by FrankWTower 23 Replies latest watchtower bible
Remember when calling a girl on the phone was considered dating ??? now there is private chat ,texting , pm's,facebook ,myspace .......
Elder bodies recieved a letter sometime last year about Sexting, and the proper way to handle these situations. I think I did a thread on it when it happened, I can't recall. Its funny how technology is making religious tyrants slowly obsolete.
Thanks guys.
I too heard the same talk at the KM school. It seems to be going around nationally. When I heard the brother give it, I thought it was a bit extreme. Most of us JW's on Facebook are pretty tamed. It's not like we're constantly looking for ways to get laid. Although it's not a bad idea ;-).
That Facebook and Twitter pose dangers to WTS control nobody should doubt. But Facebook is also a danger to ordinary people as well. Its creators were geeks who themselves had no idea how healthy human relationships work. That was seen from its very inception when they did not put proper controls in place to safeguard users' information and allowed any and everyone to have access to it. Corrections and adjustments have been made since the scandal broke about its abuse, but that doesn't mean that Facebook's integrity has been substantially upgraded. It hasn't, and I would strongly recommend against its use. There are other ways to stay in touch with friends and family that are far more secure.
With respect to the WTS and its anti-social network/Internet stance, this is what one would expect from a closed society. It definitely does not believe in a free flow of information. Young people who get involved with the Internet raise red flags particularly since the retention of youth in the organization is a serious problem. Many fall away upon reaching young adulthood and I'm sure the WTS feels the Internet, with its ability to expose people to any and everything, is a real threat. It encourages the one thing the WTS hates most: "independent thinking" and the desire for a freer life. We should not be surprised that the Society incorporates fear and paranoia in its response to Internet usage.
I would hesitate to draw a parallel between social networks' role in the unrest in North Africa and Southwest Asia with what the WTS may face in the future. The WTS is seen as benign by most Witnesses, and that was not the case with the governments in the Muslim world. Those who disagree with WTS culture are free to leave even if departure comes at a high price. That also is not the case with the current crises overseas. That's not to say that the WTS doesn't have a legitimate reason to want to restrict the use of social networks among Jehovah's Witnesses, but only to say that any rebellion against the WTS hierarchy will come because of a realization on the part of the membership that it's claim to be Jehovah's organization is false. When the WTS admits that Jerusalem was not destroyed in 607 BC and that Christ did not "invisibly return" in 1914, then we'll see the kind of rejection that social networks will only augment.
Quendi
Quendi I bet the same thing was said about Electronic Mail when it first came out. The fact is you don't have to put personal information anywhere you don't want to. The solution is not "don't use it" it is "be careful and aware of what you are using and how you are using it."
"Don't use it" is just bad advice.
-Sab
50 years ago the television was seen as the big evil of the "last days". We only had black and white t v and a couple of channels but it was enough to get it branded as "Satan's one eyed monster" and "The Gogglebox". I guess they thought that everybody was "sharing in the thoughts of the world" and would not have time left for study or meetings. Gradually of course it became accepted.
It all comes around in time...
Hi Sab,
I appreciate your response. My point about Facebook is that no safeguards were originally put in place. You had to choose settings yourself to restrict access to information instead of this being done automatically as should have been the case and is true practically everywhere else on the Web. The creators of Facebook, in my opinion, were fools who had no idea how ordinary people think and react. They were enamored with all the bells and whistles they could put into their creation and didn't think for one second about the consequences of what they were doing.
Having done computer troubleshooting for some years, I know this is a big problem with geeks. They think that everyone loves computers in the same maniacal way they do. They don't think that most people are not interested in how computers or their software works, but like a car all they want to know is how to make it work for them. Facebook's creators only realized this after it was pointed out to them.
As for not giving away sensitive information, you are absolutely right to say that is up to the individual user about how much s/he wants to reveal. But that is often forgotten in the giddy excitement of creating an account and looking for people to connect with. Savvy users know the ropes, but most people are not computer savvy and have a naive trust in the machine, the software, and the network administrators. Such trust has been misplaced in the past.
I don't think Facebook is well run, organized, or protected. I wouldn't put any information on its network, and I refuse to use it. I always decline invitations from others to join and I strongly recommend that others do the same. Yes, nearly a tenth of the planet's population has joined Facebook. Having 600 million users is an impressive total. But I know that even when people take precautions and give minimum information that it has somehow wound up in the hands of people who otherwise have no business with it. I've talked with people who are heavily into computer security and none of them has anything to do with Facebook even in its most innocent manifestations. But people can do what they like in this regard. However, I believe the old adage of "an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure" certainly applies to Facebook.
Gee Quendi... paranoid much?
I dunno about social networking outright destroying the BOrg, but I'm pretty sure it will eventually stall their growth...
The WTS has a bloody tight grip on the minds and hearts of its followers and it aint letting go. On the other hand, the young'uns have even better chances of breaking free now than at any other time before.
V665
Hi Vampire!
No, my friend, not paranoid so much as cautious out of much experience with computers and their geek fanciers. If I thought all social networking in cyberspace was evil, I wouldn't be participating in this forum. I am no technophobe, but I do believe computer technology should be used wisely and with due caution. There are other ways to use computers and the Internet to maintain contact with others and build cyberspace communities. I simply don't believe that Facebook is a good or wise choice in that respect.
I also believe that it is wishful thinking to hope the Internet will cause the downfall of the WTS. It may certainly contribute to it, but those contributions will come only after the ball gets rolling. And the ball will only get rolling when enough people decide that the WTS has played the role of the false prophet. As I posted above, there are significant differences between the WTS and the governments in the Muslim world. Or to put it another way, the unrest sweeping through North Africa and Southwest Asia has been compared to the "velvet revolutions" that destroyed communism in Eastern Europe more than twenty years ago. Any resemblance is a superficial one for many reasons as the unfolding events have made obvious.
It is likewise with the WTS. Remember, it is seen as a beign and loving entity by the people it controls. That can't be said of the governments currently experiencing upheavals or of the communist dictators more than twenty years ago. Those who couldn't stand the WTS and its religion have departed, for the most part. Where the Internet can play a role is when Jehovah's Witnesses begin to realize that their hopes are melting away like snow iin spring sunshine and that the explanations the WTS has offered are bogus. Then the Internet can help spread the fever of disappointment where it has great saturation and that would in turn put additional pressure on the WTS and its Governing Body. We'll see.
Quendi
Without effective communication, if someone wants to disobey, they are alone. They cannot communicate with others, and so they are going to act alone. At which point the authorities will squash the act. This is why Osama Obama wants the Internet Kill Switch, so people cannot communicate. Such acts as buying silver to crash JP Morgan would be impossible if only one person buys silver--most of us cannot afford the 500-700 million ounces on the market alone. (Plus, they would simply block such an order.)
However, if one person posts such online, they could get 600 million people to disobey. This may involve rioting, but is more likely to involve refusing to buy Treasury bonds, the act of buying physical silver (600 million people each buying one ounce of silver will pretty much deplete silver, so when the banks have to buy it to return it to those they borrowed it from to prop up the toilet paper dollar, they will take a bigger bath), and going on gas-buying strikes. It could also mean missing boasting sessions, refusing to put currency that has purchasing power into the Worldwide Pedophile Defense Fund, or finding something wrong with something the Filthful and Disgraceful Slavebugger puts out.
As it is easier to stop one person than 600 million from ruining your plans, stopping communication is essential for these totalitarian organizations. Blocking communication will be essential to implement Agenda 21, since a single dissident can simply be slaughtered. If you have 90% of the population disobey, it becomes very difficult to slaughter them all without getting hurt or killed yourself. And, if you simply cut them off from their money via their RFID chip, it is much easier for people to agree to use gold and silver (or services and other goods) to barter if there is mass-knowledge than if only one person thinks of it. And, it is easier for the witlesses to abandon the cancer based on bad doctrine with bad treatment, or treatment that is inconsistent with doctrine, if 90% of them have access to that information than if only one person does.
All in all, and as with everything else, one is responsible to "check out all available information" on any group, club, religion or organization before they join it...especially if that committment involves the rest of your life, and requires that you sacrifice your life, if need be, in order to "prove your loyalty" to it.
Joining the Watchtower is like joining a gang; once you get "dunked in," you're in for life; they own you; your life no longer is yours to choose as all "choices" are dictated to you. There is no "honorable way out" of the Watchtower, so if you should discover the truth about "The Truth," you may be in for a pretty disquieting and emotionally painful "Crisis of Consceince," which is what happened to Raymond Franz, Bethelite member and nephew of Watchtower President, Fred Franz, who was disfellowshiped by the headquarters, along with many other Bethel members, because they had been caught studying the Bible in private...
With so much information and evidence out there on the internet, and with so many informative videos on YouTube, there is no longer any reason for one not to be able to make "an informed decision" in choosing to join the Watchtower...and if you were brought up to believe in the Watchtower being the "only TRUE religion," and if you believe that changing Watchtower doctrine is "God's truth," then you now have a means to "check out the facts," and according to the Watchtower organization, doing this is "good advice."
In the Watchtower's own publication, "The Truth That Leads To Eternal Life," released in the summer of 1968, the entire second chapter is dedicated to pointing out how very important it is to check out your religion and its beliefs and doctrines. This enlightening and informative chapter is entitled, "Why It Is Wise To Examine Your Religion." I find it interesting that the chapter title does not ask, "Why Is It Wise To Examine Your Religion," but that it says, "Why It IS Wise To Examine Your Religion." But, just as with the Watchtower clamoring claims to "freedom of speech," and "freedom to worship" according to one's personal conscience, the aforementioned seems only to apply to those OUTSIDE of the Watchtower.
