To Dunsscot:
Still haven't quite got the ":::" thing down pat, I see.
Kid gloves come off, now Dunny. You've shown yourself to be a thorough-going jerk. I'll give you credit for one thing, though: you didn't act in the usual cowardly fashion of JWs by simply ignoring what you couldn't deal with. But you gave a lot of wrong and deliberately wrong answers.
::: ... But I think I recall Covey talking about the unhealthy habit of becoming overly engrossed in one activity or pursuit.
:: Kind of like becoming a Jee-Hoover Witness, eh?
: Anyone (Witnesses included) can become inordinately involved in one activity. Either way, immoderate activity does not seem to promote mental and physical soundness at all.
Quite so. But that's virtually self-evident, so you really haven't said a bloody thing.
What your intent was is clear from your juxtaposition of thoughts in your first post:
::: ... the unhealthy habit of becoming overly engrossed in one activity or pursuit. It seems that there are individuals using this medium of communication whose life's aim is to "help" JWs out of the "borg" or 'bring down the Tower.' ... I wonder if some here have not become monomaniacal in their deconstructive methodology...
Your obvious intent was to imply that certain ex-JWs on this board have "unhealthy habits" and are "monomanical", while Jee-Hoover Witnesses are not. Why not JWs? Because even you can't be so stupid or deliberately hypocritical as to make such a blatant mistake -- unless you simply didn't stop to think that when you pointed your finger you had three of them pointed back at you. I.e., you're unthinking enough that you're merely accidentally hypocritical.
::: It seems that there are individuals using this medium of communication whose life's aim is to "help" JWs out of the "borg" or 'bring down the Tower.'
:: That is true.
: Glad to see you admit your "noble" goals in life, AF.
I said no such thing, you fucking liar.
: I personally think you are wasting your time (spinning your wheels) and sticking your nose where it does not belong.
Stick it up your ass. When the activities of a degraded religious organization like the 'Borg' affect me and mine, my nose damn well belongs in everything it does.
::: If it tricks your trigger, I guess there is nothing anyone can do to prevent you from "helping" JWs out of the "borg."
:: Freedom of religion and all that, eh?
: Of course you have the freedom to continue possessing and acting on the basis of a faulty noetic structure. That is certainly your prerogative as an American. I would just want to make sure that I was following the first principle of the lex naturae, to wit, bonum est faciendum et prosequendum et malum vitandum.
"Faulty noetic structure"? You fucking asshole! What an arrogant son-of-a-bitch you are!
The virtual disintegration of the Watchtower organization over the next few years will provide all the justification I need for my activities. So has the massive amount of research that has been published showing what a sorry organization the JWs are.
As for your Latin, stuff your mentula flaccidus up your ass.
::: But I wonder if some here have not become monomaniacal in their deconstructive methodology.
:: Kind of like the Jee-Hoover Witnesses, eh?
: Jehovah's Witnesses do not simply try to dismantle or de-center the beliefs of others.
No indeed. They try to replace them with particularly stupid beliefs. Like the notion that life has been on earth for a few tens of thousands of years. Like the notion that JW leaders comprise a "faithful and discreet slave", in the face of a massive body of facts that says otherwise. Like claiming that JW leaders spiritually rule the world. Like claiming that JWs and only JWs are "God's people".
Then they convince people to virtually shun their family and friends, and if they ever decide to quit the silly religion, convince the new set of friends or the JW family members to shun them.
What's better, Dunsbrain? To replace a religion with a cult, or a cult with freedom to think?
Note that it is not necessary to be part of any organization, much less some stupid religion, to have a full and fulfilled life.
::: They just cannot seem to let JWs enjoy freedom of worship.
:: Kind of like Jee-Hoover Witnesses don't let anyone else enjoy freedom of worship, eh?
: Folks are free to worship God in any manner they choose and they are also at liberty to reject theism altogether. That is their business.
Really. Then why do JWs go around publicly denouncing all other religions? Why have they waddled about wearing sandwich signs and wandered around in sound cars blaring "Religion is a snare and racket"? And even picketed churches and other places of worship? It's amazing to see that people like you can be convinced to be so disgustingly hypocritical.
: Even the apostle John fittingly wrote these words in the ultimate chapter of Apocalypse:
: "He that is doing righteousness, let him do righteousness still; and let the filthy one be made filthy still; but let the righteous one do righteousness still, and let the holy one be made holy still" (Apoc 22:10-11).
: I exercise wholehearted pistis in these words and try to apply them on this very medium of communication.
You can take your pistis to a pissoir and flush it, you self-righteous twit.
::: They must interfere in the religious life of JWs.
:: Kind of like Jee-Hoover Witnesses interfere in the religious lives of others, eh?
: We do not interfere in anyone's religious life.
No? What do you think sound cars were for? What do you think JW-style preaching is all about?
And you have the unmitigated bloody gall to claim that people on a private discussion board are interfering with JWs' freedome to practice religion!
Hypocrite and liar!
Furthermore, your organization totally interferes in the religious lives of those who leave the JW cult and become members of some other religion or of none at all. How? By disfellowshipping or disassociating them, so that a person's family and friends are forced to shun them -- on pain of DF'ing or DA'ing themselves.
: In imitation of our Lord and Master (Jesus Christ), we offer life's water free. If anyone does not wish us salaam, however, when we share in the door to door work--we shake the dust off of our feet and go to the next door offering figurative bread and water to yet others.
Your arrogance is like that of the JW cult leaders.
::: Yet what do they have to offer in return?
:: Freedom from being in a cult, for starters. Freedom to think for oneself, too. Ah, blessed freedom!
: I am not yet convinced JWs constitute a cult in any pejorative sense of the word.
Of course not! You're still in it! Cult members only realize they were in a cult after they get out.
: Furthermore, I have the freedom to think within the boundaries that God has set and, there ain't nothin' wrong with that.
Correction: You have the 'freedom' to think only within the boundaries set by your most esteemed leaders, the "faithful slave".
Everyone has the freedom to think internal-only thoughts. But that's not real freedom. Real freedom means to be able to express those thoughts to whoever one pleases -- without repercussions from a set of religious leaders who stick their fucking noses into every facet of a person's life.
The JW Governing Body -- not God -- has created some unscriptural rules about blood transfusions. You go ahead and argue publicly that their teaching is wrong, and let's see how much freedom 'God' has given you.
: That fact is that every single existent in the world is limited by his or her facticity. Every rational agent thinks someone else's thoughts after them (an allusion to Johannes Kepler).
Ooh, ooh. More hoity-toity obfuscatory hyperverbosity.
::: Nothing, except believe what you want to or drink yourself half silly everyday and conduct a life governed by hedonic utility that is devoid of God.
:: How sad that that's all you've learned from your time on this board. The fact is that ex-JWs on this forum are as varied in their styles of life as any other non-JWs are. Very few are advocating any particular life style. The fact that many tell about their life styles, or comment on various life styles, is in no way advocating such.
: I did not say that everyone here has a hedonic orientation. Dave evidently does not. Neither does Copernicus, so far as I can tell.
Nor do most people on the board. Nor do most of the ones you probably would include among those "monomaniacal" ones "whose life's aim is to "help" JWs out of the "borg" or 'bring down the Tower.' " You're trying to smear many -- most especially those you disagree with -- with a broad brush. You're a disgusting liar.
::: Furthermore, maybe some of you here have convinced yourself that the Bible is false, God does not exist,
:: Those are things that cannot be proved or disproved absolutely.
:: Whats your point?
: My point is that some reject God and the Bible to salve their consciences.
Some do. So what? Some people are cannibals. So what? Your obvious point is to imply that that applies to most people on this board -- including me. Like JW writers, you're good at saying without quite saying. But we ex-JWs know your tactics perfectly.
Not many on this board, so far as I can see, fall into that category. Those who have rejected the notion of a God or gods or whatever supernatural beings you'd like to propose, have done so not in order to be able to practice wicked things with an apparently free conscience, but because they've carefully studied much material and come to a studied conclusion.
Your conclusion is yet another stereotypical excuse given mainly by Fundamentalists such as Jehovah's Witnesses to explain away a great deal of facts. You simply refuse to understand that there are extremely stong, objective reasons to disbelieve in the biblical God. That let's you off the hook of actually investigating such reasons.
: If there is no God or no future eschaton, many folks reason that we should simply eat and drink, for tomorrow we shall die.
So what?
: They may also reason that the WT cannot possibly be God's spokesperson since there is no God. A healthy dose of agnosticism might be in order here.
Some do, some don't. This is more "poisoning the well" emoting by you.
: I might add that *nothing* can be proved or disproved absolutely.
Bullshit. Let me impale your ass on a red hot poker and I'll prove to you that pain exists.
: There also appear to be some things that we know are true, but cannot prove them to be such.
Ah, that's true. Like, we "know" that JWs are God's people.
::: and Jehovah's Witnesses are not God's people.
:: That's a fact that has been proved in hundreds of different ways. For example, JWs unscripturally use excommunication and shunning as a weapon. They often use it against people whose only offense is to disagree with JWs, sometimes even on minor issues. An organization that has misused its power like this for some 70 years, over and over and over again, is detestable to God, according to Scriptures you know very well.
: You're badly mistaken. Excommunication is never supposed to be used as a weapon in the Organization.
Don't make me laugh! According to the Bible, shunning is not supposed to be used that way, but the Society and elders use it as a weapon all the time.
: Maybe it is sometimes utilized in this way.
Right arm, brother! And it is done so by organizational directives.
: But the Scriptures clearly show that disfellowshipping and shunning are primarily for the mutual benefit of the Christian ecclesia and the unrepentant believer. I have never personally known anyone who has been excommunicated for disagreeing with the Witnesses on minor issues.
That all depends on what you define as a "minor issue". Furthermore, you don't have access to more than a tiny fraction of the cases that have gone down. I know of dozens of people who have been DF'd or DA'd over minor issues.
: Usually one who is shunned rejects a number of key Witness teachings and becomes a poisonous root in the community. The apostle Paul provided directives for dealing with such men and women, however. We try to apply his counsel, albeit imperfectly.
All well and good in principle, and if actual Bible principles are applied, but that's not what the Society has practiced. According to the 4/1/86 Watchtower QFR, all it takes to be DF'd is to let it slip that one is not in full agreement with the Society on nearly everything. Indeed, it states forthrightly that mere unbelief is sufficient grounds for DF'ing: "Approved association with Jehovah's Witnesses requires accepting the entire range of the true teachings of the Bible, including those Scriptural beliefs that are unique to Jehovah's Witnesses." This also is a direct statement that JW teachings are identical to God's teachings, which is a declaration of infallibility on the part of JW leaders.
But this WT statement is not the worst. Raymond Franz, in Crisis of Conscience, reproduced (2nd ed., pp. 292-3) a September 1, 1980 letter from the Service Department to all Circuit and District Overseers. Among other things, the letter commented on the difference between someone who is a 'true apostate' and someone who is merely weak and has doubts. No middle ground was allowed. The letter then said:
Keep in mind that to be disfellowshiped, an apostate does not have to be a promoter of apostate views. As mentioned in paragraph two, page 17 of the August 1, 1980, Watchtower, "The word `apostasy' comes from a Greek term that means `a standing away from,' `a falling away, defection,' `rebellion, abandonment.'" Therefore, if a baptized Christian abandons the teachings of Jehovah, as presented by the faithful and discreet slave, and persists in believing other doctrine despite Scriptural reproof, then he is apostatizing. Extended, kindly efforts should be put forth to readjust his thinking. However, if, after such extended efforts have been put forth to readjust his thinking, he continues to believe the apostate ideas and rejects what he has been provided through the `slave class', then appropriate judicial action should be taken.
There you have it: apostasy is defined as persistent disagreement with JW leaders. What could be clearer? Nothing about minor or major issues is discussed. It is clear that the language used in the letter to DO's and CO's, and the 4/1/86 Watchtower, included all JW beliefs -- no exceptions. So you, Dunsscot, are simply making up arguments as you go along.
If this JW policy isn't a "declaring of the righteous one wicked" -- a practice "detestable to Jehovah" -- then you go ahead and explain clearly why not.
::: But I think that if I ever left JWs, I would put faith in Acts 5:35-39.
:: Here you've stepped through thin ice. It has been proved beyond doubt that JWs are not "of God". Assuming God exists and acts on mankind's behalf, how do you think he acts? The Bible indicates that it's through various people. False religious organizations are exposed through the actions of people. Do you object to that? If so, then you can stop preaching the JW message right now.
: In your subjective imagination, it has been proved that JWs are 'not of God.'
No, I've proved it right here on this board: "Anyone pronouncing the wicked one righteous and anyone pronouncing the righteous one wicked -- even both of them are something detestable to Jehovah." (Proverbs 17:15) You just hate that scripture, don't you? Because it states absolutely clearly: Anyone who does such a wicked thing is detestable to Jehovah -- even if he does it once. Therefore, how much more culpable is an organization and those who support it, who go along with the disgusting policy as defined in the above-reference Watchtower sources?
: You need to believe that in order to salve your conscience.
See? I was right! You use that tactic merely to dismiss, without having to think, that which strongly challenges your beliefs. But we're on to you.
Furthermore, you don't know me and you know nothing of my personal life. You have no idea if I have anything to "salve" about my conscience. Your statement is a pure ad hominem diagnostic of braindead JWs who have no answers to hard questions about their religion.
: That is fine, but please do not act like you are speaking ex cathedra. Your perceptions are your perceptions, AF.
You forget, Dunsscot: because the Bible is on my side here, you have no argument.
: While God admittedly uses humans to expose falsity, the said humans utilized must really make sure that they are truly exposing error. I am not so sure that is what you are doing.
That's precisely what I'm doing. I do not, however, think that God has anything to do with it.
: A case in point is your article on Isa 40:22.
Bad choice, Dunny. That was my little joke on that thoroughly braindead ex-JW Fundy Rexie. While the Bible contains a number of statements that strongly indicate that Bible writers held a picture of a flat earth and a geocentric universe, there are also some indications that this picture may have been partly or completely just that -- a picture, not an actual view of the physical characteristics of the earth or sun-earth system. I argued in the contrary manner to see if any of the Fundies on the board, JWs included, could manage to see the point. No such luck. My true views are expressed in my online essay "Watchtower's View of Science", available for years here: http://www.geocities.com/osarsif/index2.htm .
Now let's touch on the errors that I've exposed in the Society's 1985 Creation book. For my complete essay exposing the errors in this disgusting book, see the article "The WTS View of Creation and Evolution" here: http://www.geocities.com/osarsif/index2.htm . To date no JW has been able to find a single flaw in my arguments that prove that Watchtower writers deliberately and accidentally made over 100 errors of fact or interpretation in that horrible book. I've received many letters from people who independently pointed out some of the same errors to the Society, all with the same result -- "We won't admit of any errors in the book". I even went to Bethel about four years ago and personally tried to point out to the author of the book, one Harry Peloyan, who is also the editor-in-chief of Awake!, a few of the errors. He was quite unwilling to listen. And since he happens to be the only person in a JW leadership position who can even read a science textbook, much less understand one, the buck stopped there. In short, with dishonest men like that at the helm, it's no wonder the JW ship is filled with dishonest men like you. But that's not all. In 1993 I contacted your buddy, GB member Bert Schroeder, and discussed with him many things. Among them was a particular series of errors in the Creation book, where a man was cited as a reference nearly a dozen times and claimed as a scientist, but who was actually a paranormalist and tabloid TV writer. Schroeder promised to look into that, but never followed through. He is yet another example of dishonesty in JW leadership.
:: Let's give a concrete example. Suppose you had been raised since birth in a Christian sect that practices free sex with children (don't bother arguing that such a sect isn't really Christian; you'd be missing the point). Suddenly you realize that this practice is wrong, and you get out. You realize that your religious leaders have been practicing pedophilia for years. What will you do? Leave them to God? Or do everything in your power to expose them and stop the molestation?
: Your premise is utterly flawed, unless you were abused or you have evidence that JWs (as a group) think it is okay to have "free sex with children."
Yet another example of your utter lack of reasoning ability. I did not say anything about being abused, nor did I in any way imply that JWs as a group think such a thing. I know perfectly well that JWs don't think that.
My example was purely hypothetical. And you know it. So your little red herring tactic here is yet another proof of your intellectual dishonesty.
You might salvage a little of your credibility by tackling my hypothetical example. I could just as well have named an actual sect that practiced this kind of thing, like the Branch Davidians under David Koresh.
: We have already discussed the lack of verifiable evidence that obtains for the claims of Silentlambs. I will not go there again.
On that irrelevant score, discussing is not the same as showing. Over the next year, his claims will be fully backed up with incontrovertible evidence. Watch for NBC Dateline this fall.
::: History has certainly borne out the truthfulness of this passage.
:: How?
: There have been numerous sectarian movements in ancient and modern times that have failed. A notable example is the Jim Jones cult.
Wow! Manmade organizations fail! Big fucking deal! As I said, this is self-evident.
::: But if God is the author of the said work, you will not be able to overthrow it, but will in fact be found fighters against God.
:: Fine in principle; impossible to test in practice. If you disagree, then devise a test.
: Pray and read God's Word.
LOL! What kind of a test is that? You pray and then tell me what you feel God told you? Come on!
Read God's Word? With the thousands of different interpretations throughout history, and the hundreds of different interpretations set forth by "God's people" during the last 120 years, of how much value is that?
The only practical test would be for God to physically take over mankind's affairs and do something that people can see. As long as he remains out of sight and inactive, there is no way to distinguish his invisibility from his nonexistence.
:: And again, you as a JW today may already be in this position with respect to any number of other organizations. Can you prove with certainty, for example, that United Bible Societies is not "of God"?
: I personally have no real beef with the United Bible Societies.
Coward! The question you yourself posed was not whether someone ought to have a "beef" with some religious organization, but whether said organization is "of God". The point being that JWs claim that all organizations other than their own are part of Satan's organization, and thus no JW can rightly be part of an outfit like United Bible Societies specifically because it is "of Satan" and not "of God".
Let me put it to you clearly so that you can't weasel out: Could you as a JW publicly join United Bible Societies without being DF'd? And I mean according to the Society's published rules about not joining "false religious organizations", not according to the whims of your local elders.
: I may try to challenge others on doctrinal grounds. But I always encourage the reader to make up his or her own mind after he or she reads the debate.
How big of you.
:: But I end with my original question. Are some ex-JWs monomaniacal?
:: Monomania implies either mental illness or excessive focus. Some ex-JWs therefore, are certainly monomaniacal, just as some of all people are. Most on this board are simply focused. You have a problem with that? Are you prepared to define "excessive focus" or "mental illness"? If you try, watch out that your definitions don't point straight back at you and your friends.
: First, I have not called anyone here 'mentally ill.'
Not explicitly, but your implication was quite clear. Saying without saying and all that.
: I am not qualified to make those kind of judgments.
I don't think you're qualified to make judgments about any such important matters.
: Secondly, I think it is difficult to define "excessive focus" in words.
Precisely my point, dingbat! Yet you yourself have painted "monomania" -- excessive focus or zeal -- with a broad brush on many participants of this forum, without precisely defining the term. You've fallen into my little trap, which proves that you can recognize a flaw in someone else's argument -- I deliberately left the term "excessive focus" undefined to see if you'd recognize that flaw -- but you can't see the identical flaw in your own. I.e., you're a hypocrite.
I don't condemn you personally for being a hypocrite. As a product of the JW environment, you can't help it.
: One may come out better delineating the formula "excessive focus" by employing examples.
: If one spends every day and night engrossed in a certain activity, it seems that one is being excessive in his or her focus.
Not necessarily. It depends on the activity and other circumstances. For example, attending a demanding university might well demand extreme focus for a few years, spending day and night studying and putting into practice the newfound skills. But the ultimate reward would likely be worth the temporary sacrifice.
: Do you think that one who sits at home watching the "soaps" day in and day out everyday is monomaniacal?
I would say so, because there is no good purpose in doing so except to kill time and perhaps deaden one's mind to reality. It's an escape mechanism, not something that accomplishes a good purpose.
Do you think that one who sits in a Kingdom hall five hours a week, takes perhaps another seven hours for travel and socializing connected with meeting attendance, spends three hours studying for those meetings, another two in general personal study, another four in field service related activities, another ten in shepherding work, another four in administrative duties, and an hour of personal time with his family, is monomaniacal? That's a minimum for what a JW elder has to do, typically.
: What about someone who plops himself or herself in front of a computer screen for hours as he or she focuses on overthrowing the Tower or exposing JWs as a cult?
Again that depends on many circumstances and on one's view of the value of the ultimate goal. If it eats too much into family time and so forth, it's probably excessive. But what defines "too much"? On the other hand, if one views such as a temporary sacrifice like going to college for four years or more, that gives it a rather different perspective. In the view of most participants on this forum, goals such as forcing the Watchtower Society into abandoning its ridiculous and unscriptural stand on blood transfusions are very much worth a sacrifice, because it involves human lives. Do you see anything wrong with being concerned with human life? I don't.
How about campaigning for the reform of policies such as coverup of child abuse, disfellowshipping, shunning those who leave the JW religion, and so forth? That, in my view, is worth much sacrifice, and is no different from making sacrifices like going to Bethel, pioneering, remaining single for 'the Lord's sake', and so forth. The only real difference is what thing you personally think is right.
And that's a sad thing, when people like you try to argue in general terms about these issues. You'd like to couch the arguments in terms of freedom of speech and so forth, but you really should be concerned about whether your religion is right or wrong. You know very well that the facts are not on your side, and so you must find all sorts of reasons to ignore facts. That is your whole purpose of coming on this board, Dunsscot -- to find reasons to ignore facts. And if you look hard enough, you'll find them. After all, some participants take drugs. That justifies the JW stance on blood. Well doesn't it? Some participants cuss. That justifies disfellowshipping people for disagreeing with the Society. And so it goes.
We will see whether you're up to dealing with the truth about "the Truth". In the long run, I hope you are. You've come a long way from your roots, and there's no reason you can't continue.
AlanF
