Posts by AlanF

44

The WTS fornicating with CESNUR

by greendawn in

jw
friends

the wts is a member of cesnur an organisation that seeks to promote new religions and to oppose anti cult actions by governments on the grounds that these are attacks on personal and religious freedom.

surprise surprise the other members of this organisation make up a strange brood: mormons, scientologists, new agers, ramtha's school of ancient wisdom, etc.

clearly the wts that criticises mainstream christianity so much chooses to join forces with such dubious religions in cesnur.

AlanF

Your comments here, SBF, are precisely what peg you as a semi-apologist for the JWs.

Tell me, was Martin Luther King involved in politics?

AlanF

54

What ever happened to homosexual GB member Leo Greeenlees, is he dead now?

by chiddy in

jw
friends

AlanF

Frank, the WTS officials I spoke to were in a position to know the facts. There is nothing of rumor or hearsay about it. One of them was surprised when I brought it up, but then filled in details like this: the parents of the boy Greenlees molested brought the matter to the Society's attention; the Governing Body itself tried Greenlees and found him repentant -- that's why they merely dismissed him rather than disfellowshipped him. If you want more information, PM me your phone number.

AlanF

44

The WTS fornicating with CESNUR

by greendawn in

jw
friends

the wts is a member of cesnur an organisation that seeks to promote new religions and to oppose anti cult actions by governments on the grounds that these are attacks on personal and religious freedom.

surprise surprise the other members of this organisation make up a strange brood: mormons, scientologists, new agers, ramtha's school of ancient wisdom, etc.

clearly the wts that criticises mainstream christianity so much chooses to join forces with such dubious religions in cesnur.

AlanF

Just to clear up a point, greendawn, the ex-JW who was threatened with a lawsuit was David Reed, who for many years published a small newsletter "Comments from the Friends". So far as I know, Reed was threatened only by Massimo Introvene, founder of CESNUR, for claiming that Introvene and company were members of "vampire cults" when in actuality they were members of something called "Transylvanian Society of Dracula" which apparently is some sort of tongue-in-cheek 'historical' society. See Reed's webpage here: http://www.cftf.com/online/

Nevertheless, the Society's involvement with CESNUR is really no different in principle from its cynical involvement with the UN, because as soon as Reed publicized the Society's upcoming attendance at the 1998 CESNUR conference, its three delegates suddenly became too ill to show up.

AlanF

54

What ever happened to homosexual GB member Leo Greeenlees, is he dead now?

by chiddy in

jw
friends

AlanF

I've had two Watchtower officials and one former Bethelite confirm to me the fact that Leo Greenlees was convicted by the GB in 1984 for molesting a young boy. That's largely the basis for the material that Blondie posted. The former Bethelite was quite happy to learn that Greenlees had been exposed on the Net since the mid-1990s. One WTS official was quite put out that I mentioned it to him, and wondered why I was bringing up stuff long in the past. The other official was frank about it, and even filled in some details that I hadn't known before. So the charges against Greenlees are not mere rumor or hearsay.

Anyone who wishes to confirm this can call the Brooklyn Bethel phone number and ask about Greenlees. I'm certain that they'll get something like "no comment" rather than flat-out denial. That's quite different from the reaction one would get with respect to someone who has had no accusations, such as, say, Karl Klein, for whom the response would likely be "that's preposterous".

AlanF

14

Why was the WTBT$ part of the UN?

by mama1119 in

does anyone know the reason/benefits that the wt had being a member of the un, besides library card??

?

AlanF

I believe that at first, all there was to it was to get a library card. This, of course, ignored the fact that to get it, the responsible officials hypocritically and cynically had to agree to support the UN charter. But as time went by, and a small number of officials, such as in the Legal and Service Departments, began to realize that being an Associated NGO had additional advantages for the Society, they began to use this to gain entrance to UN related forums such as the UN Council on Human Rights, the US Congress, and so forth.

These officials pretty much kept this quiet from other officials who didn't need to know. I know this for a fact, because shortly after the UN story broke in 2001, on the day after the UN story broke in the UK magazine The Guardian, I called several WTS officials and they said they had no knowledge of the Society's association, and were surprised about it.

AlanF

31

Tomfoolery! (Fluffy Stuff, Fluffer Nutters)

by Good Girl or Bad Girl? in

jw
friends

ok so i just remembered something this morning that made me laugh really hard and it happened about 12 years ago:.

my family were in the field service one saturday morning.. my little brother did nothing if not piss my dad off as much as possible, not sure if it was on purpose or just a personality clash, but anyway.. i'm pretty sure little bro would not get out at a door and was also possibly doing something mischevious, i.e.

drawing funny yet inappropriate comics to entertain himself and his sisters.. so my dad demands that my bro get out.

AlanF

I remembered a couple more.

In the late 1960s, when bra-burning was the rage in certain circles, one brother who wasn't too bright was assigned to read something from the book of Jeremiah. He mixed up the words brazier and brassiere. His reading came out like this:

"And the king was sitting in the winter house, in the ninth month, with a brassiere burning before him. Then it came about that as soon as Jehudi had read three or four page-columns, he proceeded to tear it apart with the secretary’s knife, pitching it also into the fire that was in the brassiere until all the roll ended up in the fire that was in the brassiere."

Most everyone in the KH couldn't stop laughing.

During one round of making motions to send the Society some money, this same brother said, "I second that emotion."

One quite fat sister, who was generally regarded as wierd, sometimes passed gas during the meeting quite loudly. One time, she bent over to pick up a book from the floor and let a loud one loose. I mean, it was just, bend over and FAAAAAAARRRRTTTT! Us kids lost it.

AlanF

31

Tomfoolery! (Fluffy Stuff, Fluffer Nutters)

by Good Girl or Bad Girl? in

jw
friends

ok so i just remembered something this morning that made me laugh really hard and it happened about 12 years ago:.

my family were in the field service one saturday morning.. my little brother did nothing if not piss my dad off as much as possible, not sure if it was on purpose or just a personality clash, but anyway.. i'm pretty sure little bro would not get out at a door and was also possibly doing something mischevious, i.e.

drawing funny yet inappropriate comics to entertain himself and his sisters.. so my dad demands that my bro get out.

AlanF

God, that's a funny story!

I don't have any to top it, but here are a few little incidents with my parents that make me laugh/wince.

I must have been about eight or so, and I started to do something of immediate consequence (can't remember what anymore) that my Dad didn't like. He hollered, "Nooooo-n't!" I couldn't stop laughing.

I was about 15 and building a telescope. My dad had severe migraine headaches and other problems that almost incapacitated him fairly often. During one of these episodes, I wanted to order a telescope part from a company named Telescopics. I gave him some cash and he wrote me a check made out to Telespops.

When I was about 10 or so, I did something that pissed off my mom. She was in the habit of beating me and my brother with one of those 1950s-60s plastic hairbrushes, and this time she took a good whack at my ass. The brush broke. We both started laughing and couldn't stop. That was the last time she took a whack at me.

AlanF

33

Agnostic or Athiest--which makes more sense?

by whyizit in

jw
friends

i can see how someone could be agnostic in their view.

who knows, who cares?

thinking that perhaps "god" is just a spiritual santa claus for people who are afraid of death, etc..... but atheism?

AlanF

whyisit said:

: It's lovely to be called gullible.

While I was not completely sure at first, I think that at this point, you've demonstrated it. Your failure to mention Hovind's ridiculous teaching about Tyrannosaurs terrorizing Europe until recently proves it.

: By the way, how is it that you came to be on this forum?

Well, I got on Usenet back in 1991, and have been a significant contributor to many JW-oriented forums since then. But I'm sure you're uninterested in my overall posting history. But in case you really want to know how long I've been online, type my name at Google.

: It couldn't be that you were (gasp) in a mind control group, could it? I mean, surely YOU aren't that gullible, are you? That just can't be! (But then again, I am kind of gullible. Maybe it takes one to know one, eh?)

Having been raised in the JW cult since infancy, I can hardly claim to have been influenced to join it as an adult, can I? Rather in contrast to you, who by your own admission were raised with at least a modicum of sense, but you threw it away upon being taken in by one of the best Christian charlatans of the late 20th century. I first had misgivings about the JWs shortly after I was baptized due to peer pressure in 1967, when a few months after that regrettable event the WTS came out with its ridiculous doctrine that organ transplants are against the laws of God. It was downhill, by fits and starts, from there on. I finally had the sense to quit at age 27 and go to college, and learn something useful.

: I believe that the Bible makes way more sense than evolution,

You can believe in the tooth fairy, for all I care. But if you want to argue about the evidence, then you're in deep doo doo, on both counts.

: and Kent Hovind's creation seminar definitely got the wheels turning in that direction.

How sad.

: I never heard any cases for creation before him.

Nothing like a completely naive newbie, eh? Grist for the YEC mill.

: I did not simply stop there. That was only the beginning.

I wouldn't brag, if I were you.

: More and more evidence keeps piling up on the side of a creator, rather than a cosmic accident.

Yeah. LOL! Like "Intelligent Design" I suspect you'll claim. I note that you're just a bit too politically astute to mention your YECism on this board. You'll get your head handed to you, as I'm sure you know.

: Since having found faith in God, you can believe it or not, but my experience has been a very personal one.

Right. I suppose one of your most amazing experiences was that someone like Jimmy Swaggart whacked you on the head and you fell down, knowing Jesus when you got up. Am I wrong?

: It is amazing how He is with me and I know He exists.

JWs say the same thing. Ditto in spades for "anointed" JWs. Do you accept their claims? Of course not. Why not? Why are their claimed supernatural or semi-supernatural experiences of any less value than yours?

: I can't prove it, but I can only tell how my life has changed.

I've heard exactly the same thing from a variety of Christians. The JWs tout this very thing as reason that they have The Truth. Truth be told, it's not the Christianity that makes a difference. It's the fact that a person has managed to find a focus -- any focus -- as opposed to drifting without apparent purpose in life. But that's pretty well descriptive of how all religions affect people when they first become true believers.

: Heck, I don't even have to tell people. They actually ask me what is up. They notice the difference. I look the same.

Geez. And here I thought that newbie fundies immediately grew horns.

: I'm not a hamster on a wheel. I don't beat on doors and push it on others. I don't spit Scriptures out in my every breath. I'm not charismatic in the least. I don't pressure people that they should believe as I do. I just live what I believe.

That's good. And for that I admire you.

: I can only testify as to what has happened in my life.

Fine. But when you come on a public forum and make claims, you can expect that your claims will be challenged.

Let me ask you another question: Do you really believe that Noah's Flood destroyed the entire earth a few thousand years ago, leaving the entire fossil record encased in sedimentary rocks in its wake? I.e., do you subscribe to the full blown young-earth creationism as espoused by Kent Hovind, the ICR and "Answers in Genesis"?

AlanF

33

Agnostic or Athiest--which makes more sense?

by whyizit in

jw
friends

i can see how someone could be agnostic in their view.

who knows, who cares?

thinking that perhaps "god" is just a spiritual santa claus for people who are afraid of death, etc..... but atheism?

AlanF

whyizit, you make a reasonable point with regard to what most people regard as "strong atheism", i.e., professing to know that there is no Christian God. However, exactly the same can be said about belief in any other gods -- Allah, Thor, Zeus, whatever. So this in itself is not evidence in favor of the existence of the Christian God.

In his recent book, The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins gives a list of seven milestones in the continuous probability spectrum of belief in some god, which he explains generally means the Christian God in his book, since that's the god most of his intended readers will be familiar with. This is in a discussion of what atheism and agnosticism mean in the context of "true believers in God". The last two milestones are:

6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'

7. Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.'

Dawkins comments on this list: "I count myself in category 6, but leaning towards 7 -- I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden."

I'm completely with Dawkins on this. I'm in category 6 with respect to God, the supernatural in general, the paranormal, UFOs as conveyors of alien beings, and a lot more besides.

You commented that, upon hearing a lecture by the young-earth creationist Kent Hovind, you began believing in his style of creationism. I have to say that, if all it took was one lecture by this charlatan to flip from accepting solid science to accepting the myths of YECism, you're gullible indeed. You obviously had no real grounding in science.

Hovind actually teaches that Tyrannosaurs terrorized Europe until just a few hundred years ago. Indeed, the epic Germanic story of Beowulf describes the depredations of the monster Grendel, which was a Tyrannosaur, sez Hovind. Do you really believe this due to evidence, or just because Hovind says so?

You marvel at the abilities of the eye, and say that "something that magnificent had to have a creator." Yet you don't wonder about the creator of a creator who could create such things. Why is that?

I know why that is: you've fallen into the same believer's trap that so many do: you simply say, "Well, the buck stops with God. God had no creator but has always existed." Well of course, that's no kind of answer to the problem. It's just a thought stopping mechanism. If one claims that "life always comes from life", or that our universe just must have had a creator, then by the same logic, the creator of our universe must have had a creator. And so on ad infinitum. So claiming that the buck stops with the Christian God is just special pleading. On the other hand, if one allows that a Supreme Creator must have always existed, then one must also logically allow that the macrocosmic universe of which our local universe may be just an infinitesimal part must have also always existed. So either way, one runs smack into the problem of origins.

AlanF

149

Issuing a Challenge to Atheists and Unbelievers

by The wanderer in

jw
friends

questions for the atheists and unbelievers understandably, individuals who have left the organization did so for.

personal and more than likely good reasons.

and after reading the .

AlanF

Well, LittleToe, if you think carefully about your experience with God, I think you can see why many people must have as much skepticism about its being real as they do with the claim of various JW "anointed ones" to having similar experiences. Why are you special? If God is who his followers claim, then he should be able to see that at least hundreds of millions of humans are at least as special as you, and give them similar experiences. As the American comedian Don Rickles used to say, "What am I? Chopped liver?"

I think it's telling that only Christians have this sort of experience. Their religion demands that they have something like that, and so they do. We see this all the time with the crazy American Fundamentalist faith-healing and tongue-speaking sects. People who, for emotional reasons, want to join up with them, very quickly get these experiences. Why is that? I'm sure you don't actually believe that these people -- often extremely sincere -- really do get healed or speak in real foreign languages. Or that God is somehow involved with protecting those whacked out Bible Belt snake handlers from harm. How is your experience different?

When my dad had his hallucinations, if he didn't have some measure of skepticism left he might have tried to convince others that his hallucinatory conversations with the people who appeared in his room were real. He might have succeeded. After all, no one else was there to disconfirm it, and it was his experience.

So, in the same way that I must relegate the claim of the "anointed" JW I described to your option 2, so must I relegate yours. Why? Because I agree with what Carl Sagan wrote in his article "The Burden of Skepticism" in Skeptical Inquirer (vol. 12, Fall 1987):

If you are only skeptical, then no new ideas make it through to you. You never learn anything new. You become a crotchety old person convinced that nonsense is ruling the world. (There is, of course, much data to support you.) But every now and then, maybe once in a hundred cases, a new idea turns out to be on the mark, valid and wonderful. If you are too much in the habit of being skeptical about everything, you are going to miss or resent it, and either way you will be standing in the way of understanding and progress.
On the other hand, if you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish the useful as from the worthless ones. If all ideas have equal validity then you are lost, because then, it seems to me, no ideas have any validity at all.
Some ideas are better than others. The machinery for distinguishing them is an essential tool in dealing with the world and especially in dealing with the future. And it is precisely the mix of these two modes of thought that is central to the success of science.

I've been skeptical of extraordinary claims all my life. I have to think it must be part of my personality because it certainly wasn't taught to me by my JW parents or other JWs. I've never had anything even bordering on the sort of extraordinary experience described by many people. Does that make me wierd? Or does it make me not gullible?

Beardo wonders if Satan or God seemed to appear to me personally, would I be skeptical? Damn right I would! I'd wonder if, for once, I was having a hallucination. But I'd also keep an open mind and demand proof from these smart guys that I wasn't hallucinating. If that weren't good enough for them, they could just zap me and I'd never know the difference. But if they took the trouble to appear to me, then I'd have to conclude that they wanted to convince me of something -- that they didn't think I was chopped liver.

AlanF