Posts by AuldSoul

193

Deceptive or just wrong?

by johnnyc in

i have been virtually non-stop studying everything i can get my hands on with regards the wtbts, and "apostate" literature and information.

in all honesty, 80% at least is non-sense and over critical.

however, i do find about 20% (if i have to create a percentage reference) is appropriate in its line of reasoning and questioning.

AuldSoul

johnnyc: The Apostles were not factual when they thought and believed/taught the end would come in their lifetime. They made a mistake.

'Thought' and 'taught' are distinctive verbs. Thinking things that turn out to be wrong is not ungodly or unscriptural. Teaching things that turn out be wrong is both ungodly and unscriptural.

johnnyc: Jonah was not factual when he said Nineveh would be destroyed

All destruction and devastation prophecies have an automatic "unless you repent" clause, including the one against the world of Noah's day, the one against Sodom and Gommorah, the one against Jerusalem . . . that last one is cool to me because at the last minute Jeremiah was still telling Zedekiah that if he would go out to the princes of Babylon then he and his family would live and Jerusalem would not be destroyed.

While it is true that Nineveh repented, that is NOT true of 1914 and the prophesied decline of all the world's institutions and governments into wholesale anarchy. The whole world did not repent as did the whole of Nineveh. Not even a significant fraction did so.

these are moot comparisons to what occurred with the history of Jehovah's Witnesses.

That was the Circuit Assembly badge for 1967 Circuit Assembly. The REAL answer? No one. And not due to repentance.

Respectfully,
AuldSoul

193

Deceptive or just wrong?

by johnnyc in

i have been virtually non-stop studying everything i can get my hands on with regards the wtbts, and "apostate" literature and information.

in all honesty, 80% at least is non-sense and over critical.

however, i do find about 20% (if i have to create a percentage reference) is appropriate in its line of reasoning and questioning.

AuldSoul

You probably would like to think that you have all become so intellectually wise and understanding of people - but don't kid yourselves - you haven't changed(with certain exception of ones who have been sincere). You simply are on another team, but with the same tactics and argument sense you had as a witness. You condemn the very thing you are.

The only real difference, johnnyc, if we ever had true integrity, is we were PLAYING for a team and now we aren't.

We are all healing, too. We are all working OUT the poison that the religion spent DECADES insinuating into our minds. You have somehow let it get in your mind that we are holding ourselves UP because that is what you are USED TO, johnnyc, not because that is what we are doing or even who we are. You have been conditioned for years to perceive everything through a hierarchical lens, and you've been taught defense is the "go to" position; we were ALL trained to use defense at the first sign of controversy.

But out here in the real world, as you will hopefully soon discover, there is a constant fray of ideas being proposed, considered, shredded, dismissed, supported, promoted, and demeaned. Especially will you see this play out in discussion forums.

I am not your enemy just because I don't agree with you about case law being the end all "decider" of meaning and proper usage of terms out here in workaday REALITY. I disagree with you. I have been out of a high-control religion (or, at least, borderline cult) since 2005, whereas you are just now finding your way out. I am now used to the ever present need to stand up for my own beliefs and opinions, whereas you are still getting used to the notion of HAVING your own beliefs and opinions to stand up for.

You have the added stress of being in a relationship that likely would not survive your departure from JWs, which sucks massively. And to top it off you are alienating a group of people who can EMPATHIZE with where you have been and who KNOW FIRSTHAND where you are headed by making them suspect you are nothing more than a JW apologist in doubter's clothing (which I do not believe, by the way).

As you said in your profile, "Wow, this is starting to sound sad . . ." Well put. And it is not looking like you are doing very much to make it sound less that way. Which I understand completely, having been down that road myself a time or two. Your confusion and frustration is totally understandable, but you are misdirecting it out of convenience. You would irreparably burn bridges if you railed at your family and mother like you have done to us, and I get that. You have to work out the frustration SOMEHOW, and I get that. But we are not your enemy. You need to get THAT, okay?

Please, calm down, for your own sake. No one has attacked you here, yet, even though you have attacked others.

Respectfully,
AuldSoul

193

Deceptive or just wrong?

by johnnyc in

i have been virtually non-stop studying everything i can get my hands on with regards the wtbts, and "apostate" literature and information.

in all honesty, 80% at least is non-sense and over critical.

however, i do find about 20% (if i have to create a percentage reference) is appropriate in its line of reasoning and questioning.

AuldSoul

Here is the definition at law.com - so go ague to someone who doesn't know better.

case law
n. reported decisions of appeals courts and other courts which make new interpretations of the law and, therefore, can be cited as precedents. These interpretations are distinguished from "statutory law," which is the statutes and codes (laws) enacted by legislative bodies; "regulatory law," which is regulations required by agencies based on statutes; and in some states, the common law, which is the generally accepted law carried down from England. The rulings in trials and hearings which are not appealed and not reported are not case law and, therefore, not precedent or new interpretations. Law students principally study case law to understand the application of law to facts and learn the courts' subsequent interpretations of statutes.

johnnyc,

'case law' and every other definition you find at LAW.com will apply specifically and exclusively to the LAW, not to reality. The law does not define reality, the law defines the LAW, and nothing more. It is often not even particularly USEFUL in reality, but is often only useful within courtrooms.

The definition you QUOTED explains this very clearly. I do not need to cite another source, case law serves to help people understand the application of LAW to FACTS. The facts can frequently be true IN REALITY, but be found inadmissable by the standards of LAW.

Would Steve Hassan's criteria for determining mind control hold up in court? Probably not. Does that automatically make his criteria incorrect? DEFINITELY not. You could likewise not prove the existence of God in a court of law. Does that fact, in itself, mean God is not real? Neither could you successfully DISPROVE the existence of Santa Clause in a court of law. Does that fact mean Santa Clause DOES exist?

The law does not define reality, it only defines the law and demonstrates the application of LAW to facts; not reason or reality, just law.

I hope you get it, johnnyc, but I am becoming doubtful.

193

Deceptive or just wrong?

by johnnyc in

i have been virtually non-stop studying everything i can get my hands on with regards the wtbts, and "apostate" literature and information.

in all honesty, 80% at least is non-sense and over critical.

however, i do find about 20% (if i have to create a percentage reference) is appropriate in its line of reasoning and questioning.

AuldSoul

johnnyc: What you said is nonsense.

What I said is perfectly true, whether or not it is nonsense in your opinion. Case law ONLY applies in the courtroom when it comes to defining terms applicable to psychological or sociological matters. What constitutes mind control is not ONLY the court's to decide.

What constitutes a legal standard for PROSECUTION or an actionable tort for LAWSUIT is the court's to decide. Case law only trumps Steve Hassan in a COURTROOM, and even then only until such time as the courts change their opinion on what constitutes mind control.

In real life, the point at which mind control has been used is the point at which someone's mind has been controlled in some respect, whether or not it can be proven to have occurred according to the standards of proof in a court of law.

In case law, the point at which mind control has been used is the point at which someone's mind can be PROVEN to have been controlled in some respect. That is the ONLY definition you will ever find in case law, a definition that can be evaluated according to standards of proof used in court. But such definitions are often not reasonable in real life; what actually is often cannot be proven to be by using the standards of proof according to law.

Had someone suggested that Steve Hassan said you had a case against the WT society then your response would have merit. No one did that. In REALITY, where real people live as opposed to where they go to sue or prosecute people or organizations, mind control does not have to be intentional in order to be accomplished.

Respectfully,
AuldSoul

193

Deceptive or just wrong?

by johnnyc in

i have been virtually non-stop studying everything i can get my hands on with regards the wtbts, and "apostate" literature and information.

in all honesty, 80% at least is non-sense and over critical.

however, i do find about 20% (if i have to create a percentage reference) is appropriate in its line of reasoning and questioning.

AuldSoul

Not to be a stickler, johnnyc, (which is something a pedant says JUST before being pedantic) but case law determines what is or is not most likely legally ACTIONABLE. Case law does not determine what actually IS or IS NOT. I think you should modify your opinion stated above to take that bit of reality into consideration. FWIW, AuldSoul

30

OMG OMG OMG!

by Hikaru in

jw
friends

is this a sign?

is it banning all religion there or what does it mean?

http://www.zeenews.com/states/2008-11-16/484112news.html

AuldSoul

However, it should be noted that he did once serve as Chair of the United Nations Trust Fund. [cue Twilight Zone theme, fade to sinister black]

30

OMG OMG OMG!

by Hikaru in

jw
friends

is this a sign?

is it banning all religion there or what does it mean?

http://www.zeenews.com/states/2008-11-16/484112news.html

AuldSoul

Swami Agnivesh said this to a human rights organization local to Guwahati, India, where such a statement would be well received. Much like US President-Elect Barack Obama making statements that are well received by Californians when in California.

Guwahati is an Indian University town of under 1,000,000 population.

http://www.swamiagnivesh.com/aboutswamiji1.htm

Calm down.

He is a well-intentioned religious nut-job and is even recognized as such among his own religion's notable notables. It is true that he recommends the eradication of religion. But he advocates the rise of socio-spirituality in its place, a concept utterly foreign to the Western mind and to the minds of most of his fellow Easterners, as he often and vocally laments.

42

any problems with this 607 response from Elder PO

by besty in

back in may 2007 i got this response from my brother who later acted as chief witness for the prosecution at our kangaroo court.

in fact he travelled 1000 miles round trip to do so.

he was motivated :-).

AuldSoul

"That the exiled Jews would spend 70 years in Babylon was prophesied in many places – 2 Chronicles 36:21; Jeremiah 25:11; Jeremiah 29:10; Daniel 9:2."

You mean aside from the fact that Chronicles was not a prophecy, and that Daniel didn't say the exile would last 70 years but that the years prophesied by Jeremiah would be fulfilled at the end of 70 years, and that Jeremiah was prophesying the 70 years for Babylon ascendancy, not for the exile, and that at the end of the 70 years for BABYLON God restored them, even though Nebuchadnezzar had died some time prior to that restoration?

No, nothing wrong with it. Except for the fact that even what he called the evidence they give "primacy" to does not actually state what they interpret it to mean. In fact, they start 70 year clock at the destruction of Jerusalem, when Jeremiah plainly told them twice that Jerusalem need not be destroyed AT ALL for their 70 years of servitude to be fulfilled.

Jeremiah 27:12-18 12 Even to Zed·e·ki'ah the king of Judah I spoke according to all these words, saying: “Bring YOUR necks under the yoke of the king of Babylon and serve him and his people and keep on living. 13 Why should you yourself and your people die by the sword, by the famine and by the pestilence according to what Jehovah has spoken to the nation that does not serve the king of Babylon? 14 And do not listen to the words of the prophets that are saying to YOU men, ‘YOU will not serve the king of Babylon,’ because falsehood is what they are prophesying to YOU. 15 “‘For I have not sent them,’ is the utterance of Jehovah, ‘but they are prophesying in my name falsely, to the end that I shall disperse YOU, and YOU will have to perish, YOU men and the prophets that are prophesying to YOU.’” 16 And to the priests and to all this people I spoke, saying: “This is what Jehovah has said, ‘Do not listen to the words of YOUR prophets that are prophesying to YOU, saying: “Look! The utensils of the house of Jehovah are being brought back from Babylon soon now!” For falsehood is what they are prophesying to YOU. 17 Do not listen to them. Serve the king of Babylon and keep on living. Why should this city become a devastated place? 18 But if they are prophets and if the word of Jehovah does exist with them, let them, please, beseech Jehovah of armies, that the utensils that are remaining over in the house of Jehovah and the house of the king of Judah and in Jerusalem may not come into Babylon.’

Even right down to the very END, the city could have been spared if Zedekiah had served the king of Babylon.

Jeremiah 38:17-18 17 Jeremiah now said to Zed·e·ki'ah: “This is what Jehovah, the God of armies, the God of Israel, has said, ‘If you will without fail go out to the princes of the king of Babylon, your soul will also certainly keep living and this city itself will not be burned with fire, and you yourself and your household will certainly keep living. 18 But if you will not go out to the princes of the king of Babylon, this city must also be given into the hand of the Chal·de'ans, and they will actually burn it with fire, and you yourself will not escape out of their hand.’”

193

Deceptive or just wrong?

by johnnyc in

i have been virtually non-stop studying everything i can get my hands on with regards the wtbts, and "apostate" literature and information.

in all honesty, 80% at least is non-sense and over critical.

however, i do find about 20% (if i have to create a percentage reference) is appropriate in its line of reasoning and questioning.

AuldSoul

If what they called "divinely revealed truth" later proves to have originated in the minds of mere men, then they can't later claim it was a simple mistake, johnnyc. Not according to the Bible, at least:

(YLT) Ezekiel 13:1-7

And there is a word of Jehovah unto me, saying, 'Son of man, prophesy concerning the prophets of Israel who are prophesying, and thou hast said to those prophesying from their own heart: Hear ye a word of Jehovah: Thus said the Lord Jehovah: Woe unto the prophets who are foolish, Who are going after their own spirit, And they have seen nothing. As foxes in the wastes, Thy prophets, O Israel, have been. Ye have not gone up into breaches, Nor do ye make a fence for the house of Israel, To stand in battle in a day of Jehovah. They have seen vanity, and lying divination, Who are saying: An affirmation of Jehovah, And Jehovah hath not sent them, And they have hoped to establish a word. A vain vision have ye not seen, And a lying divination spoken, When ye say: An affirmation of Jehovah, And I have not spoken?

A divination is something hidden that is purportedly revealed through the cooperation of supernatural powers (in this case, God), johnnyc. In my opinion, whether they were intentional false prophets or accidental false prophets is completely irrelevant, false prophets rarely ever admit to being false prophets and NEVER convert into true prophets. God was not supporting them at the outset, He is not supporting them now, and He will never fix what He did not initially establish. For instance, according to the Bible the Mosaic Law Code was God's and that arrangement was fixed by God many times, but only because it started out right.

Respectfully,
AuldSoul

5

I Can See Clearly Now (JW version)

by AuldSoul in

jw
friends

i can see clearly now, my brain is gone.

i can see no obstacles in my way.

gone are my own thoughts that had me blind.

AuldSoul

Nope, I see the same ad, darth. Could be, mind you, that it is just an optical illusion that makes it appear that they have done a before and after of a rotund black woman counterposed by a very slightly less rotund BRIGHT white woman.

Maybe it was a difference in the lighting? Well, I guess that's pretty much a given, eh?