Posts by crownboy

30

Ginger or Mary Anne?

by crownboy in

jw
friends

no doubt one of the most ask questions ever.

no matter what age you are (in my case fairly young), you've seen gilligan's island, and heard the inevitable argument (especially amoung men), who do you prefer better: ginger or mary anne.. well, i decided to bring the debate here to jw.com, see if there's an (ex) jw consensus on the issue.. my personal favourite is mary anne, by the way.

they were both very attractive, but mary anne's personalty was more down to earth (or naive) to me, and i find that more desirable.

crownboy

No doubt one of the most ask questions ever. No matter what age you are (in my case fairly young), you've seen Gilligan's Island, and heard the inevitable argument (especially amoung men), who do you prefer better: Ginger or Mary Anne.

Well, I decided to bring the debate here to JW.com, see if there's an (ex) JW consensus on the issue.

My personal favourite is Mary Anne, by the way. They were both very attractive, but Mary Anne's personalty was more down to earth (or naive) to me, and I find that more desirable. What's your opinion people?

22

JW statistics 2001 -- www.jwic.com/stat.htm

by Osarsif in

jw
friends

jw statistics 2001:.

http://www.jwic.com/stat.htm.

crownboy

How can the publisher numbers go up if the baptisms are going down?

Because people are still being baptized, just at a slower rate. If your buissness usually made a profit of $1 million (50,000 baptized), but in later years you only made arofit of $500,000 (10,000 baptized), you're still making a profit (increasing membership), just at a slower rate. In other words, it will take a lot longer time for the Society to get from 6-7 million members than from 5-6 million (which I believe only took 1 decade). They're still growing, just at a snail's pace.

Go therefore and baptize the people in the name of the father and of the son... what the hell, we just need to bring up the yearbook numbers!

34

Why the bible does'nt make sense to me

by Leander in

jw
friends

for some odd reason this morning when i woke up the first thing that came into my mind was the suffering and pain that humans deal with on a daily basis.

again i'm not really sure what made me think about that so early in the morning.

(maybe it was a dream i had).

crownboy

Unclepenn, I think you missed the point I was trying to make.

You said:

He has given us freewill and we decide to choose God or reject Him. Are you not pleased with the fact that God gave you freewill and didn't make you like a chatty Kathy doll, when you pull the string you would say "I love you Lord".

What I said (and as Leander also pointed out), is that we don't really have free will because (according to the bible) there's only one way to get eternal life, and that's by worshipping God. The alternative to not worshipping God (eternal destruction) is too undesirable to be really considered a chioce. If I offered you two cars, one functioning but not to your liking, and one that's more desirable but would result in your death if I sat in it, and I asked you to choose, it's your "free will", have I really given you a choice? Of course not, because one choice isn't even viable, and because of this I actually must choose the car I didn't like. If God truly gave us a "free will" choice to worship him or not, there would be no punishment for not worshipping him.

You also said:

The guys in the Taliban chose to crash into the World Trade Center. They knew in their hearts it was wrong, just like you know it is wrong to sleep with your friends wife behind his back.

For a second there, I thought you were accusing me of the latter .

First up, the Taliban didn't crash into the WTC, they simply allowed the leader of the terrorists to hold the training camps in their country. Al-Queda and those other groups were responsible for actually crashing into the towers (and no, I'm definitely not being pro-Taliban, I think they're terrible too, just wanted to clear up a technical point )

Secondly, the terrorist did genuinely believe that what they were doing was acceptable to God. They were performing jihad, which is a moral obligation of all Muslims. Mainstream Islam does not condone what the terrorist did because to most Muslims it wasn't actually jihad to them, just plain terrorism. However, if most Muslims had accepted what these guys did as genuine jihad, then they would have felt no moral qualms against it. (Jihad has to do with a Muslim defending his faith, which 99% of the time does not involve killing, as this can only be done in self defense and without murdering innocents. The terrorist viewed Islam as being under attack, and all Americans as guilty. To an unbiased person this is total B.S., but in their minds they were absolutely certain that what they did was right).

You chose two examples of events that would be thought of as wrong by many people regardless of whether they believed in the bible or not. [b]Without any bible influence{/b] billions of people would view the WTC thing as wrong, because hurting innocent people is wrong. Any two bit holy book teaches this principle, society cannot function properly if this rule is violated, so you can't say that the bible is the only reason why people observe this rule.

Your second example is more of a subjective thing. The principle of whether sleeping with my friends wife is right or wrong depends on whether anyone gets hurt. If for example, they're swingers, clearly my sleeping with my friends wife probably wouldn't cause hurt to him or his wife. However, if they're more stringent with their sexual beliefs and such an act on my part would cause harm to my friend, then I obviously shouldn't do it.

You have the choice and you control your destiny. What is so bad about that?

Because it actually isn't a chioce, since there's only one answer.
"Chicken or fish?" entree choice at a wedding is a choice "Chicken or poisioned fish" isn't.

Go therefore and baptize the people in the name of the father and of the son... what the hell, we just need to bring up the yearbook numbers!

29

What's your spiritual type?

by RR in

jw
friends

here's a test.

http://www.beliefnet.com/section/quiz/index.asp?sectionid=&surveyid=27/.

questioning believer you have doubts about the particulars but not the big stuff.

crownboy

Got a 37. Spiritual Dabbler (like Mulan, I'm not really spiritual, but willing to find truth).

COMF, I had the same problem as you did. Some of the questions contained answers that didn't reflect my thinking, and I was forced into picking more "spiritual" answers than I would have liked, since the alternatives were too dogmatic. That probably pulled up my already pathetic score .

Go therefore and baptize the people in the name of the father and of the son... what the hell, we just need to bring up the yearbook numbers!

78

Watchtower Propaganda

by JosephAlward in

jw
friends

many have argued that articles in awake!

in recent years show that watchtower was letting itself be told what do by the purple beast, namely, promote the united nations in its writings.

i can understand how many might quickly find support for this claim, for there are, indeed, many articles in awake!

crownboy

Joseph,
I also think you are misunderstanding the rules of "theocratic warfare". You seem to believe that what the society was implying in the old Watchtower about "deiceiving opposers" of "the truth" would condone the activity they had with the U.N. You are wrong in this regard.

The "deception" talked about there referred to witholding information from superior authorities or individuals who might oppose the work of Witnesses. A good example would be a brother not telling the police or an informant where Witnesses meet in a country where their work is banned. It would not include joining the police force (even in a capacity that does not deal with persecuting Witnesses directly), then figuring out a way to sabotage the police or governments plans in trying to stop the Witnesses. Your example of the Witnesses joining the U.N. to sabotage it would be similiar. No Witness in a country were Witnesses are persecuted would give a "thumbs up" to a brother who joined the government to change the government policies, because just the act of associating with the government, of being part of Satan's system (all earthly governments are thought to be under Satan's system, but the UN is still seen in a worse light than most of the earth's individual governments) would be considered noxious, and that brother (or sister) would be immediately disfellowshipped.

So your argument that the Watchtower fooled the U.N. into thinking they supported their charter, even though they didn't may indeed be true but irrelevant. The fact that they may have only become an NGO to get the U.N. library card may be true, but even more irrelevant than the former point (as REM pointed out, the Society could have accessed the library materials sans the library card, so I personally feel there was even more for the Society to gain by their association, such as respectability in the eyes of certain governments that may think them a cult). They couldn't use "theocratic warfare" as their trump card, because it does not include joining up with the enemy (the average Witness would respond to the "theocratic warfare" argument as favourably as the Society would respond to my saying I wanted to join the YMCA to help bring it down; whether or not either of us is true is moot because it "breaks the rules"). You seem to make light of the fact that the Witnesses knew that the U.N. expected a certain amount of loyalty from them, but that the Witnesses simply ignored it, thereby keeping them clean. Dishonesty is a sin, most Witnesses would get into trouble for pulling a stunt for that, and as I stated before this particular deceit does not fall under "theocratic warfare" so therefore it's not "deceit for God", just plain old unscriptural deceit. Plus, don't forget how quickly the society dropped association with the U.N. once the story went public. If the explanation was as simple as you put it, the society would not have discontinued their association with the U.N. and would simply have explained the situation in a letter to all congreagations, or at least to the elders (putting it in the magazines would be a tad riskier, as the U.N. people would have to read it too ).

Hopefully I have helped in clearing up this issue for you, Joseph.

Go therefore and baptize the people in the name of the father and of the son... what the hell, we just need to bring up the yearbook numbers!

34

Why the bible does'nt make sense to me

by Leander in

jw
friends

for some odd reason this morning when i woke up the first thing that came into my mind was the suffering and pain that humans deal with on a daily basis.

again i'm not really sure what made me think about that so early in the morning.

(maybe it was a dream i had).

crownboy

You're right on with your points, Leander.

The whole "free will" thing has always been a sore spot for me, even when I was a fervent believer. It can't really be free will if we only have one viable choice. Sure, God created us with the ability to make our own choices, but what good is that if only one choice is right? It's like a multiple choice exam; you can pick any answer you like, it's your "free will", but the teacher will only accept one answer as correct, so do you really have multiple choices? (I like the "gun to your head" illustration, it's what I usually think).

Your thoughts about our natural sinful state is also very good. Adam& Eve were perfect, we aren't, so we're at a much bigger disadvantage than they were. However, we're judged by the same harsh standard. Unfair if you ask me.

Go therefore and baptize the people in the name of the father and of the son... what the hell, we just need to bring up the yearbook numbers!

78

Watchtower Propaganda

by JosephAlward in

jw
friends

many have argued that articles in awake!

in recent years show that watchtower was letting itself be told what do by the purple beast, namely, promote the united nations in its writings.

i can understand how many might quickly find support for this claim, for there are, indeed, many articles in awake!

crownboy

Joseph seems to believe that the very act of joining a UN NGO isn't that important when indeed it is. He seems to think that because the Watchtower joined to get a library card, that coming down hard on them on this issue is somewhat unwarranted.

However, the Watchtower joining the UN is a big issue! People could be dissfellowshipped for joining the YMCA, not because you would be "supporting the charter" of the organization, but because you were mearly associated with the organization. No distinction is made between active support and mearly using the athletic facilities. The JW belief is any association with a member of Satan's organization, be it active or benign, is unacceptable! By the societies lofty standards on the YMCA, there's no way they can justify being any part of what they characterize as the "grand daddy" of all of Satan's organizations.

The Society could have become an NGO so that they could have access to the UN's toilet facilities, it wouldn't matter. Just their association with "the wild beast" is unacceptable. All JW's know they could never do what the society did and get away with it, so if they think of it as a good thing, they are being intellectually dishonest since what the Watchtower did is inconsistent with its own policy.

Also, as was mentioned, the post-NGO articles in the Awake are undeniably more friendly toward the UN than previous articles were on the organization. Joseph, no one really belives that the Watchtower joined as an NGO to be all cuddly with the "wild beast" or to have Koffi Anan over to Bethel for a grand tour . No doubt it was done because it was advantagous for the Watchtower to do so, but so would joining the YMCA be for me if I needed access to a swiming pool. However, in the JW world only the Society itself can make such a decision, and that's wrong.

Go therefore and baptize the people in the name of the father and of the son... what the hell, we just need to bring up the yearbook numbers!

32

Beards its OK guys wear them, goodness sake

by Shane in

jw
friends

rjputman writes:.

hi shane,.

just read your post of 30 august regarding beards.

crownboy

books published around 1960 STILL were showing Jesus and Adam WITHOUT beard.

So true. I'm 19 so I was born in the "bearded Jesus" era , but I'm a 4th generationer so we've got a whole lot of old society books. Just last night I saw a Paradise Lost book, and there were pictures of Adam & Jesus clean shaven (Adam actually also had well groomed sideburns!). Beards are definitely an unoffical no-no. I can't think of any ("responsible") brother in any of the halls I've been to who had beards.

But what about goutees? (sp?) I think it would be o.k. After all, they aren't full beards and they have a little more hair than mustaches.
When I went to last year's memorial there was this poor "brother" who was wearing one and everyone was giving him the cold shoulder because he had one. I felt so bad for him.

I currently have a goatee and no brothers in my congregation have ever objected (including my dad, who's an elder). However, my uncle, who's also an elder, has repeatedly told me that my goatee "looks worldly" and that it's a sign of "an independent attitude" since no one else in my congreagation really has one. Of course, I ask him what scriptural counsel is there against them, the best he could do was say that "the society advises against them" (obviously, a real "society man"). The fact that Jesus more than likely wore one should tell them nothing is wrong with it scripturally, and socially a man with a well groomed beard is well respected (my uncle tried to tell me people with beards "aren't respectable", but I easily showed him otherwise).

Besides arguing about whether beards are right or not, we also argued about whether a goatee was a beard or not. In my opinion it's not, in his it is but who really gives a crap, anyway? Experiences like that make me happy that I'm mentally free of the societies dogmas.

Go therefore and baptize the people in the name of the father and of the son... what the hell, we just need to bring up the yearbook numbers!

16

Should JW's Visit A Hypnotist?

by Englishman in

jw
friends

no!.

i recall that the wt stated that one's mind was open to demon possession when in a hypnotic trance.. this is quite curious, during the 50's my dad dabbled in hypnotism prior to becoming a jw, one of his old pals told me that he saw him hypnotise a woman who then allowed him to stick pins in her thumb without her feeling any pain at all.. i have seen a hypnotist transfix a friend of mine to the floor, he was unable to move without the hypnotists ok.. i also have another friend who uses a light trance to help people overcome their fears, it seems to work well on peple who have to give seminars or perform on stage.. anyone here ever been hypnotised?.

englishman.. bring on the dancing girls!

crownboy

Ditto Seeker4 on the yoga comment (this is the 2nd time for the day I've dittoed you. Great minds think alike ).

I told my parents I was thinking of taking a yoga class next term in my school. I have trouble relaxing sometimes and it's supposed to relieve stress or something (plus the class is free ).

They damn near blew up on me, telling me how one can be demon possessed if one "leaves their mind empty" or whatever tripe the Watchtower has to say on the issue. I ask them for bible evidence that shows such to be the case (of course no real scriptures were presented). Lucky for them, with my work schedule I very well may not be able to take the class, but if I can make it I'll certainly try it (gotta keep away the yoga demons, though ).

To answer the question, no they don't need to. Aren't they already hypnotized enough?

Go therefore and baptize the people in the name of the father and of the son... what the hell, we just need to bring up the yearbook numbers!

44

Why can some question and others not

by joelbear in

jw
friends

we are not jehovah's witnesses because of a variety of circumstances, but one thing we all share is that we question.. what factors come together to make us questioners?.

intelligence?

but i know a lot of very smart non-questioning jehovah's witnesses.. bravery?

crownboy

YoYoMama,

You mentioned in a previous post whether someone read information about the society from "apostates" or not. Someone ask whether it made a difference or not, as long as they're presenting fact. You never replied to this.

It's really dishonest (and totally unfounded) for you to imply that "apostates" cannot possibly tell the truth when they write about the society (unless there's another reason you had in mind). You read publications written by the society that present themselves in a positive light, perhaps it's impossible for them to be objective? By your standard (for "apostate" material) you should only be reading pro-society publications written by outsiders because only they can be objective, right? See the ridiculous nature of the argument?

The only thing that should measure whether something is valid or not is how much that thing is truthful. I'll assume the reason you trust the societies publications, isn't because "the society made them" but because you think their truthful. Even if they print an article that makes them look good, it doesn't matter as long as it's factual.

Same with "apostate" material. You can't knock it "because it's written by "apostates"", you can only distrust it if it's incorrect. As most of us who have done research know, most of the "apostate" material has verifiable facts, most of which can be found in the societies publications! Don't you think maybe you refuse to look at "apostate" material solely because "the society says so"? Most people have agendas when they write (especially the society). What makes something worthy is whether it's truthful or not. Just something to think about.

Go therefore and baptize the people in the name of the father and of the son... what the hell, we just need to bring up the yearbook numbers!