When you compare the new “blue box” logo of the WTS with these Scientology logos, you can really see the similarities in their types of usage and perceived importance:
Posts by SAHS
-
11What is the difference? Aren't they both idols?
by brandnew inwhat is the difference between .
and this ?.
.
-
-
-
8
French article on JW brain washing brain
by wannaexit in.
http://www.journaldemontreal.com/2015/01/24/le-cerveau-lave-par-les-temoins-de-jehovah.
.
-
-
SAHS
It would have been really great if that article, and any others like it, included the following rather informative and poignant link:
http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/statistics.php
Now, that tends to shine a light (true light, not new light!) on such ridiculous lies as this Léonce Crépeau fellow, and others like him.
-
8
Article about Newburgh, NY, seeking new hotel zoning definitions because of JWs buying hotels/motels and taking property off tax rolls
by AndersonsInfo inhttp://www.recordonline.com/article/20150128/news/150129290/101019.
response to nonprofit's housing for volunteer workers .
posted jan. 28, 2015 @ 8:55 pm updated jan 29, 2015 at 12:18 am .
-
-
SAHS
You know how they used to set up giant “tent city” camps a long time ago during the old district conventions to temporarily house all those people near the stadium grounds? It was like a small town that sprung up, with lots of volunteers setting up necessary amenities. Now, if the Watchtower could manage that, I’m thinking, why couldn’t they try setting up some kind of similar “campground” on or near their new construction site to temporarily house the travelling volunteer workers? They certainly could, you would think. I mean, they did something like that before for the conventions, back when they were eight days long. Now, I’m not talking about the exact same thing as that, per se, but maybe something appropriately equivalent to serve the needs of those travelling volunteer workers. Then the Watchtower wouldn’t have to spend as much money purchasing hotels, and the communities where the hotels are located wouldn’t have to put up with having prime real estate taken off their tax rolls. It’s economical and “self-sustaining” for the Watchtower and fair for the community at large. It’s win win for everyone, you would think. -
50
Hello
by Garrett inhello forum,.
i'm new here and not sure where to post.
so, i'm 21 years old and currently a baptized witness, however, i'm slowly making my mind up to leave and here's why.. first, there are certain things that make no sense to me in the organization.
-
-
SAHS
To “Garrett”: Working in your favour is the fact that not only are you just 21 years old but also that none of your family are Jehovah’s Witnesses. You haven’t accumulated as much baggage and family entanglement as us poor folks like me who are older. (I’m 48½ years old.)
As for the depression, I do hope that it is being taken care of by a competent doctor. I too am on antidepressant medication. I used to self-medicate for quite a long time by drinking, mainly the bubbly stuff that pours out of those taps at the pub. Now I’m trying to go about things a little smarter.
Just like “Hortensia” wrote, I too “I figured I was going to be burnt toast at armageddon anyway.” I grew up basically thinking that I was on death row for having been condemned because I had sinned against the holy spirit. (Thus my user name, “SAHS.”) But now that I have done some extensive research on the Watchtower’s quirky and fallacious interpretations and policies, I have switched to a much more agnostic and atheistic direction (a much expected and understandable result for many of us, after having been force-fed so much tripe and puke for so long by “God’s one-and-only true organization”).
I think that “EndofMysteries” is absolutely right in saying: “If you don’t have family in or anybody you care to keep in contact with, then by all means DA or just don’t show up again.” But in that case, I would say to anyone in your situation: “DA and just don’t show up again.” I mean, what would you have to lose? You will find that if you submit your own personal disassociation letter to the Watchtower, it will give you the satisfaction of having given them a good piece of your mind – which is most validating and exhilarating, and tends to have a very positive effect on one’s depression as well! You will find that the longer you have been away from the stagnant and oppressive Watchtower cult environment, the better off you will be in all respects. And all that nonsense of the cult will eventually just seem like the bad dream that it is.
Take care, and all the best to you in your personal search for meaning and serenity.
-
52
New member, no longer just reader...
by freemindfade inso i joined very recently and began posting and commenting without a formal intro.
been reading for a while, decided it was time to jump in.
mentally i am completely cleansed of this thing, but still have to maintain a minimal involvement for spouse and family.
-
-
SAHS
Terry makes a lot of sense, and, as usual, his pensive yet poignant sentiments are well-expressed.
What we have been taught – and had pushed on us so relentlessly and for so long – has, in fact, been proven to be nothing more than a lie and a fraud. Now, the WBTS has no doubt had some good intentions, but the bottom line is that truth is truth, and false is false. So, whatever good intentions at least some folks in the WBTS may have had, it nevertheless – regardless of the degree to which they were either just naively mistaken or deliberately dishonest and high-handed – has, in fact, been formulating and promulgating falsehood, often with an underlying self-serving tone. (Their numerous attempts at ascertaining a one-and-only truthful interpretation of the Scriptures have been of the same batting average as someone striking at a piñata wearing a blindfold in a coal mine a mile underground with the lights out.)
There is certainly no reason to be ashamed by daring to question anything. As an old chum of ours by the name of Raymond Franz once said, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, and one who would take on the role of claiming to be the sole mouthpiece for Almighty God would be assuming a most awesome responsibility – or at least something to that effect (I don’t have those exact quotations from his books in front of me right now).
Everyone has every right to make enquiries about that which is most relevant and important to life itself and the essence and their very being as a whole person. Keep an open mind, and remember: life is a journey – and it is as uniquely personal as the number of individual people there are.
As Terry closed with in his above post, “Now you stand to become the change in the world you wish to see happen.” Everyone is essentially the master of their own destiny. We are all really just a bunch of carbon, calcium, water, and a very few number of other basic elements (I forget exactly which) having a finite time to live on this earth before those elements again become literally part of the earth itself. So, you have every right to live it well, as you see fit, to the best of your knowledge.
Welcome to the board!
-
23
i know this has been talked about. but isn't wearing JW.org stuff idol worship
by goingthruthemotions inso i am getting really frustrated...i see jdub's wearing jw.org items and .
isn't this idol worship.
respond if you like...i just want some .
-
-
SAHS
The WT has always been pointing their finger at other religions, most notably Catholics, who make use of images and icons. They’ve been regularly pointing out the material in their Reasoning From the Scriptures book regarding God’s supposed view of images and icons in parts in the Theocratic Ministry School, and how apparently wrong it is. (False religion, don’t you know!)
I know a brother who put decal lettering “YHWH” on the back of his station wagon in the 1980s. Apparently some brothers frown on such chintzy bumper-sticker-religion displays, as did the WT, but, alas, . . . here we are now with all those annoying blue “JW.org” squares on everything. What’s that word again? . . . oh yah, “hypocrisy.” How ridiculous!
There are two of those blue square things on the display sign at our Kingdom Hall, one on each side. They clash with the sign, which is maroon/burgundy-colored. Those blue squares look rather out of place. You can tell that they’re on there “just because.”
“Honesty”: “. . . the indoctrination is so deep that it overwhelms their common sense.”
That’s really about it. In a JW’s eyes, the WT can do no wrong. (That is, unless they happen to be among the growing number who are starting to actually wake up.) -
31
Is this proof that the flood was regional?
by silent ini stumbled across a scripture today.
it's numbers 13:33 "and there we saw the nephilim, the sons of anak, who are from the nephilim, and in comparison we seemed like grasshoppers, both to us and to them.. now if they honestly believed that they saw the nephilim, it would mean that some nephilim would have had to survive the flood or that the hijinks of the fallen angels before the flood, happened again shortly thereafter.
the only other thing i can come up with is that nephilim was some kind of generic word that implied giant proportions, but not necessarily the nephilim.. comments from the more educated appreciated.. silent.
-
-
SAHS
I think that the Nephilim of Genesis is really just something fanciful made up to offer an explanation for people with different physical characteristics which sounds more mystical and enchanting than any scientific facts.
There are many examples of mythological legends contrived by different cultures in an attempt to “explain” natural phenomena. As an example: according to Hindu legend, the Ganges River in India was supposed to have been created when the water goddess Ganga flowed from the heavens through the long hair of Siva, and in another Indian creation myth, Prajápati weeps creative tears like the Egyptian sun-god Ra, whose rays are tears from which all things spring.
So, we can see how natural things, such as rivers and the sun, were taught to have supposedly originated from tears of mythological gods. Many other things, such as the moon, stars, comets, mountains, oceans, animals, human life, as well as groups of people sharing certain physical similarities, have been attempted to be explained by numerous types of myths. Mythology, of one sort or another, is a common factor in human culture and seems to satisfy some innate and primal need from an anthropological and psychological perspective.
I believe that what was referred to in the Bible as the “Nephilim” was really nothing more than a variety of people called the “Anakim,” who were considered notably tall and strong, at least relative to the Israelites. Facts no doubt became quite exaggerated and distorted, thus adding fodder to the classic “Nephilim” included in the Noachian flood story.
This is yet another example showing that the correct explanation often tends to be the simplest.
-
15
An email from a Jw "friend" to me (accusing me of apostasy) a few months back.
by objectivetruth ini was going through old email and i came across the below email from a former acquaintance of mine who is a jw.
when we were both jw's, we were both pretty liberal in our beliefs.
its quite interesting how cognitive dissonance kicks in, for many & not too much for others.
-
-
SAHS
“objectivetruth”: “If someone wants to leave our organization we don't disfellowship them.”
True. They don’t disfellowship them. If someone wants to leave the organization quietly, thus disassociating himself/herself, they just announce from the platform that “[so-and-so] is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses” . . . . . . . . which means that they are DISFELLOWSHIPPED! . . . . So, yes, they DO, in fact, disfellowship them. The only difference is how many minutes the judicial (disfellowshipping!) committee is required to meet to reach their verdict (judgment) – with or without the presence of the accused (judged).
The Watchtower Society on its Web site, under “Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Shun Former Members of Their Religion?,” states the following: “Those who were baptized as Jehovah’s Witnesses but no longer preach to others, perhaps even drifting away from association with fellow believers, are not shunned. In fact, we reach out to them and try to rekindle their spiritual interest.” (“http://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/shunning/”) This is misleading because it may naturally lead people to think that the Watchtower doesn’t shun those who simply decide to leave the organization (disassociating from it), but, in fact, it only mentions that those who “no longer preach to others, . . . drifting away” are not shunned.
Now, when the Watchtower tricks people by leading them to believe that they do not shun people who leave the organization, when, in fact, they certainly do, then that is plainly deceitful. Note what Psalm 26:4, 5 says: “I do not associate with deceitful men, and I avoid those who hide what they are. I hate the company of evil men, and I refuse to associate with the wicked.” (RNWT) So, according to that scripture, people shouldn’t be associating with the Watchtower anyway because of their infamously dishonest tactics. So, when people leave (or disassociate) themselves from the Watchtower, they can rightly say that they are just following Psalm 26:4!
-
28
YOU 'THINK' YOU ARE FREE when you leave the Org. . . but it can be an ILLUSION
by Terry indid you know there is nothing more insane than being partly indoctrinated and partly free?.
the level of cognitive dissonance is ridiculous!.
i have told this story before, so i'll shorten it to cut to the chase.. in 1987, i was dating a professional psychotherapist with a view to marriage.
-
-
SAHS
I suppose the safest approach when citing specific examples relating to religious faith and doctrine is to be sure and always preface it by saying, “some people believe that . . . ,” or “according to the biblical account of . . . , apparently . . . , at least as the story goes,” or even “some religions teach that . . . ,” etc. That way, whomever you’re talking to will be clear that whatever you’re mentioning about whatever biblical or religious account you might be referring to is not something in any way from you or even in agreement with you, but simply a fact about a story or concept which already has been put out there by someone else. For example, whatever you said regarding the “story of the Nephilim,” as long as it was prefaced by something like “according to . . . ,” or “I heard that some people believe that . . . ,” then you should be relatively fine. (As opposed to just starting off with “So, the wicked angels see the daughters of men and . . . ,” blah, blah, as though giving some subtle indication that it’s somehow something you believe in and may even be personally passionate about.)
It’s like when a newspaper article is referring to something to which the editors don’t want to possibly convey any impression that they might be adopting the views or opinions of whatever it is they’re reporting on and so they be sure to put lots of quotation marks around things and use syntax that just informs but only in a purely objective and dispassionate manner.
In other words, you can get away with a lot simply by simple semantics incorporating a complete dispassionate neutrality. It may seem a trifle dry and robotic, but those neutral prefaces and precious quotation marks are the tools of the trade for effectively covering one’s butt in any situation.
-
18
What laws are on your side (in the U.S.) so you can leave quietly
by oppostate inin another topic "just quit quietly - the law is on your side" there was a lot of discussion about how to leave quietly without getting tagged publicly as "no longer a jw".
here are some legal cases that could be used to show support for leaving quietly.. you have to first send a letter saying you're leaving that specific congregation, and that you don't want them to keep records of you.. if the boe says anything against you here are some court cases that make precedent for bringing a suit against them:.
baugh v. thomas (1970).
-
-
SAHS
“oppostate”: “You have to first send a letter saying you're leaving that specific congregation, and that you don't want them to keep records of you. . . . Basically if you withdraw from a congregation, you can hold them legally responsible if they retaliate against you for doing so. This makes for a situation where they cannot DF you for leaving the congregation.”
The only potential problem I’m thinking of, in practice, is that even though the congregation may theoretically have some legal liability for disfellowshipping a person in a manner which is unjustified and unwarranted (at least according to “natural law” or general “contract law”), they may just decide to go ahead and do that anyway, sending their little committee report to the Watchtower branch headquarters – because if anyone goes sending letters to the BOE in an attempt to tell them how to run things in his or her particular case, especially by putting forth some form of an ultimatum, the BOE is apt to consider such actions as a form of what they term “insubordination,” which probably would usually apply to an elder but may possibly be used against a ministerial servant or even just a rank-and-file member. (It all depends on how they may interpret and apply it.)
I’ve heard that the Watchtower has used “insubordination” as a grounds for committee cases and has even led to disfellowshipping of brothers. (And look what happened to our dear brother Raymond Franz when they even just suspected that he was rocking the boat!) Apparently “insubordination” is theoretically something they can use as a blanket charge against any who don’t tow the party line and who dare to not do what they’re told. (It seems that BOE’s tend to not exactly care for being told what to do by any “dissenters.”)