itsallgoodnow

Joined

• started 15 topics
• posted 1,281 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by itsallgoodnow

• 
  45

  Another reason the WTS doesn't want JWs on the net?

  by Lady Lee in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  we all pretty well understand that the wts tells jws that bing on the internet is dangerous to their spiritual standing because people on the net are controlled by satan

  but... maybe there is a second reason.we also know that the wts believes if people read the wt literature they will come to the wrong conclusions.

  people require someone to sit with them and read every paragraph of a wt book to make sure they understand the book in the right way.we know the website for the wts is pretty sanitized so people don't run off too quicklywe know there is no place on the wts' website for discussion.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  itsallgoodnow

  OMG

  What will ya come up with next!!!!!!

  weak. I think you hit a nerve, Lady Lee!
• 
  29

  Big WT article this week!

  by 5thGeneration in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  .

  i believe that this weeks coming wt is an indictment of all active jw publishers.. in my opinion, it seems to imply that growth in the organization has been stymied by the lackadaisical attitude in the congregations.. they refer to the "token" service of the jews and how it affected true worship and god's spirit.. will discuss further....

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  itsallgoodnow

  I think it's funny. They are definitely acting from a desperate and weak position. I would expect them to resort to this sort of thing, of course. This religion has lost it's magic and the people just don't feel compelled to do much for it anymore. Eventually, the Y generation will take over and I am afraid that will be the end of it.
• 
  42

  Do you think that most "thin"people have hatred towards "heavy" people?

  by booker-t in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i know this might sound abit "paranoid" but as i mentioned on other posts before i am a "heavy" person who is losing weight.

  so far i have lost 65 pounds and i am still losing through a "strict"diet and exercise.

  i was at a restaurant the other day and there were 4 "thin" people sitting at a table across from a "very heavy overweight" man.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  itsallgoodnow

  congrats on the 65 lbs, booker-t! keep working hard!

  It sounds to me like these people you are talking about seem very insecure. I know people who are obsessed with their weight and look absolutely great, but being around them is boring. They are obsessed. At times, they get self-congratulatory about it, too. And the only way to do that is to put other people down. Poor bastards. They actually sound quite miserable, maybe they need to eat something.
• 
  37

  JWD forum is another battleground for your souls.

  by Spectrum in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  if you think about it, it's true.

  what's the difference?

  constant shifting sands, one minute the grains are over here then we seek to blow them over there.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  itsallgoodnow

  If you think about it, it's true.
  
  We tell each other don't believe that, believe this. What's the difference? Constant shifting sands, one minute the grains are over here then we seek to blow them over there. Where are we running to who are we pushing where?
  
  How can we not be like JWs when we seek to change the aspect of a person that they seek to change?
  
  Have we become like them?

  What's the difference? We can choose to believe whatever we want and discuss what we want, to anyone we want. There's no invisible power that prescribes what we are allowed to believe and what we must reject. This is open and free debate. Show me an open and free debate inside the kingdom hall. It doesn't happen, because that sort of thing isn't allowed.

  I realize there are always people here trying to convert others to their way of thinking or believing. Some of these people are quite unreasonable. Some of them just want to fight. They aren't looking for debate or on a spiritual journey looking for an answer to some specific question, they are trying to get converts. But most people just like to discuss things they have found something interesting about, and some of us like reading that sort of thing, whether we agree with it or not. Some of us like debating about it, too. That doesn't sound much like any kingdom hall I've ever been to.

  As an ex-JW board, naturally many people are going to try to point out hypocrisy of the JW religion to its apologists. Why wouldn't we do that?

  What do you want? All conversation to stop? Would that make you happy?
• 
  24

  Is The Society Truly "Destructive"?

  by logansrun in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  is it really proper to say that the witness organization is a destructive religion (or cult) or that they promote self-destructive behavior in its members?

  most on this forum would say yes, emphatically so.

  i think the situation is actually more complex, however.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  itsallgoodnow

  Is it really proper to say that the Witness organization is a “destructive religion (or cult)” or that they promote “self-destructive” behavior in its members? Most on this forum would say yes, emphatically so. I think the situation is actually more complex, however. I don’t believe it is fair to categorically state that they are destructive without defining what one actually means by such a label. Let’s peruse four different domains in which a group or individual can be thought of as “destructive”:

  Physically: This is probably what most people think of when they hear the word “destructive.” David Koresh and Jim Jones obviously led groups that would rightly be labeled as destructive in this way. The alcoholic or drug addict can also be thought of as engaging in self-destructive behavior that effects the physical domain (either to the abuser or to others). Three areas come to mind that might open the Witnesses up to accusations they are physically destructive: their stance on blood transfusions, poor handling of cases of abuse (sexual or physical), and possibly their politically neutral stance which might open individuals up to uncessary physical persecution (for example, Malawi).

  In the first instance -- blood transfusions -- one must admit that present day technologies make death from lack of a blood transfusion a rarity. Also, there might be few instances -- especially years ago or in underdeveloped countries -- where refusing a blood transfusion has saved individual Witnesses from complications or even death (although, it must be admitted the reverse is also true). So, all in all, it might be said that this peculiar practice of refusing blood transfusions may be physically destructive. But is it really fair to then give the categorical label of destructiveness based on just this practice? Looking at the matter mathematically may help answer this question: in all probability the potential for individual Witnesses to be physically harmed from the Society’s stance on blood is very low.

  The Society’s handling of abuse cases has been given great attention on this forum and in the popular press. Surely there was mismanagement on the part of the organization’s representatives both on the local level and from Brooklyn. But changes have been made and it is quite possible that further changes will be made from the top down, especially as further negative press comes to light. Just like blood transfusions I don’t think that one can judge the whole of the organization on just one aspect of it’s parts.

  Because of their neutral stance the Society has promoted needlessly destructive behavior on the part of some of their members, such as those in Malawi in the 1970’s. But again, how many lives have been saved due to the Witnesses politically neutral stance (not going to war, engaging in civil conflict, etc)? I would wager that more have been saved than lost.

  Therefore, I conclude that it is inaccurate to say that the Witness organization is destructive in the physical domain. Perhaps what most people mean by their use of the label “destructive”, however, is emotional, mental and social. I think a greater case can be made that they are indeed destructive in these spheres, although broad categorizations are still open to dispute.

  For those who have been disfellowshipped, reproved, shunned and reaped the disciplinary whirlwind from the elders a strong case can be made that the organization’s practices have been subjectively harmful. On a milder scale than most, I too have experienced the psychological pain and social stigmatization that are the by-products of the Society’s draconian moralism. But I think one must realize that not all Witnesses experience this pain, nor do all who are involved in judicial matters resent the discipline they meet. Other than those who leave the organization permanently, the emotional pain and social inconveniences endured by those reproved or disfellowshipped are temporary and their memory usually fades. It is those who leave the fold on a long-term basis that are truly the ones who are hurt, and in this regard I do believe it is proper to call the organization “emotionally and socially destructive.” But notice I wrote “in this regard.” I think that it is impossible to categorically brand the entire organization destructive due to their practices of disfellowshipping and shunning of former members (not all of whom are shunned, I might add). Just as with the other examples mentioned earlier, most Witnesses will never experience this sort of pain on a long-term basis. Since the Society’s practices are not emotionally destructive for the majority of it’s members, I don’t think it is fair to label them destructive. On the other hand, since a sizeable minority do experience this pain I don’t think it is proper to label them harmless or benign either. The truth is somewhere between these poles.

  You seem unable to deal with the idea there might be something actually bad about the JW religion. I know when you look at things from different angles, the injustices of the JW religion pale in comparison with other injustices in the world. But that doesn't mean its all good, does it?

  So you don't like the idea of JWs being described as a cult or as destructive. There are many definitions of the word "cult" and by most if not all definitions of the word, the JW religion fits. I like how perfectly the JW religion fits the secular cult opposition definition of "cult" (from Wikipedia below).

  ---------------------------------------

  Definition by secular cult opposition

  Secular cult opponents define a "cult" as a religious or non-religious group that tends to manipulate, exploit, and control its members. Here two definitions by Michael Langone and Louis Jolyon West, scholars who are widely recognized among the secular cult opposition:

  Cults are groups that often exploit members psychologically and/or financially, typically by making members comply with leadership's demands through certain types of psychological manipulation, popularly called mind control, and through the inculcation of deep-seated anxious dependency on the group and its leaders. 1

  "A cult is a group or movement exhibiting a great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea or thing and employing unethically manipulative techniques of persuasion and control (e.g. isolation from former friends and family, debilitation, use of special methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience, powerful group pressures, information management, suspension of individuality or critical judgement, promotion of total dependency on the group and fear of [consequences of] leaving it, etc) designed to advance the goals of the group's leaders to the actual or possible detriment of members, their families, or the community." 8

  ---------------------------------------

  As far as "destructive" goes, I strongly feel the beliefs and practices of JWs are at least potentially destructive to its membership and at most can be devastating to some people with weak a psyche or other difficulties in life. They may not know it, or they may know it. Either way, lasting or temporary problems can be, and have been for many people, a result of belonging to this group.

  For example, I may not bleed to death, but there's a fairly good chance I can ruin my opportunities for happiness and financial independence if I marry a man in this group. If my marriage was to end but I couldn't prove infidelity, I wouldn't be allowed to ever remarry. How many people does this little problem affect? And how can you say that isn't destructive to them?

  Yes, it's all self inflicted. I agree with that. But persuasion and manipulation is a big part of that, and that's part of what makes it a cult.

  The way I like to look at it is this... there are many cults. Some are even more ridiculous and revolting than JWs, some are less so. Either way, I hate cults. And my personal pet cult to hate is JWs, because it's personal.
• 
  7

  QUOTES ban confirms CULT status

  by hamsterbait in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  got this from a french government website for countering cults.

  do any of you think this sounds familiar?

  lurkers - dare you read this???.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  itsallgoodnow

  It seems US law is designed to protect the cults, until they go so far as to collect weapons and threaten the population with violence in some way.

  European countries are probably more willing to make these reasonable laws to fight against cults. Maybe that's because they can easily see how much power cults have over people, and it's a very fine line between something like JWs and militant Muslim groups? I guess maybe we'll have to wait for more problems with these types of groups in the US before anything will change. The protection of religion is the one thing I hate most about living in the US.
• 
  34

  Double Standards?

  by OpenFireGlass in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  talk about a dysfunctional family life.... did anyone else experience growing up in a dub family that had a double standard for siblings?.

  my younger sister was allowed too: have new kids on the block posters on her wall, as well as gotten taken to a nkotb concert... have & play a keyboard.

  pick her own music, & have a boom box in her room.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  itsallgoodnow

  Yes. I was a middle kid. I got to do more than my older siblings and less than my younger ones. Funny, I don't hold it against my younger brothers they got to do way more than me, but my older siblings can't seem to get past what I got to do. As if it was my fault? I'm supposed to apologize or something, as if it still bothers them to this very day? yeah, I bet it does. Just another stupid thing to complain about when they see me, which is getting to be very rare. Now, lets talk about bullying siblings and passive agressive ones that aren't worth our time thinking about?
• 
  33

  Have I changed?

  by I-follow-the-narrow-path in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  yesterday my ex-boyfriend came into town, several months ago who moved away and we had to break off our relationship.

  the relationship was rocky; however, before he was going to move, so it was easy to let him go.

  we reconciled as he was away and we are good friends.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  itsallgoodnow

  WHAT would you think about me if you were him?

  Hmm... so you are asking a bunch of ex Jehovies what they would think. If I were a figment of your imagination, I would guess you already know the answer to your question about an imaginary exboyfriend and your imaginary conversation with him.

  Am I the only one not buying into this "chick"?

  Why are you asking this question in the first place? Is there a reason? I mean, besides being an attention seeker? Huh?
• 
  37

  JW says: DEVIL has hold on my brother in military

  by I-follow-the-narrow-path in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i thought that would get your attention.. actually... my brother is alive.before i got involved, strongly.

  with the jws.

  my brothers was sent off and is now overseas in iraq with his platoon (he is in the army).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  itsallgoodnow

  I thought that would get your attention.. actually... my brother is alive.

  You may be new to message boards? I don't know. But this type of attention seeking just makes me want to ask the question... Are you even a girl? Do you even have a brother? I mean, if you can't even take his life seriously, why should I even assume he exists?

  b-bye.

  ps if there was an ignore button on this forum, you would be on my list - narrow-brain.
• 
  99

  Door to Door

  by I-follow-the-narrow-path in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  just wondering... what do you think about the jw going door to door?

  do you like it or dislike it?

  my view is ( weather something is false or not) i think it is great someone shares what they love with someone else.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  itsallgoodnow

  I know lots of Christians who will jump all over the opportunity to "share" about their churches. They might not go knocking, but they get involved with urban and suburban youth and they don't shut up about church. There's a church lady at my office who has gotten progressively more obvious about it. I thought she was so nice, but asking about my weekend so you can assault me with 30 minutes about what you did at church on Sunday is a little transparent, I think. I believe the JWs call this "informal witnessing". Either way, I believe I may be a "return visit". She won't give up on me very easily. Some friend. I would just be a feather in her church hat.