Posts by crownboy

19

Last night's bookstudy / Questions about 1919

by Leander in

jw
friends

last night's bookstudy again focused on the date of 1919 and how it was proof that god's favor was directed towards the bible students.

this week the wts compared themselves to the jews when they were released from babylon.

basically they talked about how the jews were discplined by jehovah when babylon destroyed jerusalem and took them hostage.

crownboy

3. Did Woodrow Wilson have a hand in the release of the bible students? (one of the sisters made the
comment that the President intervened in behalf of the bible students, another comment was made that the
governing body was given consecutive life term sentences)

Yes he did, but once again the JW organization blows the whole thing out of proportion. Alot of people were arrested for "sedition" during WW1, e.g. socialist & communist. After the war, President Wilson gave a lot of pardons & sentence commutions to people who had been hastily & heavy handedly dealt with during the "war time fervor", including the JW's. They make it sound like the President was used by God for some special commision to fulfill bible prophecy, which was not the case (Eugene Debbs' imprisonment made the news, not J.F. Rutherford's).

And the sentences handed out were concurrent, not consecutive, but they were rather large sentences nontheless, I believe. I was at bookstudy too, and it was sickening. Every God damn verse in Isaiah has a "mordern day fulfillment". Apparently, the bible was written for JW's .

40

I finally got my tattoo...

by Princess in

jw
friends

as a surprise for my husbands birthday, i got this tattoo.

the picture is kind of blurry, it was hard to take!.

i know i said i was going to get it on my posterior, but i wanted to be able to see it!

crownboy

Nice tatoo Princess, hope your marriage last as long as it does, you guys sound very close.

I've thought about a tatoo from time to time, and I really don't know if I'd get one. With the whole Hepatitis thing, I think it's a tad risky (but I'm sure you took necessary precautions).

Imagine how funny it'd be if they had misspelled the name, or put some other guys name .

45

Organized religion, no religion, agnostic

by cnn77 in

jw
friends

i am new here trying to figure my way around...... i would appreciate it if you could say which of these fits you..... 1. still a jw.

2. if you dont agree with the jw doctrines any longer do you belong to another religious organization now?

3. are still religious and have no religious affiliation.

crownboy

5

7

Surrogate mothers commit adultery?

by crownboy in

jw
friends

most people on this site already know that the jw religion has some really quirky beliefs.

some can be silly, but unfortunately others dangerous.

i find the jw belief on the properness of surrogate mothers to be rather silly.. .

crownboy

Most people on this site already know that the JW religion has some really quirky beliefs. Some can be silly, but unfortunately others dangerous. I find the JW belief on the properness of surrogate mothers to be rather silly.

*** w84 8/15 26 Insight on the News ***
Surrogate Mothers
A case of human artificial insemination was recorded
as long ago as 1799. But in recent years this has come
to be more widely practiced. According to The New York
Times, a woman who is artificially inseminated and
bears a child for another woman, as a substitute for
her, is called a surrogate mother. The infertile wife
and her husband agree to this arrangement, and when
the surrogate mother gives birth the baby is adopted
by the couple. The sperm in this case could be from
the husband of the couple or from another donor.
Although such an arrangement may be approved by many
in the world, the Christian rightfully asks whether it
is in harmony with God’s laws. The Bible, at Leviticus
18:20, is clear on this point when it says: “You must
not give your emission as semen to the wife of your
associate to become unclean by it.” Artificial
insemination of a woman by a donor other than her
legal husband, makes her guilty of adultery, a sin
against God. (Deuteronomy 5:18) The sperm donor and
the surrogate woman have not been yoked together by
God in matrimony.—Matthew 19:4-6.

They couldn't seriously believe this crap, could they? Something as intimately impersonal as the above procedure is considered "adultery"? Besides the obvious fact that Christains aren't under the Jewish law (but apparently under the "priniciples" [8>] ), the situation referred to there has nothing to do with surrogate motherhood. That scripture was referring to two people having an illicit affair, and bearing an illegitimate child. In the surrogate mothers case, she is neither having an affair nor is the child "illegitimate". In fact, back in bible times, there were people who served as "surrogate mothers" (wives giving their maidservants to bare children). Why not use that "bible principle"? Just one of countless cases of the GB sticking its nose where it doesn't belong, and not using clear, realistic thinking either.

IT'S MY 200TH POST!!!!

8

A JW opinion of "apostate" thinking

by crownboy in

jw
friends

i found this description of "apostates" on a pro jw site to be interesting, to say the least.

it's amazing how these people sound like they're reading straight from the watchtower, or something.. .

http://ofnet.homestead.com/apostate.html.

crownboy

I found this description of "apostates" on a pro JW site to be interesting, to say the least. It's amazing how these people sound like they're reading straight from the Watchtower, or something.

. http://ofnet.homestead.com/apostate.html

Apostate quite literally means:
One who has forsaken the faith, principles, or party, to which he before adhered; esp., one who has forsaken his religion for another; a pervert; a renegade.
(Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.)
The typical apostate does not start out being an apostate. They start out angry at having been removed from the congregation for breaking some bible priniple. Their pride takes them on an emotional journey of monumental proportions. They may question the rightness of their removal. Many times they question whether the people who made the judgement to remove them are following the scriptures themselves.
The loss of various aspects of being one of Jehovah's Witnesses causes a void in their lives. This only makes them angrier and they decry the organization for its teaching that they should focus their associations around fellow believers rather then family and people that are not of the same faith. They may search out others who were formerly Jehovah's Witnesses for suport. As they continue on a path of supporting their negative view they seek out other former members experiences.
Focusing on all the negativity blocks their view of any positive features of having been one of Jehovah's Witnesses. They turn the entire experience into a black time in their lives. They seldom take up another organized religion, favoring a "personal" relationship with God. Some may seek out small study groups. These study groups never seem to stay together long as their differing views divide them.
At the heart the issue is the lack of humility. Their pride moves them to go to great lengths to "prove" themselves right. This never ending battle consumes their lives.
The one thing that is very obvious about them is their anger. It springs to the surface when ever any prolonged activity brings the memories to mind. It is wise to avoid such ones as they only tear down others faith.

The not so funny thing is, the guy/girl who wrote this really believes it.

35

How many here are still active JWs? If not.....

by Leander in

jw
friends

when did you leave?.

what prompted you to doubt/leave the organization?.

for those who are still active, do you plan on leaving soon?

crownboy

C'mon Jesusfreak14! God didn't give us "free-will" because if he really did, we would truly be free to choose whether we wanted to worship him or not. And don't say God favouring people who worship him is a way of rewarding them, and therefore not really "punishing" those who don't worship him (like with awarding a Nobel Prize only to those who worked for it). Death is not the default state of man, according to the bible, everlasting life is the default state, and the bible clearly states that God actively punishes those who disobey him (The wages of sin is death, not the reward for not sinning is life). So since in reality God only wants us to worship him one way (he doesn't respect our "free will" choice to not worship him without punishment), then the only purpose of creating us with "free will" is to give us the ability to mess up.

If you want to say that God is somehow trying to test our loyalty, then fine, but that test is not a loving test. It's the equivalent of me placing 2 glasses of water in front of my child, one good, and one poisonous. I want to test my child to see if he is obedient, so I tell him to only drink from the good glass. If my child were to drink from the poisonous glass, that would prove that he was rebellious. He made a "free will" choice to disobey me. Sure, I could have made it impossible for him to have drank the poisoned water, but how would I have known if he was truly obedient to me or simply doing something because he didn't have a choice? I don't want my child to simply be some "robot" following my orders, the only way I can truly know if my child loves me is to put this test before him. Any judge would understand my story, right?

I really liked this article discussing the problems of "free will".

. http://www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/whybad.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question of Evil Remains Unanswered
by David B. McCalmont
When people who believe in the existence of a kind, all-knowing, and all-powerful god are asked why such a god permits so much cruelty, torture, murder, and war on Earth, the usual answer is that god did not wish to create men and women who were automatons, that s/he wanted human beings to have free will. In exercise of that free will, believers argue, human beings often choose to be violent, cruel, and warlike. God could not prevent this, they say, without making human beings into automatons.
Not so. An all-knowing god would have known in advance that, if s/he created people like Genghis Khan, Hitler, Stalin, Saddam Hussein, or Jack the Ripper, these people would personally, or by inciting others, inflict injustice, violence, torture and death upon other human beings. To prevent this, god need only have refrained from creating these evil individuals. God had the power to do that without in any way preventing other human beings from exercising their free will.
You and I do not feel that we have been made into automatons because our federal and state governments forbid us to murder, rape, or maim other people, or steal or destroy their property. On the contrary, we still have plenty of leeway for exercise of our free will. Similarly, human beings would not have been turned into automatons if the alleged god had placed the same kind of reasonable limits upon their exercise of free will.
Consider also the terrible suffering which is inflicted upon human beings by hurricanes, tornadoes, volcanic eruptions, and drought. These painful calamities are obviously not caused by our exercise of free will. Yet, the alleged kind, all-knowing, and all- powerful god permits them to occur. This is an additional reason why the asserted need to give human beings free will cannot serve as an excuse for the pain and suffering endured by millions of people in this unhappy world.
Sometimes the people killed or maimed by an accident or natural disaster turn out to have been criminals. When this happens, believers happily proclaim that their misfortune was arranged by god as a punishment -- even though millions of other evil-doers escape such godly retribution.
On the other hand, if some of the victims turn out to have been persons of admirable character, believers then assert that they died because they were SO good that god desired their company up in Heaven!
By this mental legerdemain, believers can cling to their precarious faith. But people with common sense are not impressed.
NOTE: It has also been of great interest to me that those who experience a close call in a catastrophe, the survivors of plane crashes, etc., are the source of great praise to the almighty when those who perish in these same disasters do not evoke any blame to this same deity.

So you're saying that the suffering baby is going through pain because of his sins? If it's a result of his parents "sins" is it fair for that baby to suffer also? Shouldn't our "suffering" be comensurate with our "badness" (if one chooses to believe that God should punish beings who were born with a proclivity to do bad, unlike Adam & Eve who were supposedly perfect)?

The bottom line is, if the situation you describe is true, God does not care about our "free will", because he only desires us to behave in one manner (his way).

7

Would a Le Pen Presidency Favor WT in France ?

by Explorer in

jw
friends

would a le pen victory for the french presidency result in a favorable turn arround situation for the wt in france ?

he does not even support france being part of the eu, and has spoken out in favor of stepping out it if becoming president.

nationalism is starting to grow back not only in france but other european nations as well, with partisans for a no to the eu.. would a france in the hands of a nationalist such as le pen would be more tolerant to the wt, reversing jacques chirac's actual version of "freedom of cult" in france.

crownboy

Celia,

I think you are referring to former U.S. congressman David Duke. Thank god he hasn't won elections lately.

31

happy witnesses?

by Realist in

jw
friends

i attended sunday meetings at least half a dozen times.

what i noticed is that the witnesses seem to be very happy people.

is that true or just a fassade?

crownboy

Realist,
I'm in college right now, would like to study law.

I'm pretty sure my parents won't "shun" me if I left and weren't under the same roof as them, but to take such a step while still in their residence would be very difficult.

I agree with you on the skeptisism thing. I'm one of those "question anything" types. I felt comfortable as a JW when I believed all my questions were reasonably and correctly answered, but once I got to really thinking about it, I saw the flaws and had to investigate. Your x-GF either isn't the curious type, or she realizes something maybe wrong, but is afraid to confront it. A lot of JW's are like that, but that is totally not me and I hate having the wool pulled over my eye by anyone, much less my own self. I think you mentioned somewhere that she is a science major, so she probably has the inquisitive mind, but is afraid of getting "outside the box" too much. Since she dated you, a non-JW, she couldn't be too "strong in the faith", since JW's are strongly discouraged from even having any friendships outside the Org., much less romantic relationships.

If you and her are still friends, perhaps you could carefully show her some anti-JW information. Don't come outright any say it, of course, but tell her something like :"I've been researching the JW's since we broke up to see if maybe I was wrong about them. I found it interesting that I saw this quoted in their publications...". Try to avoid telling her that you've been on "apostate" sites, say you've researched from publications found in a library (which I actually did). Show her stuff from the JW publications. There are links at the bottom of the page to various sites that are very helpful in this regard, I recommend clicking on the link titled "Quotes" for direct quotes from the publications, but everyone of those sites have exceptional info, so I'd read from all of those sites to be fully "up to speed".

I'll leave home as soon as I have the financial means to do so, which hopefully will be sortly after I get my undergrad degree, as I think I'll take a break before pursuing law.

Thanks SYN. Mice in helmets are always the best to have supporting you.

13

Did anyone see the Discovery Channel special last?

by crownboy in

jw
friends

i saw it at my cousin's house last night, it was very interesting.

it traced the lineage of man back to the "real eve", who lived somewhere in africa about 150,000 years ago.

they were able to make this determination by reading the "mitocondrial dna" of humans; looking for mutations, etc.

crownboy

I saw it at my cousin's house last night, it was very interesting.

It traced the lineage of man back to the "real Eve", who lived somewhere in Africa about 150,000 years ago. They were able to make this determination by reading the "mitocondrial DNA" of humans; looking for mutations, etc. It shows just how closely related all we humans are, as any two humans vary genetically by a miniscule amount. Any others saw the program?

31

happy witnesses?

by Realist in

jw
friends

i attended sunday meetings at least half a dozen times.

what i noticed is that the witnesses seem to be very happy people.

is that true or just a fassade?

crownboy

Thanks for the feedback, Realist.

Right now, I'm still offically "in". I'm 19, live at home with a family of Witnesses, so I really have no chioce but to go, unfortunately [>:(]. On the plus side, due to very clever excuses, I pretty much have cut down my meeting attendance to about once a week (since there'll be food at the Book Study next week, I guess that will be my "meeting of the week" ).

There wasn't any great epithany that got me thinking about the JW's, just little things here and there (e.g. why would God kill over 99% of the earth's population for not accepting a particular brand of Christanity? Actually, that's a pretty big thing come to think of it ). I eventually got up the courage to do some research, and of course "the rest is history". Can't fathom how both my parents (both raised "in the truth" like myself) haven't seen the things I saw at 17 at any point in their life. Then again, they didn't have the internet , and I've heard comments from various people here that the Org. was more interesting and less restrictive in the "old days", so I guess that could also be a reason. Once I move out, I'll be toally free then .