Posts by Forscher

46

Survived a major heart attack mon AM

by hambeak in

got up early and getting ready for work.

couldn't breathe and lots of chest pain.

had jake take me to er.

Forscher

Sorry to read about that Hambeak.

I just finished a stint in the hospital myself. I even had to have a surgical procedure done on an emergency basis. So I know how that sucks!

Forscher

22

Does the GB believe the doctrine themselves?

by GBSJG in

after reading crisis of conscience i got the impression that most on the gb actually believe all the doctrine themselves or at least that they believe that they are doing there best and god is helping/blessing them.. this sometimes seems unbelievable to me considering that they know about all the bad things in the org and see so many problems that the rank file normally does not notice or know about.

i'm currently reading combatting cult mind control by steve hassan.

when reading that book i can see that there are some cults that are far worse then the jws.

Forscher

Funny, I read COC and came out of it with the opposite impression.

As pointed out by Blueblades, Ray did document that on the occasion mentioned a majority or th GB wanted to change the doctrine of when Christ came into heavenly power and the last generation started. However, the bylaws which Knorr and Freddy Franz tricked the GB into adopting when they siezed power requires a two-thirds, or supermajority vote to change anything. Those two knew what they were doing, the GB has been hamstrung by that requirement since. All the dominant ones have had to do is to maneuver things around to keep those who want chage from getting enough folks on the body to get that majority, and change becomes quite impossible.

So I get the impression from that, and other things I've seen around on the net, that a significant protion of them don't really believe most of the teachings. But the present a different face to the rank-and-file for the sake of their position and power.

Forscher

30

"MARKED" as undesireable association because of college

by LexWatson in

"i" who was marked as someone bad to associate with simply because i wanted to make enough to support my family and the approved professions (which our congregation was already saturated with) of window washers, carpet cleaners, janitorial services, and siding and window replacement workers did not appeal to me.

.

Forscher

Yeah, when I finally did go, I was "marked" as well and the rumor mill went crazy (would you believe I was judged as "lazy" for going to college?, I wouldn't call anybody who graduates Cum laude lazy!).

What really pissed me off was that a number of sisters in the same congregation were praised for going there to become RNs. Go figure!

Forscher

41

I have to aux pioneer?

by thebiggestlie in

ok so apparently the gb has instutuited some kind of quota for aux pioneers for the month of april for the memorial or something.

so the pos wife came up to me yesterday and told me "every congregation needs at least 16 aux pioneers for the month of april.

you should can i count on you?

Forscher

I would've asked "are you?"

If she answered "no", then I would've had her dead to the rights and had a little fun. If she said "Yes", then I would say "Enjoy yourself, my circumstances make it out of the question for April." If she asked why, my reponse would be "thats none of your business."

Forscher

7

Wikipedia objectivity objected to by a Charles Taze Russell fan

by glenster in

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/wikipedia:requests_for_comment/pastorrussell.

Forscher

Interesting

t is important that a neutral and unbiased article reflecting on the life, ministry, and legacy of Pastor Russell be created, and maintained. Any edits reverted by me have been edits harmful to the facts, and not simply to the article itself as it now reads. There have been a dozen efforts to remove all forms of POV from the article, but others keep insisting on adding additional material that has nothing to do with Pastor Russell, or connecting him with the Jehovah's Witnesses. Although they claim him as their founder, he was merely the founder of the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society, and not the current religious movement. Thus, to connect him with the JWs, or make it appear that they are one and the same goes contrary to historical fact. To connect him with the JWs would be a non-neutral POV, which everyone seems to be talking about. I am anxious to work with everyone, and have said that from the start. Many have been hostile to these attempts, and have made edits which are highly inappropriate to the facts, or again, biased towards the JWs. It is my desire the article reflect a fair, balanced, neutral, and factually correct record of the life of Charles Taze Russell, not the JWs or Bible Students, or any other group.

I would say that the Bible Students involved are not being entirely honest. The Witnesses split away from the Bible Students in 1931, so there is a connection there which is historically factual. True, the Witnesses have so changed there organization and belief system that CTR would have a hard time recognising them as in any way a part of what he started. But that connection is still there and it would not be out of place to mention it if the statement included an acknowledgement of that split.

The article, as I saw it today, does have the follwing statement, "A schism in 1917 resulted in the formation of the present-day movements known as Bible Students and Jehovah's Witnesses." I think that should be sufficient if it stays there.

Forscher

40

Would you submit to a "voluntary" search?...

by Justice-One in

jw
friends

example....a cop pulls you over for a broken taillight or some other very minor infraction.

he says he is just going to give you a warning, then says something like...."hey, you don't have any rockets or explosives in your trunk do you?

" you of course say no, then he says "mind if i look?

Forscher

Ouch! That one posted twice!! Oh well.

Forscher

40

Would you submit to a "voluntary" search?...

by Justice-One in

jw
friends

example....a cop pulls you over for a broken taillight or some other very minor infraction.

he says he is just going to give you a warning, then says something like...."hey, you don't have any rockets or explosives in your trunk do you?

" you of course say no, then he says "mind if i look?

Forscher

The simple answer is never to give permission unless you are in a hurry and know there is nothing there.

However, be aware that Carroll v. The United States; 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280 (1925) does give the police the right to search your vehicle without a warrant if you deny them permission. However, things get kind of muddy about the scope of the search, etc.. The third edition of Criminal Procedure By Whitebread and Slobogin sumarises the "atuomobile exception" to the 4th Amendment warrant requirement thussly on page 208:

The area searched must be a movable vehicle associated with a lessened expectation of privacy; that is, a vehicule whose setting objectively indicates that it is being used for transportation.
There must be probable cause to believe the vehicle contains evidence of crime.
there must be exigent circumstances justifying a warrantless search of the vehicle, meaning that the time between developement of probable cause and the discovery or stopping of the vehicle was insufficient to procure a warrant.
If these elements are not met, any area of the car or any container therein for which probable cause exists may be searched immeadiately, or at some later time, provided any delay which occurs does not unreasonably interfere with privacy or possessory interests.

Of course, I must note that police are usually given the benefit of the doubt in regards to what constitues "probable cause," so it is not hard at all for them to come up with some sort of probable cause (they can simply say they smelled a "suspicious odor" which resembled pot) to justify a warrantless search if they want to search anyway. The scope of a warrantless search is generally limited to the area "under the immeadiate control" of the driver and/or passengers, though that gets kind of fuzzy as well.

Did I pass the exam professor?

Forscher

40

Would you submit to a "voluntary" search?...

by Justice-One in

jw
friends

example....a cop pulls you over for a broken taillight or some other very minor infraction.

he says he is just going to give you a warning, then says something like...."hey, you don't have any rockets or explosives in your trunk do you?

" you of course say no, then he says "mind if i look?

Forscher

The simple answer is never to give permission unless you are in a hurry and know there is nothing there.

However, be aware that Carroll v. The United States; 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280 (1925) does give the police the right to search your vehicle without a warrant if you deny them permission. However, things get kind of muddy about the scope of the search, etc.. The third edition of Criminal Procedure By Whitebread and Slobogin sumarises the "atuomobile exception" to the 4th Amendment warrant requirement thussly on page 208:

The area searched must be a movable vehicle associated with a lessened expectation of privacy; that is, a vehicule whose setting objectively indicates that it is being used for transportation.
There must be probable cause to believe the vehicle contains evidence of crime.
there must be exigent circumstances justifying a warrantless search of the vehicle, meaning that the time between developement of probable cause and the discovery or stopping of the vehicle was insufficient to procure a warrant.
If these elements are not met, any area of the car or any container therein for which probable cause exists may be searched immeadiately, or at some later time, provided any delay which occurs does not unreasonably interfere with privacy or possessory interests.

Of course, I must note that police are usually given the benefit of the doubt in regards to what constitues "probable cause," so it is not hard at all for them to come up with some sort of probable cause (they can simply say they smelled a "suspicious odor" which resembled pot) to justify a warrantless search if they want to search anyway. The scope of a warrantless search is generally limited to the area "under the immeadiate control" of the driver and/or passengers, though that gets kind of fuzzy as well.

Did I pass the exam professor?

Forscher

32

They make mistakes just like 1st century christians did.

by GBSJG in

when i'm discussing problems i have with the wts with my family they often say well they make mistakes just like the early christians did, they are not perfect.. i try to argue that if you think that way you can go to any christian church and say the same.

but usually they say that compared to other religions the wts makes less mistakes so you should go there.. i know that such reasoning doesn't make sense to me but what is a good response to this?.

Forscher

My reply might something along the lines of...

A few mistakes are one thing, but the wholesale rate at which the Governing Body get it wrong is something else entirely. Even with the fundamentals, such as their zealous embrace of legalism, something Jesus himself condemns right at the outset in his sermon on the mount, is way beyond the pale. it is much more than making a few mistakes. It is wholesale apostasy from Jesus' teachings.

Forscher

60

What has happened to America? Stop Bush, Stop The Ignorance.

by Morocco in

jw
friends

i'm pissed today and i'm about to let it out.

i hope nobody gets offended because these are only opinions.

is anyone else outraged by our president?

Forscher

Forcher: I appreciate your post. I suppose I do agree with some of the points you make. My post here was made because I'm angry with the world situation. I suppose, too, I have a problem with such an open-ended war like the "War on Terror". This isn't good versus evil, nothing is that simple. Bush lied, plain and simple. He has, and is, abusing his power. I don't think immediately pulling out is the answer, but what we are doing right now isn't either. Bush has made some colossal mistakes and had inflamed the situation to the point of insanity. Again, my opinions, and the reason for my anger. I am, however, curious about something. You mentioned that you disagree with the idea of diplomacy. Why is that? Why do you feel that war is the solution here? I'm not trying to be rude I'm just genuinely curious.

I can understand your being upset at the situation in the world as it sucks, to put it midly. But to blame it all on Bush and the U.S. is simplistic and naive. To say Bush lied shows a lack of serious research into the matter. Bush acted on and repeated what he was told by our intelligence services as well as British intelligence and the Mossad, all world-class intelligence agencies. He didn't lie, all those folks were wrong.

I agree that warring against a concept, terror, is rediculous. The struggle is with real men and women (since they participate in acts of terrorism as well) who are determined to take over the Islamic world and bring the west down. Unfortunately those folks see the west as degenerate and weak, lacking the stomach and will to fight such a war and do what has to be done to win. So there is no negotiating with them. The Saudis tried that strategy and look where it got them, they've had bombs exploded on their own soil and had to fight these fanatics in Mecca itself.

As for diplomacy, just who are you going to to negotiate with anyway? Al Qaeda? They are no country, have no diplomatic corps, and have made it clear they have no interest in anything other than our total surrender anyway. Iran? Considering the actions of the Iranian ayatollahs in spreading and financing terror groups I wouldn't fancy your chances of striking a bargain with them either. Just look at how Ahmadinejad is responding to international calls for Iran stop enriching uranium. How can you possibly think he can be counted on to negotiate in good faith anyway? For any diplomacy to succeed both parties have to be honest at the negotiation table (think in terms of Chamberlin's negotiations with Hitler and Clinton's with the North Koreans). I honestly can't see how that can possibly happen.

History shoiws that the only solution to a group like Al Qaeda is to destroy them, period. The Muslims of Syria and Persia faced a group ju8st like the modern Salafists of today, the Assasins. They were a radical group which followed the teachings of a man and assasinated Muslim leaders who stood in his way. Ultimately, they had to be destroyed, all of them. I am sure you've heard of the Thugee cult in India, their story is pretty much the same. And one could go on.

I know you dislike the barbarity you see in the solution, but trust me, that is the only way groups like that have ever been stopped. The only solution to the madmen in Iran is to break their power, like we had to do with Hitler. We can do it through the same method which brought them to power in the first place. But if we don't, we will end up having to do it the same way we did it with the Nazis. We are dealing with the same clkass of madmen.

Forscher