Posts by Amazing

2

To: Maximus

by Amazing in

jw
friends

hi max: this post may appear lengthy because i quoted many of your comments, but it is actually a short post with respect to my responses.

i chose to make a separate post to you as well as respond to your comments on philo's post because i was not sure if you would have opprotunity to review his post again.

hi maximus: thanks for responding to me.

Hi Eusebius Hieronymus (Jerome): Enjoyed your comments. Here are some thoughts that may help. My style is dispassioniate, calm, and mostly humorous or better stated, positive outlook. The reason I "quote" what another says is to avoid any concerns about misquoting or misstating their comments. Nothing is intended to 'Disect' or 'Parse words' as is claimed. And your response perfectly illustrates the 'communication' limitations on chat forums. That being said, here are some notes on your comments:

You said,

Amazing, did you get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?

No. I got up feeling good and still feel good.

You said,

This guy did not "stab," he made a simple comment. How could you possibly characterize this as a "hit and run swipe?"

Easily. He makes counter-remarks to my post, and ends by saying that he does not want to carry on the discssion. If, for example, I made some comment about you that was not correct in your view, but then refused to engage you further in allowing you to clarify, or hold me acountable, than that is a form of 'hit and run' posting. As I clearly stated at the end of my post, I held no judgments toward him, just merely expressing my own views.

You said of my comment,

<This last statement betrays you> Man that's loaded language.

It could be, but I think taken in the overall context of my entire posts, it is a legitimate observation. I also state in the post that I personally know Maximus, and have had similar exchnages with him in other venues. By knowing the person I am writing to, I have a little extra understanding.

You said,

You dissect what he says for far too long and attempt to get into his head. You are clearly reading into the post. May APPEAR lengthy?

When someone quotes me, I read past this and concentrate on what they are saying. So in this sense, it shortens my reading time. Getting into his head? No, I disagree. Disect? No. Quote him? Yes. Agree and disagree with him? Yes. Discuss and debate? Yes.

You said,

Your response was not proportionate or commensurate IMNSHO and is yet another example of the style he complains about, no matter what label is attached.

What then is the 'politically correct' formula in making a response? Who makes that determination? I honestly don't know. I respond as I see it. At times I do well, and sometimes I do not do well. That is part of being human.

You said,

Some may get off on this style but it is crap that turns me off. "You said, but obviously you really meant," "you betray yourself," "you correctly say," and all that. My objection has been registered in many ways by many persons over the last days.

Jerome, different people says things differently. Communication is a tenuous art, that at best is a miracle among people of the same language and culture, with 'all' of the associated tools, such as body language and tone of voice. Recently, at BRCI, someone who has exchanges with me on line said that in person I am so different that they can better read what I write, because now they see all the person behind what was once just 'words on a page.' And this is my very specific point ... that such a forum as good as it is, also has this unwanted and often unexpected 'downside.'

You said,

I know a number who have left this board in disgust over style and form, not subject matter. I'd like to stick around. But who in God's name can feel free to post **ANYTHING** if they feel senior people like you are going to overanalyze it and put them on the spot, accusing them of running if they don't answer to your personal liking? I myself have been an overbearing elder for far too long and I need to be more Christ-like.

I have a very good suggestion for you. It is a lesson that took me time to learn. When you read a post, go back and read it in different tones. Often, if we are feeling angry, even subsconsciously, we will overlay anger onto what we read. It is human and we all do it. Then when you read it again, change the tone in your head to one of gentleness, or kindness, or caring, or anything but the original tone in whcih it was read. And see which emotion seems to fit best what was written.

I recall a JW brother, when giving talks, would always read from the Scriptures in an angry tone when God or Jesus was quoted. During the TM School, I used this example, (without naming him or using his material) to show how the Bible can be read in different tones, and it can often change the entire meaning conveyed to the listener.

You said,

Take Kent's advice and go have a beer or two or three. Don't respond to this quickly if at all. I've made my point and that's all I care to do.

I did not see Kent's advice on this anywhere. But, I really don't need a beer to chill out, because my emotions are not what they are perceived as being.

You said,

I enjoy your posts except when you come across as full of yourself. That's not ad hominem, just my personal opinion.

I am not taking it as Ad Hominem. I am not 'full of myself' either. Perhaps my language and style elicits a response from you that feels this way, because some of my words are normally interpreted in your mind as meaning something negative. Maximus expressed an opin to me in my response to Philo. That is fine. I responded to maximus, and that is equally fine. We are each giving opinions, impressions, views, and personal perspectives. This is not suggestive that any one person is right, wrong, good, bad, full of themselves, or replete with humility. It is just part of the human dynamics of communication. I agreed with Max at times, and with you, and I agree that in some parts of this I have not done as good a job communicating as I needed or wanted.

You quoted me and then commented

:: "It is not a giantic leap, unless you may be a mental miget."
That's a very cheap shot at someone who is obviously not a "miget," sir, and who has helped me immensely by his posts. I resent it."

I diagree with Maximus on his position about 'Giant Leaps'. Therefore, I used an empahtic parody to illustrate just how ridicules that 'Giant' leap sounded to me. Use of extremes to make a point is not intended to insult, but to make a point. Jesus homself talked about 'plucking' our eyes out to avoid lustful thoughts when looking at a beautiful women. Obviously, Jesus did not literally mean for us to act on his point. Therefore, to deal with this 'Giant' leap remark, I countered it with, 'mental miget.'

I learned a long time ago that if you dish it out, you have to be prepared to take it. My goal was not at all one of revenge, but of parody to help Maximus to understand how his 'Giant' leap did not fly with me. Sometimes, I have dished out and been in error, and have had it dumped back on me. So, I speak from the low, medium, and at times, if I am lucky enough, the high ground.

I appreciate that Maxiumus has helped you greatly, and that is fantastic. AlanF has helped me a lot, and while he and I differ on some issues, I have great respect for him. When I see someone attacking AlanF, and I can make a contribution to his defence, I will. It is an emotional reaction, and just as legitimate as a logical response. So, I do apologize if my words conveys any insult to your Maximus as your friend.

Finally: Just so you know, I do not think of Max in a negative way. In fact, I think very highly of him and his excellent posts. I simply took exception with him on one issue, and in a way that I felt was appropriate knowing the man as I do. I hope I have done a better job of dealing with this, and that my response is received in a positive spirit, as it is intended that way. - Amazing

11

Christian Debate Techniques 101

by JanH in

jw
friends

3) "god loves you!".

27) "without god, life is meaningless.".

36) "find god before it is too late!".

Amazing

Hi JanH: I am not sure if you intended humor, or seriously believe that "all" Christians debate in such a fashion. I have found very few who follow the formula you describe. Most of them can be found among fundamentalists and cultish groups. Serious, well educated, moderate, average Christians do not follow such an argumentation style as you suggest. On the other hand, I find a number of 'emotional' atheists use your above formula, but simply state it in different terms. However, most atheists and agnostics I know exhibit moderate behavior as do their Christian, Jewish, Hindu and other similar counter-parts. - Amazing

2

To: Maximus

by Amazing in

jw
friends

hi max: this post may appear lengthy because i quoted many of your comments, but it is actually a short post with respect to my responses.

i chose to make a separate post to you as well as respond to your comments on philo's post because i was not sure if you would have opprotunity to review his post again.

hi maximus: thanks for responding to me.

Amazing

Hi Max: This post may appear lengthy because I quoted many of your comments, but it is actually a short post with respect to my responses. I chose to make a separate post to you as well as respond to your comments on Philo's post because I was not sure if you would have opprotunity to review his post again. Here it is:

Hi Maximus: Thanks for responding to me. Here are my follow-up remarks to your comments:

Amazing, your response suggests you are taking my remarks as being to you personally as to comments you wrote. Please don't read anything in to my post, I simply had an opportunity to say something just like everyone else.

I took nothing personally, nor felt that I was being addressed. And I respect you equal right to express your views.

You continued,

I thought philo's points were well made and I wanted to associate myself with them.

I agree, and likewise commented to Philo, commending his post.

You continued by quoting me, then commenting,

:: "And I find that those who visit such forums and make these judgments, as did your friend, without understanding human dynamics, are either very ignorant, or very callous, or assholes."
That's quite a leap, to assume a simple personal observation is made without understanding of human dynamics. I'm seeing many posts all over the board from folks who are reeling, who are calling for a better way. ... I submit to you that to make a sweeping assertion that they are all ignorant, or very callous, or assholes, is in itself the height of ignorance.

Not really a leap or a sweeping generalization. Some are ignorant. I have exhibited ignorance at times. This is not a character flaw, just a fact that exists at times. Same are callous, not as a deliberate flaw, but they do not take time to try and understand or empathize. We all fail in this, but some do it more than others, likely due to habit. Some are assholes, because they do have a level of knowledge and understanding, yet choose to knock people down emotionally. This is not a sweeping generalization, but rather, an acknowledgement of the various personalty behaviors exhibited on various forums.

You said,

The person I refer to is a professional who understands human dynamics very well, and so do I; you miss the point.

Since I do not know of whom you refer, I may have missed the point.

You said,

What happens here is someone strings a couple of words together and another feels obliges to translate, dissect and expand them ad nauseam, then the originator replies in kind, escalating. I won't do that, whether misunderstood or not.

You correctly notice one of the many dynamics of debate in action.

You said,

Neither he nor I need a lecture.

No one is lecturing you that I know of.

You quoted me and then commented,

:: "Come on! People need a break ... they were beat down enough as JWs, why keep telling them to grow up and start trying give structure and controlling them."
Whaaaat? Structure? Controlling? You've made another gigantic leap. I just observed a lotta people need to grow up. No smiley, no sneery. Not forced, not coerced. "Lotta" is light, not meant to elicit a prickly response.

I find that when someone starts talking about 'growing up' it can, and often does reflect a condensending attitude. We all do this at times, and I have done it. It is not a giantic leap, unless you may be a mental miget. Your use of the term 'lotta' with respect to people growing up is in itself a sweeping generalization, because it lacks specifics as to who, what, when, how.

Internet Chat: One person may be trying to use humor and another takes it as serious. With all of the normal communication tools being reduced to one, the 'written word' 90% of our ability to convey what we really mean is lost. In studies it is proven that the listener only hears about 10% to 15% of what we say. The rest is communicated in body language, tone of voice, facial expressions, and mannerisms. None of us are exempt form this problem, and therefore, I submit to you that we simply take more time to work things through and understand one another. Logic demands this.

You said,

I'd like to explore ways of giving people tools in an atmosphere where they CAN grow up. But that's another story.

Maybe you can make a separate post where you can provide a commonly acceptable definition of 'grown up' or 'maturity' and then describe the 'tools' you feel people need to have in order to make such progress. I would be fascinated by such an exploration.

You said,

I have no intention of discussing this further. Hope you and yours have a wonderful Fourth!

This last statement betrays you: I find that people who jump out to make their points, regardless of whether their points have merit or not - which by the way I found your response very good - exhibit a 'hit and run' attitude. They take their oral swipes, and then run like hell. Of course when they are chased down, they assert that they have maxed out on the topic and have no more interest. yet, they deny the receiptient of their comments the opportunity to seek accountability for what was said. Since I happen to know you personally, I have observed this tendancy in you over time.

I agree that there is a limit to anything, wherein we can began to beat 'dead horses'. But I find that much of the time, people will start a round of comments, and then slip away when the challenge increases. I am not suggesting that we need to meet every debate and challenge. Time constraints, etc. can present logistical issues, as well as in-depth interest. But I do, in your specific case, find this a common pattern to take a 'stab' and run. That's okay, I accept it without judgment. - Amazing

11

Ad hominem

by philo in

jw
friends

why do we sometimes attack people rather than ideas?.

we lack the mental reach to chase an argument further, or we just can't be bothered to, the issue clouds over, we begin to realise the limits of our capacity, and all we can see clearly is the person who brought us to this unpleasant place: so we lash out at them, our 'opponent'.. ideas are difficult and people seem easy.

the truth is that people are much more difficult, and when we attack them, it is not usually with understanding, rarely does it advance the debate.

Amazing

Hi Maximus: Thanks for responding to me. Here are my follow-up remarks to your comments:

Amazing, your response suggests you are taking my remarks as being to you personally as to comments you wrote. Please don't read anything in to my post, I simply had an opportunity to say something just like everyone else.

I took nothing personally, nor felt that I was being addressed. And I respect you equal right to express your views.

You continued,

I thought philo's points were well made and I wanted to associate myself with them.

I agree, and likewise commented to Philo, commending his post.

You continued by quoting me, then commenting,

:: "And I find that those who visit such forums and make these judgments, as did your friend, without understanding human dynamics, are either very ignorant, or very callous, or assholes."
That's quite a leap, to assume a simple personal observation is made without understanding of human dynamics. I'm seeing many posts all over the board from folks who are reeling, who are calling for a better way. ... I submit to you that to make a sweeping assertion that they are all ignorant, or very callous, or assholes, is in itself the height of ignorance.

Not really a leap or a sweeping generalization. Some are ignorant. I have exhibited ignorance at times. This is not a character flaw, just a fact that exists at times. Same are callous, not as a deliberate flaw, but they do not take time to try and understand or empathize. We all fail in this, but some do it more than others, likely due to habit. Some are assholes, because they do have a level of knowledge and understanding, yet choose to knock people down emotionally. This is not a sweeping generalization, but rather, an acknowledgement of the various personalty behaviors exhibited on various forums.

You said,

The person I refer to is a professional who understands human dynamics very well, and so do I; you miss the point.

Since I do not know of whom you refer, I may have missed the point.

You said,

What happens here is someone strings a couple of words together and another feels obliges to translate, dissect and expand them ad nauseam, then the originator replies in kind, escalating. I won't do that, whether misunderstood or not.

You correctly notice one of the many dynamics of debate in action.

You said,

Neither he nor I need a lecture.

No one is lecturing you that I know of.

You quoted me and then commented,

:: "Come on! People need a break ... they were beat down enough as JWs, why keep telling them to grow up and start trying give structure and controlling them."
Whaaaat? Structure? Controlling? You've made another gigantic leap. I just observed a lotta people need to grow up. No smiley, no sneery. Not forced, not coerced. "Lotta" is light, not meant to elicit a prickly response.

I find that when someone starts talking about 'growing up' it can, and often does reflect a condensending attitude. We all do this at times, and I have done it. It is not a giantic leap, unless you may be a mental miget. Your use of the term 'lotta' with respect to people growing up is in itself a sweeping generalization, because it lacks specifics as to who, what, when, how.

Internet Chat: One person may be trying to use humor and another takes it as serious. With all of the normal communication tools being reduced to one, the 'written word' 90% of our ability to convey what we really mean is lost. In studies it is proven that the listener only hears about 10% to 15% of what we say. The rest is communicated in body language, tone of voice, facial expressions, and mannerisms. None of us are exempt form this problem, and therefore, I submit to you that we simply take more time to work things through and understand one another. Logic demands this.

You said,

I'd like to explore ways of giving people tools in an atmosphere where they CAN grow up. But that's another story.

Maybe you can make a separate post where you can provide a commonly acceptable definition of 'grown up' or 'maturity' and then describe the 'tools' you feel people need to have in order to make such progress. I would be fascinated by such an exploration.

You said,

I have no intention of discussing this further. Hope you and yours have a wonderful Fourth!

This last statement betrays you: I find that people who jump out to make their points, regardless of whether their points have merit or not - which by the way I found your response very good - exhibit a 'hit and run' attitude. They take their oral swipes, and then run like hell. Of course when they are chased down, they assert that they have maxed out on the topic and have no more interest. yet, they deny the receiptient of their comments the opportunity to seek accountability for what was said. Since I happen to know you personally, I have observed this tendancy in you over time.

I agree that there is a limit to anything, wherein we can began to beat 'dead horses'. But I find that much of the time, people will start a round of comments, and then slip away when the challenge increases. I am not suggesting that we need to meet every debate and challenge. Time constraints, etc. can present logistical issues, as well as in-depth interest. But I do, in your specific case, find this a common pattern to take a 'stab' and run. That's okay, I accept it without judgment. - Amazing

11

Ad hominem

by philo in

jw
friends

why do we sometimes attack people rather than ideas?.

we lack the mental reach to chase an argument further, or we just can't be bothered to, the issue clouds over, we begin to realise the limits of our capacity, and all we can see clearly is the person who brought us to this unpleasant place: so we lash out at them, our 'opponent'.. ideas are difficult and people seem easy.

the truth is that people are much more difficult, and when we attack them, it is not usually with understanding, rarely does it advance the debate.

Amazing

Maximus: Yes, many do need to grow up. But, an equal number need to understand, show compassion, and realize that those who 'need to grow up' need space, time, and a place where they can make errors, and work through their JW experience. It takes many months and sometimes a year or two. And I find that those who visit such forums and make these judgments, as did your friend, without understanding human dynamics, are either very ignorant, or very callous, or assholes.

Come on! People need a break ... they were beat down enough as JWs, why keep telling them to grow up and start trying give structure and controlling them. So, they use some 'ad homenim' arguments. Yes, that is an error, but for God's Sake! man, after 10, 20, or 30+ years as JWs, what else can we expect? The WTS publications are 'Ad Homenim' par excellence! It takes years to break from that style and move toward other ways of dealing with debates and issues in life.

Amazing

16

Average Numbers of Victims per Molester (rev)

by Amazing in

i added a post below to janh, number 15, to address some realistic numbers.

some have had difficulty in accepting the number of victims per pedophile i have used, i.e.

i based this on what an attorney who prosecutes such cases against molesters told me.

Amazing

I added a post below to JanH, number 15, to address some realistic numbers. Some have had difficulty in accepting the number of victims per pedophile I have used, i.e. 300+. I based this on what an attorney who prosecutes such cases against molesters told me. I have heard people say and have read varying sites which offer different numbers, some as low as 75 victims, some about 110 to 120. Maybe the following will help.

The attorney version: When I quoted the number 117 from an official web site to the attorney I visited, he was quick to correct me with the number 300+. When a criminal case is prosecuted, or if a civil suit, the number of victims is critical to determining the level of punishment, jail term, or monetary damage awards.

Both the prosecution and defence are eager to nail down the number that the accused is actually guilty of. The prosecution seeks to find all victims so that help can be given to those victims, and to establish the number of counts in the indictment. The defence seeks to mitigate or eliminate this allegation to help their clients get lower or no jail terms, or no monetary damages.

Let's say that the prosecution is successful in establishing that a molester had 50 victims, with each victim being identified and proven. This is the number that will be used in the conviction for jail and/or monetary damages set by the Jury or Judge, depending on the procedures used.

Why then would the average of 300+ be used? It helps prosecutors and especially Plantiff attorneys to set before the Jury the concept that if the average is 300+ victims, then it is possible that the accused victimized the 50 cited in the complaint. It establishes credibility. And if the accused is guilty of a far higher number than 50, lets say 100, 200, or more, then such a study becomes even more critical to establish credibility.

What would the defence do about this information?: The defence will seek to discredit a number like 300+ and will cite conflicting studies, or attempt to discredit the information that supports the 300+ average. Why? They want to establish that these numbers must be seriously inflated, especially if they are trying to show that their client, the accused, could not have victimized 50 or more people.

Is the number 300+ upheld?: It must be for this attorney to successfully use it in court as part of his expert testimony. It must be based on information that the defence cannot discredit. And, when jurors and judges see this evidence establishing that the average is 300+, they are not as likely to discredit the 50 counts against the accused as impossible. So this helps eliminate that one single, but important, aspect of 'reasonable doubt' that the defence is trying to create.

Do I believe it?: I too find the number 300+ hard to fathom. I do not claim that this is the actual average, but it is a number that at least has been reasonably tested and supported in the courts. Also, some of the molesters that I saw as a JW were guilty of victimizing so many victims that the number 300 was within range.

Correlation: Using the number of 300+ with the POLL results places the JW victim averages within range of the national averages of victims to molesters. This is by no means proof, but it is interesting to understand that there is a correlation, and thus suggestive that the number may be feasible.

Could it be in error?: Yes. I want to be wrong on this. It would be much better that this number is seriously inflated and in error. I much prefer it that there are fewer victims than more. I would prefer that instead of 1,521,325 potential victims, that the number were down to 1/10th, or 152,132 thus meaning that there are only 30 victims per molester. Better yet, lets bring this down to 15,213 with only 3 victims per molester. Even at this level, the numbers are staggering and can lead to some serious litigation. Better yet, lets take this number to 'zero' victims, and lets all be in error.

I would rather eat all my words, than to have any victims. It would be very refreshing to come onto this forum, and admit total 100% error, and bow my head in shame for these posts than to have even one victim.

SOME FACTS THAT MUST BE CONSIDERED: The 183 JW molesters identified on my POLL of 89 respondents - providing everyone was honest, and I believe they are - means that a minimum of 183 JW victims are out there. 183 JW children who will be harmed for life, because the Watch Tower religion concealed the 'private' discipline of these criminals, or they conceealed the 'nature' of the sin if 'Public Reproof' was used. And they did not warn the JWs of the danger, nor took any community responsibility to turn the molester over to the authorities.

What do you believe?: Do you believe that there are only 183 JW molesters in the USA? Do you believe that they only molested 1 victim each? Do you believe that all JW molesters are caught and identified? Do you believe that many JW molesters are accused, but because of lack of two (2) witnesses to the crime they are never disciplined? Do you believe that this issue may involve some serious numbers?

What I have not told you: I have been a conduit for finding victims and directing them with some additional information as to certain actions they may wish to take. I also participate on private forums where many have spoken up about being molested by JWs. I have had phone calls with a number of these. The numbers, I might suggest, are a little more than disturbing, and the consequences to the victims is far more harmful than I expected. I have been exposed to this issue a long time, and see a serious ground-swell of victims emerging. The arrogant and plain "mean" attitude of so many JW Elders and congregations and family toward the victims is absolutely incredible!

Someone, or better stated, a large group of people in the JW religion, from molesters to Elders all the way up to the leadership need to go to jail. Attorney's may need to get disbarred. Assets need to be seized, sold, and given to victims ... a lot of assets, and a lot of victims. - Amazing

13

Making a Difference!

by Amazing in

jw
friends

some may ask themselves why they post on forums such as this one.

they may wonder what compels them to do so.

you may wonder what causes others to keep at this so frequently.

Amazing

How many at BRCI? Well, we are so large now, that the Society held a District Convention in the same city just to try and keep the JWs away from us! Actually, the number there floats each session as some need to leave while othrs are just coming in. So the fluctuation makes it hard to keep track, and of course, no count is taken by attendants. There is a sign in sheet that some do sign and others do not because they need to remain circumspect - or incognito. That sheet might give a good clue. I have a pretty good idea that about 150 were there counting those who came late or left early, or did not attend all three days. (The sessions started Fri at 1:00 PM and ended Sunday about 10:AM) The conference room had enough seating for 70, and on Saturday I would say that most all the chairs were filled. But, I no longer count empty seats as I use to do as a JW Attendant. Next year, the BRCI Conference will be back in Chicago where the attendance is much larger. - Amazing

11

Ad hominem

by philo in

jw
friends

why do we sometimes attack people rather than ideas?.

we lack the mental reach to chase an argument further, or we just can't be bothered to, the issue clouds over, we begin to realise the limits of our capacity, and all we can see clearly is the person who brought us to this unpleasant place: so we lash out at them, our 'opponent'.. ideas are difficult and people seem easy.

the truth is that people are much more difficult, and when we attack them, it is not usually with understanding, rarely does it advance the debate.

Amazing

Hi Philo: Excellent post. 'Ad hominem' arguments are the most common form used by the average person. There is a major important reason for it. I deal with it everyday in my business. Judges in courts and trail lawyers have to deal with it, and caution witnesses about it all the time.

The root of Ad Hominem arguments is heavy emotional investment. When we choose to adopt a religion, a political view, a philosophy, or a host of other things, we make the decision at the emotional levels in our minds. No one is exempt. The degree we use emotions over logic will often determine the level of Ad Hominem we draw upon to save our position.

The JWs are no exception, and will look to save their ideology in any way possible, including 'ad hominem' arguments. When that fails, they shut out the world by use of shunning. I will make a post later on about how to get around these emotins and steer clear of 'ad hominem' responses. Maybe this will be helpful to some. Thanks again for an excellent post. - Amazing

13

Making a Difference!

by Amazing in

jw
friends

some may ask themselves why they post on forums such as this one.

they may wonder what compels them to do so.

you may wonder what causes others to keep at this so frequently.

Amazing

Some may ask themselves why they post on forums such as this one. They may wonder what compels them to do so. You may wonder what causes others to keep at this so frequently. Here are some reasons of my own:

1. Spreading Information: My own life is far from over, but a big chunk was spent as a JW ... 27 total years of being associated. So, the other day at BRCI a young Canadian man, about 25 years old, approached me and complimented me for my posts on JWD. He studied with the JWs for a while, but he woke up before getting baptized and fully committed to the JWs. My posts were not responsible, as he had already made his decision. But, much information now available is helping people see through the WTS fraud. It is good to see that one more younger, happy, healthy-minded good person will not have thier life sucked out of them by the WTS - why? - Because of people taking time to keep information on the web.

Helping Others: Many coming out of the WTS have varying degrees of issues to resolve. Some of professional therapists recognize ex-JW symptoms as being almost identical to what divorcing people experience. So, to be there for those new ex-JWs, whether in person or on this forum, is a nice expeience. Yes, we rehash much of the same material, but each time, I still learn some new things about the JW experience, and its impact on peoples lives.

Self-Help: It has been and continues to be an important form of self-therapy to write about this religion, knowing that someone, and evidently many listen, understand, and have additional insight to share. It is validating and challenging. But, with every post, I am aware of how far I have come since leaving the JWs.

A Chance to make a difference: One of the things that binds us all together, besides the common experience and association with the Watch Tower religion, is that we ALL have been denied something important to us by the Society --- it is an important aspect of closure, and because it eludes us, our closure is NOT complete --- and that also keeps us in the battle of information --- and what is that which is denied us? Accountability! The Watch Tower leadership has not accepted responsibility for the harm they caused, the lies told, or made any attempt to be accountable. Therefore, by working together, we are going to force them to become accountable.

Closure! The root meaning of forgiveness is to 'let go.' To forgive does not always mean that we accept someone's apology, for such an apology may never be feasible. I doubt the proud, arrogant, and stubborn men who run the Watch Tower religion will ever understand the harm caused by their conduct, even if they were convicted in court and had to go live in the GrayBar Hotel.

However, the basic form of forgiveness will be in finally letting go of the religion ... accepting what happened ... understanding how it happened ... learning why it happened ... sorting out what happened ... moving on ... letting go. The accountability that the Watch Tower leaders arre about to face on the pedophile issue, is perhaps the most significant development since AJWRB and Ray Franz's books Crisis of Conscience and In Search of Christian Freedom.

The Future! In the aftermath of what comes about in the next few months ... I feel that many more will leave the JWs or stop studying and walk away. This issue alone may be enough to send the Watch Tower numbers spiraling down. So being there for yet more ex-JWs will be a good thing for many of us. The Internet is a Godsend in this regard. I feel I have achieved closure ... and with the upcoming Dateline program ... a sense of accountability. Moving on for me will not mean leaving ex-JW forums ... as I plan to stick around. But, it will mean in a sense, that I have passed through the Maze of doors and turns in the exiting process and reached the Final Exit Door. - Amazing

8

Fouth of July Celebrating!

by Lindy in

jw
friends

happy fourth of july everyone who celebrates it.

so is anyone having fun today?

picnics, fireworks, parades?

Amazing

Hi Lindy: Last night Chicago held its fireworks display. They do it a day early here so that they will not take away from the surburban cities on the fourth. Typically, "The Taste of Chicago" celebration has over one million (1.1 Mil) people turn out "just" for the fireworks display over Lake Michigan, with the Chicago Symphony playing in the background. They time the fireworks to the music. It is awesome.

I grew up being patriotic. In the late 1960s when patriotism was at a low ebb, I accepted the JW neutrality position. But I never understood the rest of their lack of citizenship, such as not voting or serving on a Jury. Since I left the JWs in 1992, I have starting voting and joined the Republican Party. [I need to add that I understood the WTS policy on this, but what I mean is that I never saw the sense in it.]

Shortly after I left the JWs, I held a small elected Precinct office, and was asked to run for County Coroner. LOL I asked the Party Chairman what kind of campaign would I possibly run as Coroner? What would be my slogan? "When I declare them dead, they are really dead!"

I believe that politics is healthy to a point, as is patriotism, and people working together to make a community, a state, or a nation work. I think there are times to back away from such things, and a time to jump in the middle and lend a helping hand. - Amazing