation.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, how did my hairstyle become the discussion of you other guys. I never had the problems cited in the story at the beginning, nor did my father, who,wore his hair, u till it Breyer and he went bald. What organization do you belong to that asks that of you about your hair? I have never been approached about mine and I even went curls with all the juice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Because you accuse others of "going against scriptures" ... without EVER giving an example.

I don't need to give an example, their actions and words along with yours is proof enough. If you're going to start to hound me like a leech and defend opposers, keep the long-winded comments up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

Singling out someone and making assumptions based on looks.

You do not know anything about them. I lived in Africa and this movement comes from Africa.

It has NOTHING to do with race but about the symbols of a false religion which smokes pot to be closer to God.......

So get clued up...... The above headline tries to make it about race but shows ignorance of this movement and its practices.

When I see ' white'  or black people with these hair styles (dreadlocks) I associate them with the Rasta movement...... and smoking pot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Arauna said:

When I see ' white'  or black people with these hair styles (dreadlocks) I associate them with the Rasta movement...... and smoking pot.

This right here is what I am talking about.

 

Arauna,

I'm sure you won't like this, but please don't take it and read into what I am saying. This subject between you and I, has nothing to do with religion or beliefs, but rather our human nature and ability to accept those who are different from us. A hair style is nothing but hair, it does not speak to character, it does not speak of beliefs........its just hair. Now I can understand your position and experience, however it doesn't make it absolute in every circumstance.  

 

When a person singles out others who have a different look and labels them in a derogatory way based only on looks, it is no different than straight racism based on the color of their skin.  Anyone can spin it this way and that, but those are the facts. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shiwiii said:

This right here is what I am talking about.

 

Arauna,

I'm sure you won't like this, but please don't take it and read into what I am saying. This subject between you and I, has nothing to do with religion or beliefs, but rather our human nature and ability to accept those who are different from us. A hair style is nothing but hair, it does not speak to character, it does not speak of beliefs........its just hair. Now I can understand your position and experience, however it doesn't make it absolute in every circumstance.  

 

When a person singles out others who have a different look and labels them in a derogatory way based only on looks, it is no different than straight racism based on the color of their skin.  Anyone can spin it this way and that, but those are the facts. 

 

Now I kindly want you to understand the subject above. This is about JWs who cannot wear these hairstyles in field service...... and it is slyly called racism..... the new victim badge. 

I grew up in a country in Africa where marjuana grows on every street corner - wild just about everywhere.  People smoke it all the time....... but Rastas use it as part of the religious experience and wear the gear and the hairstyles to identify themselves.  They WANT to be identified as Rasta.

When I see a rasta I treat them no different than any other person even though I immediately recognize the visible signs (some people like the look and do not know what it represents).

I had a bible study who was a Rasta. .... so I do not see it as a race but as an alternative lifestyle choice.

To say that it is racist when a JW cannot wear this hairstyle in field service is misleading and untrue..... it has nothing to do with race but everything about projecting a lifestyle choice or another religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Similar Content

    • By Jack Ryan
      For your reading pleasure this fine Tuesday afternoon. Today’s Watchtower articles come from the pen of our former and only loving Pastor, Charles Taze Russell and one quote from the 1932 Year Book of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Let’s dig into this spiritual food that flowed from God’s mouthpiece to our tables.
      The Watchtower April 15th, 1900 p 122;
      “There are probably as many as a hundred colored brethren on the Watch Tower lists, some of them very clear in the truth, and very earnest in its service, financially and other-wise .. [but they are not allowed to participate in the "pioneer work" as] although we have received letters from several of these, who had intended engaging in the volunteer work, expressing surprise that in the call for volunteers in the March 1, 1900 issue we restricted the inquiry to white Protestant churches. .. The reason is that so far as we are able to judge, colored people have less education than whites - many of them quite insufficient to permit them to profit by such reading as we have to give forth. Our conclusion therefore is based upon the supposition that reading matter distributed to a colored congregation would more than half of it be utterly wasted, and a very small percentage indeed likely to yield good results. We advise, therefore, that where the Watch Tower literature is introduced to colored people it be not by promiscuous circulation, but only to those who give evidence of some ear for the truth. We avoid, so far as possible, putting the pearls of present truth into the hands of the vicious and depraved ..”
      The Watchtower July 15th, 1902 p216;
      “The Negro Not a Beast .. that Ham's characteristics which had led him to unseemly conduct disrespectful to his father, would be found cropping out later, inherited by his son, and prophetically he foretold that this degeneracy would mark the posterity of Canaan, degrading him, making him servile. We are not able to determine to a certainty that the sons of Ham and Canaan are negroes; but we consider that general view as probable as any other.. We are not to forget, either, that Africa is inhabited by various tribes or nations of negroes - some more and some less degraded than the average.. While it is true that the white race exhibits some qualities of superiority over any other, we are to remember that there are wide differences in the same Caucasian (Semitic and Aryan) family.. The secret of the greater intelligence and aptitude of the Caucasian undoubtedly in great measure is to be attributed to the commingling of blood amongst its various branches; and this was evidently forced in large measure by circumstances under divine control. It remains to be proven that the similar commingling of the various tribes of Chinese for several centuries would not equally brighten their intellects; and the same with the peoples of India and Africa.”
      The Watchtower April 1st, 1908 p99
      “The negro and Latin races will probably always be inclined to superstition.”
      Year Book 1932, pp 63-64
      Colored Branch
      When our colored brethren were made a separate branch there was considerable objection on the part of some, these have the thought that the Colored or Negro race was being pushed aside. This was not the case, however. It was thought best for the Colored brethren to work amongst their own people, and the results show that this conclusion was correct.
      This concludes our racist study course for today.
      Golden Age 1920-'Agriculture and Husbandry'
      This was an old article speaking against the dangers of crossbreeding crops and the unusable 'hybrids' that resulted. Then added: "Even in the case of the human family, if the father and mother are of different races the children are sometimes unfit for brain work. Wonderful are the fixed laws of God."
      I think there were writers of the literature that held views with varying levels of racism. There were articles (c.1914) that spoke about how great it was that the 'colored friends' wanted to watch the Photodrama of Creation (oh, but so as not to offend the white attendees, lets segregate them to the balcony.)
      And... Watchtower 1952. "Really, our colored brothers have great cause for rejoicing. Their race is meek and teachable, and from it comes a high percentage of the theocratic increase. What if the worldly wise and powerful and noble look down on them as foolish and weak and ignoble, not on an equality with self-exalted whites? It is to God’s ultimate honor, for he confounds the wise of this world by choosing those the world considers foolish and weak and ignoble. Let us boast in Jehovah and in our equality in his sight, rather than wanting to boast in equality in the world’s sight."
      Then... Awake! 1953 Oct 8 p.6
      "South Africa's whole color policy is conditioned by this fact and this fear: 80 per cent of her population is black; if the color bar is breached, what new dike can stop a black flood from overflowing and destroying the civilisation with which white man have displaced the wilderness?"
  • Forum Statistics

    61,680
    Total Topics
    114,508
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    16,507
    Total Members
    1,592
    Most Online
    AliciaBarbosa
    Newest Member
    AliciaBarbosa
    Joined




  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I like that. It's an excellent explanation of one of the points made in the day's text and commentary. Perhaps. And so were all the 1 year old babies destroyed in the Flood. And so were the 185,000 of Senacherib's troops. I used that one because it's one for which most of us would be the least surprised if we discovered that the WT changed the teaching again.  Not sure what you mean. I already believe that the primary core doctrine is God's value through his Son's ransom sacrifice. Other doctrines are also just as necessary, though.  There actually is a contradiction between the Bible and AD 1914. And we don't need any independent understanding not supported by Scripture, such as the independent understanding of John Aquila Brown, or more specifically, that of Nelson H Barbour, neither of which were supported by Scripture. It should ALWAYS be the exploit of any faithful Witness to uncover truth and try to resolve any contradictions that can be resolved by Scripture itself, not anything independent of Scriptural support.  On the matter of the 1914 doctrine, an easier explanation with human controversy --but no scriptural controversy-- has already been posted. Easier isn't proof that it's better, but it's definitely easier. Here it is: Jesus came to earth to preach about a God's Kingdom through Christ and give himself over to death as a perfect ransom for sin, to fulfill the Law, and SIT AT GOD'S RIGHT HAND and therefore RULES AS KING since the time of his resurrection in 33 CE. That's it. Simple. No contradictions with any Scripture. From that point on, in 33 CE he SITS AT GOD'S RIGHT HAND and therefore RULES AS KING ruling in the midst of enemies, including war, famine, sickness, and will continue ruling as king until God has put all enemies under his feet, including the last enemy: death.  The current belief in 1914 creates a contradiction with this very point, because we are currently forced to ignore 1 Cor 15:25, which indicates that "sitting at God's right hand" is the same as "ruling as King." Right now, our current teaching is that Jesus sat at God's right hand in 33, and THEN LATER began ruling as king in 1914. Paul says that Jesus began ruling as king WHEN he sat at God's right hand. I'm swapping them because they mean exactly the same thing to me. No difference. Doctrine means teaching. True but notice the words that Paul used instead of "sit at my right hand" here: (1 Corinthians 15:25) 25 For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. Turns out that when a king sits on a throne, this is actually an expression meaning rule as king. Just like when we say that a man "sat on the throne" starting in AD 1066, for example. Turns out that a king does not have to stand up from a throne to begin ruling as king. Turns out that sitting on a throne is not a synonym for just waiting around. By that logic, Jesus is not even NOW ruling as king, because God has not yet put the last enemy Death beneath his feet. (1 Corinthians 15:25,26) 25 For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. 26 And the last enemy, death, is to be brought to nothing.
    • If only you would stop quoting outside sources, and just be more basic with your comments, then i may understand them . Yes I understand 'if your throw out all the good, only the bad is left.  But the reverse is, if you only see the good, you are not being honest with yourself or others.  @Arauna is a case in point.  
    • @JW Insider Quote " The day's text is about the resurrection, and the commentary speaks of the importance of including this among our key doctrines, as if it might not have been "up there" with the rest. " That seems rather strange to me. But then they are getting short of things to say.  However, i would have thought every Christian, no matter what ever 'sect' or  pigeon hole you put them in, would definitely believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and put it up near the top of important beliefs.  However making Bible Facts, doctrines, seems unfair to God and to the Bible itself.  doctrine a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group.   It's as if the JW Org tries to 'own' such things. @TrueTomHarley quite often goes on about the things that the JW Org teaches. As if those things 'belonged to the JW Org'.  Whereas a lot of the same beliefs are held by thousands of people, and they not all being of the same organisation.     Quote " The Teaching about Christ's Kingdom -  Of course that final one might be a nod to "1914" as a key teaching, but it is worded here in such a way that no one could dismiss Christ's Kingdom as a key teaching. "   Now here we see a difference between Bible truth and JW doctrine.    Christ's Kingdom is Bible truth.   1914 is JW Org doctrine.   (This would bring us back to. Would a person be d/fed or 'watched' if they did not believe the 1914 doctrine?)    Matthew 22 v 44    ‘Jehovah said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies beneath your feet”’? So if Jesus was to sit at Gods right hand, until God had put Jesus' enemies beneath Jesus' feet.  Then Jesus could not have had the power to do it himself. Therefore surely Jesus was not ruling as King immediately ?    As for 1914, we know that no one of the Bible Students or JW leaders, were or are inspired of Holy Spirit. So maybe 1914 is just another guess or misuse of scriptures.    What is your view of the difference between 'Core doctrines' and Key teachings ?    And you seem to keep swapping expressions from Core doctrines, to Core teachings, to Key teachings.  Can you explain the difference please ?    
    • I confess that I am falling well short of the 100 times a day that I ought. I ask your forgiveness. Human limitations is the only excuse I have to offer. If you negate the upside, then all there is left to look at is the downside, and that is the case with many here.  I keep coming back to a line from The Scarlet Letter: “It is remarkable, that persons who speculate the most boldly often conform with the most perfect quietude to the external regulations of society.” Nobody speculates more boldly, departing from the herd-like thinking of this world, than Jehovah’s Witnesses. True to that Hawthorn line, they have no difficulty conforming to the “external regulations of their society.” Though Hawthorn does not say it, the reverse is also true. Those who cannot “conform to the external regulations of that society” and so leave it, perhaps guys like Shiwiiiii, are the most non-bold thinkers of all. They are individualistic in superfluous ways, but conformist in all the ways that matter.
    • Perhaps you are reading something into the book of Jude that I haven't been able to see. To me, the reason for the letter was this: Jude 4 I say this because some ungodly people have wormed their way into your churches, saying that God’s marvelous grace allows us to live immoral lives. This was similar to the problem in Corinth, where certain brothers were PROUD that they could put up with a notorious case of incest, due to a misunderstanding and misuse of "undeserved kindness." (1 Corinthians 5:1, 2) . . .Actually sexual immorality is reported among you, and such immorality as is not even found among the nations—of a man living with his father’s wife. 2 And are you proud of it? Should you not rather mourn, so that the man who committed this deed should be taken away from your midst? Such persons who used the idea of forgiveness, mercy, and undeserved kindness (grace), as an excuse for loose/brazen conduct were not blowing the whistle on wrongdoing, but were PROMOTING wrongdoing. It was the same as dismissing and speaking abusively against things that Jesus himself had said to "prove false to our only owner and Lord, Jesus Christ." Michael wouldn't even speak abusively of the Devil and yet these people are going to go further than that and think it's OK to speak abusively of Jesus and the angels? It's also possible that the leaders (elders) are considered the "glorious ones" but this makes less sense to me. Perhaps a topic for further discussion?
    • :)) sorry for poor quality of video. Language is Croatian with few Italian refren. Train To Genoa I haven't seen you for a long time And now I am on my way to you On the cold window glass I wrote Your name and Rijeka - Genoa   I haven't seen you for a long time Are you still the one I know? This train is cozy But I'm restless I'm drinking my third coffee On the train to Genoa   [Refrain] Do you still love me, tell me What does your heart say Are we still together If that's not love Tell me what is love Tell me truthfully   I remember everything You can see the bay Ships' lights from your room But I, I don't want it to end This train is running late I hope you're waiting for me https://lyricstranslate.com/en/il-treno-genova-train-genoa.html
  • Popular Now

  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines 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.