by cyberjesus 75 Replies latest watchtower bible
I am truly LMBAO and you know what the "B' in that stands for Outlaw,
Now let me have some fun with this
" I had JW ladys out at my old ranch..I had some fun with them.."
And you had the nerve to blame a power outage for your absence
" They had no idea how to deal with me..LOL!!.."
Wow I'm speechless
And you, Sabastious, are saying that people should not call Jehovah's witness names
The reason why I think it's wrong is not because it's "name calling." Witnesses, especially now, are being pelted with propaganda about ex-members. They call us liars, cheats and they say we will take any opportunity to smear their good name. I take that acusation very seriously. Even if "Kingdumb Hell" is an accurate description of the Kingdom Hall I believe using the term on these types of sites is counterproductive. If someone is viewing this site it means that their eyes are slightly open and their cult personality could immediately take over again after reading what they percieve as attacks on their place of worship. This site, for the most part, proves the Witnesses description of Apostates as dead wrong.
That said, each person reading this forum has a personal responsibility as to what they choose to be offended by. I am all about easing the pain of the transition outside of the Watchtower and in the beginning of that transition something as little as an "apostate slang term" might have them fleeing back to the "Kingdumb Hell" and with a nice story to tell.
-Sab
This does not have to be true only because it's my opinion, but it's always unfair to demand that the reasonable people, the so-called inferiors, always be the bigger people as well.
We have to be, and are being, the bigger people. The Watchtower's isolation and information control tactics demand it.
-Sab
And this is supposedly because a lurker will back off when they see the "wrong" terms used here. Sorry, but I won't let you tell me what is right and what is wrong. I can do that myself.
The "two wrongs" comment was tounge in cheek. You are free to say what you wish and now we have each other's opinion on the matter.
-Sab
Correct me if I'm wrong, Sabastious: Witnesses believe that Satan has their eyes on them anyways. They don't need words like "Kingdumb Hell" to believe they should stay "in" and be "no part of this world".
As to "having to be and being the bigger people", sometimes we will agree, and sometimes we won't. I'm afraid that here we don't. And, as you say, it's good that now you have my opinion on the matter. I will add more.
What you're saying is, someone will go back to the Watchtower if we use language such as "Kingdumb Hell". Question: How many of the people who are lurking here at the time HAVEN'T left this site despite the language? How many HAVE left the Borg, sorry, the Society, without the language being a factor at all? Do we have to believe that many a lurker will go back to "Mother" because of those words, not because the elders will have him disfellowshipped? How can we measure whether it's the language that keeps a person in or out?
What about the people who feel they have been deeply damaged by the Watchtower and feel they need such a language to truly convey their feelings? Will they please shut up?
I'm afraid that you're not being the bigger person here. I'm afraid you simply dislike the terms. I can understand that feeling. When I was a Catholic, a devout one by the way, I made friends with many priests. None of whom abused me, by the way. I met one or two who were real bastards, and one or two who were excellent human beings. Despite their being "worldly", or, more appropriately, the messengers of the Harlot, instruments of Satan. I would really resent it if people were to call these specific people pedophiles. One of these men is still a close family friend, and he's very old and frail now. I know he's a lot better than the picture that is usually given of these agents of "the Snare and the Racket". Does that mean I will ask people not to speak their minds?
By the way, did anyone on this forum resent my calling the Catholic Church a Harlot, "snare and racket", and the priests pedophiles, instruments of Satan? I don't have that impression. Perhaps we shouldn't use that language, lest we alienate Catholics? The Catholic Church will say that these are simply the words of heretics, users of a purposefully mistranslated Bible. Maybe Satan will end up the loser again and will be blamed with it.
You say that the Watchtower information tactics "demand" that we don't use certain words. Are you sure this isn't just the same as giving in to the Watchtower bully?
Should we NOT say that the Watchtower is a mind control cult? Maybe we should not, because we could send a lurker back to the Kingdom Hall?
Can you really say that if no "Apostish" (the opposite of "Dubbish") were used on this site, there would simply NOT be a lurker who wouldn't go back to the Kingdom Hall saying "Hey, apostates were saying the most awful things about Jehovah's organization! Some of them claim that the Governing Body does not really receive New Light from Jehovah! They are saying that they are a group of old men led by corporate interests only! They were EVEN CLAIMING THAT JERUSALEM DIDN'T FALL ON 607 B.C.! They think that apostate Ray Franz was a good man! Most even read his books! I tell you, they even have PDF's of Franz's book right on a prominent place of the site! What kind of a world we are living in,these days! Signs, who can doubt it, of the imminent coming of Armageddon!"
Come on.
What you're saying is, someone will go back to the Watchtower if we use language such as "Kingdumb Hell". Question: How many of the people who are lurking here at the time HAVEN'T left this site despite the language? How many HAVE left the Borg, sorry, the Society, without the language being a factor at all? Do we have to believe that many a lurker will go back to "Mother" because of those words, not because the elders will have him disfellowshipped? How can we measure whether it's the language that keeps a person in or out?
If I had seen the language the first time I came to this site it would have been a deterrent. Not everyone is like me so not everyone would feel the same way. The fact is we don't know how much good or bad these terms are doing in the long run. My perspective is that I know some would be turned off and that's enough reason to not use the language because what is it in the end?
I think it's worth noting that the language is fairly sparce on this website anyway so this whole debate might be moot because of that.
I'm afraid that you're not being the bigger person here. I'm afraid you simply dislike the terms.
I do think they are funny, but I think they should be reserved for private conversation, not on this public forum. Again, that is just my opinion and I feel no need to enforce it since my reasons are mostly hypothetical.
You say that the Watchtower information tactics "demand" that we don't use certain words. Are you sure this isn't just the same as giving in to the Watchtower bully?
I said that their policies demand that we be the bigger people. Being a bigger person involves much more than language used. A bully enforces his will, do you think that is my goal?
Should we NOT say that the Watchtower is a mind control cult? Maybe we should not, because we could send a lurker back to the Kingdom Hall?
We should be able to explain, in detail, why we say the things we do. I don't agree with just calling them a cult and leaving it at that. That's a strong accusation and it should have a strong explanation behind it.
Can you really say that if no "Apostish" (the opposite of "Dubbish") were used on this site, there would simply NOT be a lurker who wouldn't go back to the Kingdom Hall saying "Hey, apostates were saying the most awful things about Jehovah's organization! Some of them claim that the Governing Body does not really receive New Light from Jehovah! They are saying that they are a group of old men led by corporate interests only! They were EVEN CLAIMING THAT JERUSALEM DIDN'T FALL ON 607 B.C.! They think that apostate Ray Franz was a good man! Most even read his books! I tell you, they even have PDF's of Franz's book right on a prominent place of the site! What kind of a world we are living in,these days! Signs, who can doubt it, of the imminent coming of Armageddon!"
You are drawing an unfair comparrison. The scanario you mentioned is attractive to me since it might induce some real critical thinking. It's just not the same as a Witness returning to the hall and saying "Apostates are exactly what you told me there were. Bitter name-calling ingrates."
In the end most people don't use the language and that's the most credible piece of evidence we have.
-Sab
Not offensive to me.
What's offensive to me is that I spent over thirty years trying to wrap my head around each pronouncement of "new light" they came out with. How about 1975? I was there, I know what they wrote and said. People that lived in Sodom and Gomorrah will be resurrected. Nope, they won't. Oh, yes, they will. The generation that was alive AND at an age of understanding definitely will NOT pass away until the big A. Oh, no, we meant those alive in 1914. Did we say that? We meant the contemporaries that don't believe in Jesus' presence. No, wait...it's an OVERLAPPING generation....try to figure that one out!
What is VERY offensive to me is that I allowed my teen daughter to sit in a back room while five men told her that God viewed her as filth, accusing her of fornication (which she did not do) and humiliating and berating her for some very minor teen things she did do.
It would all be laughable if I hadn't become estranged from my "worldly" family for so many years as I was so righteous, and now my parents are both dead, so I can't make up for lost time.The rest of my family, and my husband's, who was a dutiful elder for tweny years, went on with their lives without us, and so now it's not easy to just say, "Hey, remember us? You weren't good enough for us then, but you are now. Let's get together."
I also can't make up, at 59 years old, for the lack of education and no retirement income.
I can't make up for the fact that I never went anywhere, because we only went to ASSemblies and Conventions and had the bookstudy group at our house and stayed home on the weekends.
I can't get used to the idea that I have no friends now, since all the "real friends" I had at the Hall view me as dangerous and, even though I am not officially df'd, shun me now.
So do I mind? Not at all.
Very little is humerous these days to me but I do like Washtowel Society, Dubs, Servus, Borg, and Kingdumb Hall...yes, that's where I went, and I was one of the dumbest, but no more.
P.S. Venom?
That is what the WTBTS spewed. I will be poisoned by it no more.
I think it's worth noting that the language is fairly sparce on this website anyway so this whole debate might be moot because of that.
Sorry. I detect a contradiction here. If the language is used sparesely and then the point about it is moot, why does it deserve a thread on its own?
my reasons are mostly hypothetical.
Indeed. You may have a point, however. Maybe someone would not return to the website. But that is an speculation. We don't know IF anyone has gone back for the language, which, as you say, is used sparsely. So perhaps we should not be acting on an assumption.
I said that their policies demand that we be the bigger people. Being a bigger person involves much more than language used. A bully enforces his will, do you think that is my goal?
Well, you are not a bully, but you do seem intent on getting everyone to use the language you would approve. My big point on this thread is, and let me put it in bold, I don't like censorship. I think censorship is bad. I have never heard about a censor who does not claim his censorship is meant to serve the greater good. It is always invoked for a higher principle. And in this case, the censorship rests on an assumption, namely, that using certain words on this forum keeps lurkers away.
I hope to be corrected if I'm wrong. Most people on this forum were lurkers at one point. I understand the website was created as a place for active Jehovah's witnesses, not for apostates, lurkers, or worldlies (see, I have a sense of humor) like me. How many have come and gone over the years? How many have stayed, even if they don't use the language you'd rather have us not use? Do we, or do we not have evidence that those words HAVE CERTAINLY NOT kept these people from coming?
My point with asking the rethorical question of whether we should or should not debate the Watchtower beliefs here was missed here. Do you really think that a person will feel most repelled by the words "Kingdumb Hell", or by an open discussion that directly questions the Watchtower. Yes, that will encourage critical thinking but, don't you think that someone will feel like going back anyways? Maybe they won't say that the outside world consists of name - callers, but they could say that it consists of independent thinkers who run ahead of Jehovah's organization.
Cyber, I couldnl't have said it better!
I found offensive the term Jehovah's witness and the Terms Kingdom Hall. Jehovah is a bad translation of an ancient Horrible God. They didnt witness anything other than the fact than an Idiot who call himself Judge used that name as a markenting campaing. That empy windowless box they attend that call Kingdom Hall belongs has no real King and no Kingdom.
