OneEyedJoe

Joined

• started 34 topics
• posted 2,930 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by OneEyedJoe

• 
  19

  Survey: How Many Here Have Gotten Into Trouble With The Elders

  by minimus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  how many were brought in the infamous back room?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OneEyedJoe

  Never in the back room, but I've been told a couple times that I and my wife need to comment more and I need more recruiting time.

  
  
• 
  97

  Just ask simple questions and make street witnesses move along

  by OnTheWayOut in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  you don't have to know much to talk to jw's and show them they don't want to really discuss the matters.they consider a discussion on the matter they are pushing to be "confrontational.".

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfw_txpmsj8.

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lqtadagucq.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OneEyedJoe

  I'm a little late to the party on this one, but I agree with morpheus that trying to say that any specific religious organization or charity should go and help a specific person in a specific situation is a bad place to start a conversation.  First, it's pretty trivial to show that this is a poorly reasoned argument.  Second, because of the first, it's readily apparent that the argument is being made only to have something to accuse the other party on.

  Furthermore, filming anyone in a situation like this is always going to make someone ill at ease.  The implication is that the filming is being done because the person with the camera expects something noteworthy to happen.  No one tries to catch their conversion on film, so obviously the person with the camera is trying to create a 'gotcha!' moment.  

  Under the circumstances I can somewhat understand the JWs not wanting to engage too much.  I'd be surprised if they'd relocated upon the same questioning (at least from the first video) had he not been filming, but I could be wrong.  That said, I think they could also have done a much better job of explaining themselves, especially knowing that failure to do so would likely "bring reproach upon jehovah's name" as the video was destined for youtube.  I like his strategy of asking questions, but videoing it isn't going to help these poor kids that are trapped (whether they realize it or not) in the mental prison of the cult.

  I guess on some level it's beneficial to make them look silly to the public, but at this point the JW recruiting is completely unproductive so helping members to think instead of feeding their persecution complex is probably the better way to kill this cult.  I think following them at the end of the first video was too far and probably killed any chance he had of actually implanting some doubt in the kid's mind.
• 
  6

  Everything is programmed with no spontaneity allowed!

  by RULES & REGULATIONS in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  nounspontaneity is defined as the act or quality of acting without thinking in advance.. .

  remember when the speaker for the sunday talk forgot to show up, was backed up in traffic or forgot the outline of his talk at home?

  we went straight to the watchtower study and left early.. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OneEyedJoe

  I've never experienced this.  Anytime the scheduled speaker didn't show, they'd do the WT study and some elder would get one of his regular outlines and give a talk afterwards.

  You do make a good point, though.  Sorta like they've gone on record saying that people just discussing the bible in small groups without WT publications would lead to people going back to the doctrines of christendom.  It's clear that they realize that they have to keep very tight control on everything, otherwise it would all fall apart.
• 
  14

  Whom can we trust? Where can we turn to for protection?

  by abiather in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  though we can easily dismiss many of jws teachings on many counts, the sad part is that we do not have any alternative.

  1) 1) though some of the things bible said may have gone wrong (most of which would not even touch our day-to-day lives), the worst thing it foretold (which very much affects our day-today-lives) has come true: people will faint from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world.

  (luke 21:26).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OneEyedJoe

  1.  It's clear to any objective mind that the verse you quoted has been taken completely out of context and was not meant to be a prophecy of terrorism.  Furthermore, by essentially any metric the world is improving at an increasing rate.  Just because communication has allowed for negative global events to gain more publicity does not mean that they are increasingly frequent.

  2.  Science is not "equally dogmatic."  Science has no pope, no GB, etc.  I suspect that your problem with science is that you cannot make unfounded assertions without evidence and have them readily accepted like you can in the domain of religion.  If you have evidence that some accepted scientific theory is wrong, publish it and present your case for the world to see.  If you actually have evidence and know what you're talking about you won't be ridiculed, you'll be praised for increasing the sum of human knowledge.

  Your calculations on human growth rate are inherently flawed.  You neglect to account for the extremely high rate of infant mortality that was present in the early ages of the human species.  This only began declining in the last century or so.  Furthermore, you neglect to account for wars, famine and disease that have, at times, resulted in a decrease in the world population over a long period (a good example would be the black plague which contributed to a decrease in population of around 100 million people within a century).  The human population of the earth probably remained in the thousands for a very long time, and only after the invention of things like farming and domestication of animals did things become stable enough for the species to truly flourish.  Even then, as I said, human population growth was nothing like what we've seen in the last century.  
• 
  39

  At the meeting ... Ugh

  by cappytan in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  at least i have this forum.

  is there a shorthand for referring to this website?

  saying jehovahs-witness.com seems like a long winded way..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OneEyedJoe

  Oh as for throwing in "thought-provoking" comments or answers...be cautious!!

  [...]

  
  Now I have been deleted!...hmmm food for thought!
  

  404 Need for caution not found.  Sounds like you got a perfect result!
• 
  39

  At the meeting ... Ugh

  by cappytan in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  at least i have this forum.

  is there a shorthand for referring to this website?

  saying jehovahs-witness.com seems like a long winded way..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OneEyedJoe

  I wonder if people that have eyes open during the prayer are wise to TTATT?

  I think it's more likely that they just don't buy into it.  The ones in my congregation that keep their heads up during prayer are all 16-20 years old.  In quite sure they don't know ttatt, but they must be somewhat aware of how stupid it all is.
• 
  39

  At the meeting ... Ugh

  by cappytan in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  at least i have this forum.

  is there a shorthand for referring to this website?

  saying jehovahs-witness.com seems like a long winded way..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OneEyedJoe

  Another way to make the meetings a little easier, since you say you're giving lots of comments, is to look for ways to give comments that are superficially supportive of cult doctrine but will cause any thinkers to have a wtf moment.

  For example, a while back in book study there was something about how those who read the Bible with a critical heart object to it.  A great comment would be something like "some people object to god ordering the death of all men women and children of other nations, but we know that the only reason they object to this slaughter is that they have a critical heart"

  You do need to taper off the commenting, though.  Start working to get out of the spotlight.
• 
  39

  At the meeting ... Ugh

  by cappytan in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  at least i have this forum.

  is there a shorthand for referring to this website?

  saying jehovahs-witness.com seems like a long winded way..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OneEyedJoe

  Used to be jwn but I guess it'd be jwc now.

  I've found posting from the meetings almost make it as bearable as a root canal.  Which, of course, represents a significant improvement.
• 
  30

  Clever/snappy comeback for "you're an apostate"

  by Dagney in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i'm looking for some clever comebacks.

  i really don't care that i am an apostate, but would like to deliver a quick comeback or two to perhaps make the other person think.

  any suggestions most welcome.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OneEyedJoe

  So was Jesus and all the apostles.
• 
  55

  I'm studying with Jehovah's Witnesses!!

  by Kulotti79 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  hello all... i currently studying the bible teach book and i'm just curious what information does the study conductor record about the student and is it passed on??

  and they keep on saying "the truth" which is starting to get on my nerves.

  lol.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OneEyedJoe

  Usually they just keep your name, contact details, what publications they've left you and maybe a few personal details (children, hobbies/interests, notable personal problems, etc)

  The only reason I can think of for passing it on is if they couldn't do the study anymore, in which case they'll give it to whoever takes over.

  Do you mind if I ask what lead to your accepting a study?  Do you have other jw family or  aquaintences?

  If you're interested, the site jwfacts.com has lots of information on jws, and what they currently teach, as well as what they've taught in the past.  As a currently active jw, I found that website quite eye-opening and to be completely accurate.