Posts by AlanF

28

How are your marriages fairing after leaving?

by 24k in

jw
friends

just a little bit about myself before you answer:

i was raised a jehovah's witness by my mother, who got "the truth" by studying with inlaws who were already members.

my father had been disfellewshipped for joining the army a few years before i was born, and has nevered returned to the organization.

AlanF

24k:

I married a pioneer sister when I was almost 24, and an active JW. That was in 1975. When 1975 came and went without Armageddon showing up, I gradually realized that something was very wrong in Brooklyn, and a number of inconsistent teachings that had nagged me kept popping up in my mind. I gradually developed the feeling that in 20 or 30 years, I would very much regret having been a JW. My wife enjoyed her "nice things" and so, in 1978, we decided that I should go to college so as to get a good career. While there, I learned enough that my faith in the Watchtower Society as God's spokesman was killed. I gave it one more try after I graduated in 1982, but became permanently inactive in 1983. My wife kept active, but gradually distanced herself. Our one child was born in 1985, and shortly after that my wife concluded that, as long as I wasn't an active JW, I wasn't worth her emotional investment. Of course, she didn't tell me that until after our divorce beginning in 1994.

From 1983 through 1990, I had little to do with the JWs, except for the occasional meeting and the various assemblies, which I attended only because my wife wanted some help dealing with our daughter. I also went to the occasional social function that my wife was invited to. During this time I sporadically researched certain topics of special interest, such as creation and the Flood, and the Society's view of science. I rarely spoke of these things to my wife, since she made it clear early on that my views were of no interest to her. In actual fact, she was very afraid of my developing views. Also, when my JW parents would visit once or twice a year, I'd discuss some things with my elder stepdad. Both my wife and my mom would get very upset, and often leave the room. My wife became aware of my rejection of Noah's Flood around 1988, and convinced an elder about my age to come to the house weekly and discuss the matter. Of course, it ended up that he had no answers, and suggested writing to the Society.

In late 1990 I began an intense program of research into the matters I was concerned with, and began writing documented essays to keep my thoughts in order. I also wrote several letters to the Society, most of which were not even acknowledged. My wife, if I recall right, read just one or two letters, and was horrified, so I never gave her any more information. I remember one time, though, after she discovered my hidden copy of Raymond Franz's Crisis of Conscience, she challenged me on some point. I told her that, until the 1940s, the Society had used 1874 instead of 1914 for the date of Christ's invisible return, and that that indicated something was very wrong in their teaching. She said, "No they didn't!" So I went and retrieved her very own copy of the 1973 book God's Kingdom of a Thousand Years has Approached, which lays this all out, and which she herself studied in the Book Study. She refused to look at the page. That pretty well set the stage for the next several years. She turned out to be deathly afraid of the information I was gathering, which I never again discussed with her but she found out about in my papers that were hidden away.

I have no idea what your wife is like. If she's like my ex, you're in for some big trouble. If she's open and reasonably tolerant, you have a good chance to keep your marriage together. However, you should understand that, no matter what, you're going to play second fiddle to the Watchtower Society. If she doesn't keep you in that place, she'll simply quit being a JW, because that's a fundamental requirement the Society places on JWs.

It's entirely possible to live with your lives largely apart, but it won't be very happy or satisfying, because of your second class citizen nature. Having to do it over again, I'd have divorced my braindead JW wife much earlier. I won't ever again play second fiddle to anyone or anything with my wife. A marriage is pointless otherwise.

It's also possible that you might be able to gradually insinuate some clear facts and thinking into your wife's mind. It all depends on her personality. If she's like my ex, forget it -- the mind is shut down. If she's like Amazing1914's, you have a good chance.

What you do depends on your long term goals. Do you want to live a life in the backwaters of the rest of your family? Do you want to play second fiddle the rest of your life? Or do you want the respect you deserve as an intelligent, independent man?

Your kids obviously play heavily into this. Some people who quit the JW cult find that the kids happily go along. Others find themselves shunned. Only you can determine what might happen here.

You have plenty of things to think about and decisions to make. I feel very bad for you, since I know quite well the potential for some very bad years. But that's the fruit of destructive cults like the JWs. There's no help for it.

I'm now married to a wonderful ex-JW named Juliann, and life has never been better.

AlanF

61

Alan F's flaming arguments and insults

by Rex in

hi alan, .

have you ever looked at the carved up mountains, hills and valleys?????

have examined the remarkable similarity to the mount st. helen's canyon that was carved our very quickly?

AlanF

confusedjw wrote:

: Call me a name Alan!

I don't know you well enough properly to do that. But give me some ammunition.

Quotes: You're spot on! I design microchips for a living, and it simply isn't possible to do that with the fuzzy, ill-defined, bumbling methods of dealing with reality of YECs, JWs and their ilk. Just imagine if aeronautical engineers took the Bible at its word and tried to fly space probes around "the circle of the earth". They certainly wouldn't get very far. Or if space scientists tried to figure a way to fire off space probes to the planets using the Biblical notion that the sun and planets really do orbit the earth. Yet that's exactly what YECs do with respect to geology and such.

EvilForce: Fundies have no sense of humor when it comes to their ridiculous beliefs, because they know very well that some of their beliefs are ridiculous, and they have no defense for them. But it's not like with people who believe in, say, astrology, which is ridiculous but relatively innocuous. Belief in Fundamentlism affects every part of one's life, as with the JWs, and it really mucks up a lot of life, and I think most of them know it. When people get that invested in a ridiculous thing, and have wasted a huge amount of time and energy and emotion on it, they get pretty defensive when challenged. Especially when the ridiculous thing involves matters important to many people, like what happens to us when we die, where we came from, where we're going, etc.

And yes, I do enjoy beer! We have some fine microbrews here in Fort Collins, like Odell's 90-Shilling Ale and Easy Street Wheat beer. Come here some time and let's have some!

Bikerchic: You know me too well.

Danny, I love the ostrich guy in your link.

Now a bit of my philosophy: Yes, I try to mix humor with pointed commentary, because it entertains and instructs people who are open minded and have a sense of humor, and it pisses off their opposites. Occasionally the latter are actually motivated to think, and even to think hard enough about their ridiculous beliefs to change them. That's how I learned to jettison a lot of my ridiculous JW beliefs that were so ingrained from infancy that I didn't even think of them as JW-ish. I'd sometimes try to defend those beliefs in online forums where there were people far more knowledgeable than I, and when I got my head handed to me -- often quite humorously and/or pointedly -- I learned. I also learned from some good books written in that style. A number of former JW defenders have contacted me over the years and thanked me for whacking them over the head with the facts that allowed them to exit the JW cult. So I make no apologies for my style of posting to meatheads.

Another thing: It's not "name-calling" to call a tree a tree, or a spade a spade, or a braindead Fundy a braindead Fundy. We will all agree that someone who insists that 2+2=5 is a meathead. If we want to show them why 2+2=4 by counting on our fingers -- "Here, meathead, look: Your index finger and your middle finger make two fingers, right? Your ring finger and your pinky make another two fingers, right? Now count them all together: one and one and one and one make four fingers, right?" -- and they refuse to look, then we have no choice but to label them braindead and a meathead. Calling them that is simply a description of what they do, and therefore is a demonstrable fact. Same thing goes for braindead Fundies who completely ignore the evidence given to them and refuse to deal with it, and then turn around and argue that they don't have to present evidence for their ridiculous claims. They're Fundies by admission, and they're braindead by demonstration. That's why my referring to the poster "scholar" as "scholar pretendus" is not name-calling, but a description of the way he operates -- via lies, misrepresentations and so forth, learned from his Watchtower masters.

AlanF

61

Alan F's flaming arguments and insults

by Rex in

hi alan, .

have you ever looked at the carved up mountains, hills and valleys?????

have examined the remarkable similarity to the mount st. helen's canyon that was carved our very quickly?

AlanF

I rest my case.

AlanF

61

Alan F's flaming arguments and insults

by Rex in

hi alan, .

have you ever looked at the carved up mountains, hills and valleys?????

have examined the remarkable similarity to the mount st. helen's canyon that was carved our very quickly?

AlanF

YECxy Rexy wrote:

: Have you ever looked at the carved up mountains, hills and valleys?????

Many times. Have you?

: Have examined

I see you're having trouble with English again. Perhaps you should take a remedial course.

: the remarkable similarity to the Mount St. Helen's canyon that was carved our very quickly?

There's no similarity in detail at all. Your claim is taken directly from the silly notions of Steve Austin and company of the YEC Institute for Creation Research. No real geologists take their claims seriously, because they're demonstrably wrong.

Obviously you haven't trekked around in the mountains, hills and valleys, and seen any of this for yourself. Have you even been to the Mt. St. Helens devastated area? I have. It's comprised of thick layers of volcanic ash that were observably deposited very quickly, whereas sediments in places like the Grand Canyon were deposited over many tens of millions of years. And of course, there are many older ash layers from St. Helens and other Cascades volcanos all around the Pacific Northwest.

For example, walking a trail in a little monument near Mt. Rainier called The Grove of the Patriarchs reveals a thick ash layer from a big eruption of Mt. Rainier from about 6,000 years ago, overlain by dirt, overlain by a thick ash layer from St. Helens from about 2,000 years ago, overlain by more dirt, etc. The Cascade volcanos have been erupting for millions of years, as can be seen by simply looking at the eroded state of some of them. Some, like Mt. Bachelor, and St. Helens until 1980, are fresh. Others, like Mt. Hood and Mt. Adams, have a significant amount of erosion, which takes a long time. Mt. Rainier is at least million years old, as can be seen by the severely eroded state of the mountains that partially ring it. Still others, like Mt. Washington in central Oregon, are eroded down to tall spires. The Cascade Mountains are clearly the result of many millions of years of volcanos popping up, spewing lava and ash for awhile, and then eroding down to nubs, whereupon new volcanos appear on top of the old remnants. Obviously, this demonstrably long sequence doesn't fit with YECism.

A week ago I spent a day "digging dinosaurs" near Glen Rock, Wyoming, in the company of some staff of the little fossil museum called Paleon, which was started by paleontologist Robert Bakker a decade ago. I found a small handful of fossil bits of ancient animals, such as garfish scales, pieces of fish skulls, bits of crocodile and ceratopsian teeth (like Triceratops), and even a couple of raptor teeth. I dug through a matrix of soft and semi-hard rock to get at them. The matrix was clearly from a river environment, and the entire area contains a number pockets of fossils like this, which shows that they accumulated in calm river pools, and were later buried under layers of river flood deposits. The entire ensemble of deposits in the general region, including much of Wyoming, Montana and Colorado, was once nearly ten miles thick. The lowest layers are Jurassic (early dinosaur period) in age, with late Cretaceous (later and last dinosaur period) deposits exposed in Glen Rock. Exposures of every age can be found in the region.

A few miles west of Denver is a little park where one can see ancient strata tipped up at about a 45 degree angle. Many of the layers contain dinosaur footprints. One can see that the strata containing these footprints are quite thick, so that there was a very long time period when dinosaurs walked through soft muck, which then dried and was buried, and the process repeated many times. This is perfectly understandable by normal geological principles, but impossible according to the self-styled Flood Geologists who claim there was a global flood a few thousand years ago. Why? Because the animals that left the footprints would have already been drowned, and there simply wasn't time for the dozens of observable layers containing footprints to dry up, be buried again, and for the process to repeat and repeat. Finally, it's not possible for such soft layers to turn to hard rock in just a few thousand years, then be tilted up at a steep angle, and finally for so much sediment to be removed from the Rocky Mountains as they rose up through the thick sedimentary layers.

More on the YEC claim that the Grand Canyon of Arizona and Colorado formed during Noah's Flood: This is abject nonsense. One of many disproofs of their claim is that most of the unconformities between rock layers contain all sorts of land features, such as stream beds with their associated cobbles. These cobbles are just rounded boulders from the rock layers the stream flowed through. Now, it's obvious that rounded boulders are made of hard rock, and they can't form from soft sediments, because they first have to be yanked away from the larger matrix of rock (such as by weathering) and then have to be worn down as they tumble downstream. There's no way that they can form under a huge flood from the soft sediments being deposited. It's evidence like this, and massive amounts of it, that disprove a global Noah's flood.

The point of all this is that it demonstrates conclusively that there was no global flood a few thousand years ago. Anyone who knows this evidence and ignores it is by definition braindead.

: Catastrophism at it's finest.

Fake science and quackery, you mean.

: You are right about the uselessness of arguing, so why do you do it?

Because there are lurkers who haven't yet had much exposure to real science, having been braindead JWs much of their lives. They need a dose of reality.

: If I am so 'braindead' and 'foolish' then you don't have to say a thing, do you?

Not for my sake.

: Or, is the idea that the Great Intellectual Alan might just be wrongheaded and on the road to oblivion too much for you to stomach?

LOL! The usual Fundy threat. You don't really think that scares most people on this board, do you?

: Here is an example of your standard tactics when you meet someone that doesn't believe your world-view:

That's among the most stupid things you've said. My comments have nothing to do with my "world-view" -- they have only to do with the demonstable fact that I presented actual evidence, whereas you presented nothing but nonsensical claptrap containing no evidence at all. I gave you a couple of prods to present evidence, but as usual with YECs, all you can manage is complaints about being called a spade. You simply ignored the evidence presented, and as I said, that's the definition of braindeadness.

Readers who want to see the extent of Rexy's, um, mental handicap can look here: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/95902/1.ashx

: >Of course, being a braindead YEC, you don't recognize evidence when it goes against your presuppositions -- namely, that there was a global flood cuz the Bible sez so.

Have you given any evidence that my characterization is wrong?

: >The point is that I can either present a hell of a lot more evidence against a recent global flood, or I can refer any reader to massive tomes on the subject. But why waste bandwidth on morons?

Have you given any evidence that you're not a moron, by actually given some real, live evidence for you claims?

Let's note my challenge to you, which you also ignored, and for obvious reasons left out of this bit you pulled from my post:

:: But since you seem to want to challenge knowledgeable people, you go right ahead and present any evidence your little heart desires, and let's see what happens?

Note clearly the challenge to present evidence. I then said, with regard to this challenge:

: >But I'm fairly sure that you're going to run away at this point.

: Still here, bro!

Physically, but not mentally. And as I said, since you failed to reply to that post, and have failed to give any evidence at all for your claims, my prediction was right. You've run away from presenting any evidence.

Such is the brain damage that YECism produces.

AlanF

18

Christian Answer to Atheist Bible: the Flood

by Rex in

no, i did not write this.

it is a compilation from academia: .

the source of the gilgamesh epic .

AlanF

Good Lord! Another mindless YEC! I suppose we'll soon start hearing about the proof that dinosaurs survived the Flood. This of course is proved by the fact that the monster Grendel in the Beowulf legend was really a T-Rex!

Rex wrote:

: You are arguing from presupposition. Your position determines your argument and your conclusion.

Nonsense. I presented extremely strong evidence against a global Noah's Flood. Do you know what evidence is? Of course not -- you're a YEC!

The evidence I presented was quite simple: massive floods produce ripped up land and such; this is proved by the Missoula floods of 12-14,000 years ago; we don't see such evidence around the world; therefore no such massive floods have occurred around the world in recent times. Even a small child can see this. I even illustrated the concept with a hypothetical claim of being massively burned.

Of course, being a braindead YEC, you don't recognize evidence when it goes against your presuppositions -- namely, that there was a global flood cuz the Bible sez so.

: Just because you say, 'it's been debunked', does not settle the question at hand.

No, it certainly does not. But why should anyone bother to present you with further evidence when you've already proved that you won't acknowledge it?

The point is that I can either present a hell of a lot more evidence against a recent global flood, or I can refer any reader to massive tomes on the subject. But why waste bandwidth on morons?

But since you seem to want to challenge knowledgeable people, you go right ahead and present any evidence your little heart desires, and let's see what happens?

But I'm fairly sure that you're going to run away at this point.

: You also make the mistake of arguing with intimidation in mind by assumption that those who no longer use certain theories and explnations are somehow superior or 'more scholarly' than those who do not.

Your English needs a lot of work, since this doesn't quite make sense. Nevertheless, there was nothing intimidating about my statement -- at least, not to someone with a bit of sense. What I said is absolutely true: the leaders of the modern "Intelligent Design" movement don't support YECism or YEC-style Flood Geology. You have an argument with that? Then present your proof.

AlanF

18

Christian Answer to Atheist Bible: the Flood

by Rex in

no, i did not write this.

it is a compilation from academia: .

the source of the gilgamesh epic .

AlanF

Rex wrote:

: >and BTW the evidence is overwhelming that the flood was NOT GLOBAL

: Actually, NO it is not.

Actually, yes, it is.

A global flood would necessarily leave a number of extremely evident traces. Such traces can be found in a few areas known to have experienced massive flooding in the recent past. Perhaps the best example is the region of eastern Washington called the "channeled scablands". About 12 to 14 thousand years ago, the massive Cordilleran ice sheet from Canada blocked the mouth of the Clark Fork River near Coeur D'Alene, Idaho, and formed a huge lake in the mountains of Idaho and Montana. This lake was bigger than Lake Ontario today. When the lake got deep enough, it broke through the ice dam and all the lake water spilled out over eastern Washington and northeast Oregon, gouging out massive amounts of the lava bedrock and greatly widening the Columbia Gorge. The incredible stripping of bedrock, the massive amounts of debris left over, and a great many other features, are proof that this flooding occurred. Amazingly, it happened at least 40 times. These are now known as the Missoula Floods, after the city of Missoula, Montana, whose site was under about 300 meters of water when Lake Missoula existed.

A massive global flood would dwarf the Missoula Floods, and leave unmistakeable evidence much like what one sees in Washington and Oregon, but on a global scale. The fact that we don't see such evidence is positive proof that no such global flood occurred.

This is easy to see with a more prosaic example. Suppose I claim that a month ago I received third degree burns over my entire body. You look at me and see nothing but fresh, undamaged skin. What could you conclude about my claim? Certainly that it was false, and probably that I'm either a liar or completely delusional.

: That depends on whether you are naturalistic in your presuppositions or you allow for supernatural events. That comes down to world view.

Nonsense. A massive flood will leave massive evidence. We see no such evidence. That's all it takes to disprove a global flood.

: The naturalist world view itself is unsupported by the evidence in the sciences.

Again, nonsense. Conversely, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of supernatural intervention in the world.

: There is shockingly little evidence in the fossil record to support the claims of evolutionists for instance.

Actually there's a tremendous amount. The fossil record and the geological record show many sequences in time of the evolution of structure of plants and animals. Whether the cause of that evolution was naturalistic or supernatural is another question entirely.

: Remember the famous Scopes 'monkey trial'? The whole constructed evoutionary evidence for the prehistoric 'man' I question was a single tooth.

Nonsense. Evidence for man's evolution was presented in the scientific community long before paleontologist Henry Fairfield Osborn's 1922 announcement of "Nebraska Man" based solely on one worn tooth.

: That tooth was later determined to be from a pig. LOL

You're a typically ignorant creationist, obviously. The tooth was actually from an extinct peccary, which is like a pig but not a pig. The teeth of peccaries and pigs are very much like human teeth, so a worn one is difficult to identify with certainty. Osborn made a stupid blunder in making so much of one worn tooth, but even before the Scopes trial in 1925 he began withdrawing from his 1922 claim, and by 1927 the claim was completely debunked -- by none other than the paleontologist that Osborn had commissioned to be the chief defender of the blunder, one William Gregory. Naturally, many paleontologists never accepted Osborn's claims. This is a good illustration of how science tends to be self-correcting, because when stupid blunders are made, there are always people willing and able to point them out.

: As far as the water canopy theory it is even no longer used in intelligent design circles.

It never was used in those circles. It was, and still is, used in Young-Earth Creationist, Flood Geology circles. Of course, the main proponents of so-called Intelligent Design today distance themselves greatly from nonsense such as YECism and Flood Geology -- to their credit!

: The rain ncessary could have been caused by catastrophic volcanic activity along with the release of huge volumes of water from the 'deeps' and the mountain ranges we have today would not have existed in the heights we presently had.

This is standard YEC Flood Geology nonsense, and has been thoroughly debunked elsewhere.

AlanF

82

THEY MURDERED MY DAUGHTER - WILL YOU HELP ?????

by SHUNNED FATHER in

jw
friends

two leading oncologists both agree that my daughter bethany might be alive today if she had not been fed arsenic.

as you may recall, the wts arranged to take my sick daughter into hiding for two months and payed a doctor to prescribe arsenic.

the doctor ant the wts lawyers convinced bethany that the arsenic treatment could cure her.

AlanF

You failed to answer my question carefully and completely, defd. You've shown your true colors. You're afraid of the truth, and you're dishonest to boot.

I'll give you another chance:

Is having a new liver transplanted into you the same as eating the liver? Why or why not?

Is having blood transplanted into you the same as eating the blood? Why or why not?

Did you read Deuteronomy 14:21, where God explicitly allowed Gentiles to eat blood? Why did God do this, if he was against eating blood?

If the colors you've shown so far are not your real ones, you now have a chance to correct the perception by giving complete and honest answers instead of evasions.

AlanF

19

Still clinging to 1914 a significant year in the new book.

by Blueblades in

jw
friends

1914 ---a significant year in bible prophecy.

page 215 -- 218 in the appendix section which start on page 194. i won't bore you with the same old same old interpretation of 607 b.c.e.

the seven times, 2,520 years.

AlanF

This all sounds to me like a dying gasp from the oldest and most ossified members of the Writing Department.

AlanF

82

THEY MURDERED MY DAUGHTER - WILL YOU HELP ?????

by SHUNNED FATHER in

jw
friends

two leading oncologists both agree that my daughter bethany might be alive today if she had not been fed arsenic.

as you may recall, the wts arranged to take my sick daughter into hiding for two months and payed a doctor to prescribe arsenic.

the doctor ant the wts lawyers convinced bethany that the arsenic treatment could cure her.

AlanF

defd wrote:

: To the contrary alan

"To the contrary" what? I wrote a number of things you could take issue with.

Kick your brain into gear, man!

: My point is this: It is said we are taught(brainwashed) Into believing by the WT, that God says NO blood. We are taught that from baptism on. Kids are TAUGHT by their parents to FIGHT in war from early ages.

Geez. What a sparklingly new insight! Kids are taught religion and war by their parents!

Your comparison is still nonsense.

: Whats the difference? In both cases a death may occur. One for God and one for Country.

If you run your car into someone and kill them, a death occurs. I suppose that means death by traffic accidents bears on the blood transfusion issue.

Kick your brain into gear!

: I agree with God. His command is clearly seen in the book of acts. ABSTAIN FROM BLOOD.

I could go down any number of paths here, but let's concentrate on just one: If you went to a doctor and he told you to abstain from meat because you had severe liver problems, and eventually he told you that you need a liver transplant, would you think he was contradicting himself? Why or why not?

Note that your refusal to answer this question carefully and completely will show your true colors.

AlanF

82

THEY MURDERED MY DAUGHTER - WILL YOU HELP ?????

by SHUNNED FATHER in

jw
friends

two leading oncologists both agree that my daughter bethany might be alive today if she had not been fed arsenic.

as you may recall, the wts arranged to take my sick daughter into hiding for two months and payed a doctor to prescribe arsenic.

the doctor ant the wts lawyers convinced bethany that the arsenic treatment could cure her.

AlanF

defd wrote:

: is it OK for a parent TEACHING their child it is OK to go and fight in a War and then ship him off at the age of 18 just to die. Lets sue some of those parents!

You're making a ridiculous argument. Whether there's justification to go to war, or to teach young adults to go to war, or for parents to ship such young adults off to war, has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue of whether blood transfusions are prohibited by the Bible. You obviously have no defense about the blood issue, and so drag in this red herring.

The fact is that the Bible has no prohibition against blood transfusions. The fact is that God explicitly told the Jews (Deut. 14:21) that it was ok for Gentiles to eat blood. The fact is that God's command to Noah about blood in Genesis 9 simply said that whenever people kill animals for food, they should pour out its blood as a token of respect for the creator of life. The fact is that Acts says nothing about blood transfusions. The fact is that the Society's prohibition against blood transfusions is based on precisely the same argument they used until about 1950 to prohibit vaccinations -- and which argument was abandoned when the Society's officers found they couldn't travel internationally unless they could certify that they had the appropriate vaccinations. The fact is that the Society will abandon the prohibition on blood transfusions not long after the present old guard of mentally ossified leaders dies off. The fact is that Watchtower leaders have much blood on their hands for teaching false, death-dealing dotrines in the name of God.

AlanF