Posts by AllTimeJeff

35

RAY FRANZ ACCUSED OF LYING

by whereami in

jw
friends

is there any way to get ray to explain this?.

.

http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-witness/te2vnohmnl9apquuv.

AllTimeJeff

This is much ado about nothing. Here is what I responded with.

There is nothing contradictory here. In fact, on that web page, he says he has not been a JW for 27 years. (Since 1981) Wouldn't that agree with what Ray Franz reports in CoC?
In addition, what does he mean by one "who never had any problems such as reproof, disfellowshipping, shunning, etc. so I have no "sour grapes" attitude." That could mean many things. In addition, I would dare say that since Ray Franz was disfellowshipped for associating with Gregerson, that he would have long ago disputed any discrepencies. He has not chosen to do so. He is simply offering some facts about himself, apart from Ray Franz or Coc.
I don't know what you are driving at. It appears you are trying to discredit Ray Franz by calling this into question. Anyone who has a copy of CoC knows that Franz photocopied many letters concerning himself and Gregerson, and they are not in dispute. Of course, you would have to read the entire book before you would know that.

11

Letter of Introduction

by IMHO in

jw
friends

does anyone know about the legalities of sending a letter when you move congregation, that in many cases contains a pack of lies about you and claiming they can't show you it as it's 'confidential'?

These letters are part of the internal organization of JW's. As such, they are protected legally, and elders are not supposed to share their contents. They can verbally inform the publishers that they are recommended in good standing. Elders, servants, and pioneers are to be told directly whether or not they will be recommended to serve in the congregation that they are moving to before they leave and before the letter is sent. If there is a conflict, it is up to the CO to send his recommendation at that point.

Elders are to inform any new congregation if the publisher is a known molester, and a copy of that letter is to be sent to the branch. The branch then sends what is basically a form letter advising the elders that the pedophile should not be used for any responsibilities, shouldn't work in FS by themselves, etc etc etc.

Elders have been taught to keep these letters as benign as possible. There is elder code, such as "obedient", "zealous", "helpful". The bad code words include "opinionated", "head strong", "slow to apply counsel", and the like. Any phrases like that clues in an elder body what kind of publisher and family they are getting, from the JW point of view.

105

Atheism as a psychological phenomenon.

by BurnTheShips in

theism in its various forms has been since the beginning subjected to psychological analysis and treated as a phenomenon of the human mind.

perhaps it is time to turn the lens and examine the psychological reasons for atheism as well.

this approach should be especially inoffensive to many atheists/materialists since in their worldview, all phenomena are reducible to natural causes.

AllTimeJeff

One more thing, (for now)

I really believe that a healthy life includes the dimension of the human experience that searches for meaning and purpose in life. (which is my definition of spirituality) So many have these experiences at church, raised to believe that Jesus or YHWH is god, and they rely on that and interpret much of the world through these beliefs. Others give expression to this in other non thiestic, or non traditional points of view. It is a mistake for all to believe that there is only one way to find this purpose and meaning in their life.

I am very open to the faith of thiests and the benefits that it brings them. I can't rule it out in the future, even if I definitely don't subscribe to such thinking now.

A well rounded education at home should include a respectful, intellectually honest, non judgemental overview of other peoples faith and beliefs. It will work to erase the idea that some ideologues have that "they are the only group that are true Christians." So many groups say that, and it is a potentially dangerous way to think. Even athiests should imo, teach their children that thiests are everywhere and that they need to be understood. Point out inconsistencies if you want, point out differences. But I believe a good education teaches your children how to think, not what to think. At the end of the day, all of us and our children will evolve and change in our viewpoints. It if folly to freeze out differing viewpoints in trying to control what people think and believe.

Athiests need to be careful not to sink to certain levels. It's easy to say to someone who believes that they have faith in something that they have never believed that they are silly. Perhaps that is true, but lets face it, you only set yourself up for a fight. You entrench the other person in their own point of view and make them feel justified in vociferously defending their thiestic beliefs. Why not try to understand them first. Even in groups of thiests, there is still a wide variety of points of view. Not all believe as the group teaches.

The point to me is this: The whole premise of these two essay by Vitz is to help thiests battle and when debates. It's a tool to battle athiests, not to help understand them.

I personally think the best thiests can do is to say (if they are honest) in response to athiest questions, queries and arguements: "You know, I can't prove scientifically what I believe. But it is a personal matter of faith to me and I am content with that." It will certainly garner a lot more respect and a lot less loud arguements then insisting that athiests are wrong, when they most certainly are not wrong for maintaining that "god doesn't exist".

It should be noted in all of this that "god" if he chose to, could put an end to these discussions very easily and very fairly. And I promise you, most scientists would be believers at that point. Such an occurrence would replace faith with evidence. It would be much fairer to the world in general that it occur in this way. No mystery, no codes, just show us who you are god, and what you want, I am pretty sure that there would be a quick falling in line.

Alas, no human can made god do this, and therin lies the problem. We argue, but the one whom the thiests rely on the most remains quiet, and has for some time.

105

Atheism as a psychological phenomenon.

by BurnTheShips in

theism in its various forms has been since the beginning subjected to psychological analysis and treated as a phenomenon of the human mind.

perhaps it is time to turn the lens and examine the psychological reasons for atheism as well.

this approach should be especially inoffensive to many atheists/materialists since in their worldview, all phenomena are reducible to natural causes.

AllTimeJeff

BTS

I think you misread his use of the word. This does not mean that there are not compelling motives from a rational point of view, but that they are "not psychologically deep rooted". In other words, "psychologically superficial".

I see your point. Even in that context though, I would point out that "psychologically superficial" is still quite a judgement to make. If one does have a strong emotional reaction to learning that their former thiestic point of view was wrong or unsupportable, it still minimizes the decision a person may make to keep an athiestic point of view. Which leads to the next highlight.

The point of the profiling of atheists is to remove psychological motives from explaining religious belief. The ad hominem attack on theism posits an immature need for support, but there are psychological causes for atheism as well as theism. So when the atheist attacks a theists beliefs for being childish, the theist can counter, ``and so's your old man!" So, this argument more or less levels the playing field as far as psychological explanations of belief/disbelief are concerned.
In the documentary "Has Science Discovered God?" Dr. Paul Vitz concludes that psychological reasons for believing or not believing in God have nothing to do with the facts and that the actual evidence should be examined instead.

I agree that psychological causes exist for both athiesm and thiesm. That is common sense. However, since as brought out, the goal was to level the playing field for psychological explanations, I think there is something all of us who are reading this should consider:

Ad hominem attacks are wrong. However, are thiests always attacked ad hominem? That is what is implied and I can't agree with that. Thiests often respond to athiests who question their premise by saying they are attacked, when in fact, it is their facts that they use and their logic that is attacked. Any by attacked, I mean questioned and exposed.

I don't like it when a thiest is called "childish", but I cannot see in academia where this is the case. For example, in Sam Harris book "The End of Faith", his entire premise is to expose why in his view, thiesm and faith are dangerous. He made many powerful arguements, none of which can be called ad hominem.

However, on a much more personal level, such as an internet forum like this, you will see name calling and highly emotional arguements made. BTS, you have made them yourself, at least with name calling. Whatever your reasons were for doing this, the fact is that you did this. And some athiests responded in kind, or started it. That is everyone's perrogative. I don't think it benefits either sides arguement.

It is my view that if any group has been attacked ad hominem, it has been the agnostic/athiest crowd by thiests in public life. When we are told that we are going to be judged and destroyed by god, that god hates certain sin, certain people, and that we should repent or else, I cannot help but think that this qualifies as ad hominem. Thiests will in turn run for cover by saying "But its in the bible!" Which was the point of Sam Harris book. There is no logic or sensability to hate any group and judge them. But somehow, thiests get a free pass in the name of free religious expression. While they are welcome to hold their view in private or within their religious community, to promote such in a public forum or in public life opens thiests up to charecterizations as "childish" and "foolish". Context matters. No one likes being called "childish". On the other hand, if the shoe fits.......

Athiests do not want religious people to have their beliefs or services taken away. They just want religious ideas and postulations kept out of public and governmental life. If there are athiests who want religion to go away and be "jailed", I would not go along with that.

My point isn't to call thiests childish. I think to reduce athiesm to a psychological "neener neener" session reduces both sides. However, I sense greater sensitivity and pressure on thiests, who continue to fail in adequetly explaining why their thiestic views should hold a place in the public life of a westernized democracy. Believe it if you want, but don't legislate it, and don't enforce it on those who disagree. If you do choose to bring thiesm to the forefront (in a Mike Huckabee way for example) then be prepared to be called on it and explain the logic for it. And don't be surprised if it gets raw.

Just my two cents. :)

105

Atheism as a psychological phenomenon.

by BurnTheShips in

theism in its various forms has been since the beginning subjected to psychological analysis and treated as a phenomenon of the human mind.

perhaps it is time to turn the lens and examine the psychological reasons for atheism as well.

this approach should be especially inoffensive to many atheists/materialists since in their worldview, all phenomena are reducible to natural causes.

AllTimeJeff

I am going to start my response with the very end of the essay, which more or less somes up the writers views. (something I believe is important)

Let me conclude by noting that however prevalent the superficial motives for being an atheist, there still remain in many instances the deep and disturbing psychological sources as well. However easy it may be to state the hypothesis of the "defective father," we must not forget the difficulty, the pain, and complexity that lie behind each individual case. And for those whose atheism has been conditioned by a father who rejected, who denied, who hated, who manipulated, or who physically or sexually abused them, there must be understanding and compassion. Certainly for a child to be forced to hate his own father-or even to despair because of his father's weaknesses is a great tragedy. After all, the child only wants to love his father. For any unbeliever whose atheism is grounded in such experience, the believer, blessed by God's love, should pray most especially that ultimately they will both meet in heaven. Meet and embrace and experience great joy. If so, perhaps the former atheist will experience even more joy than the believer. For, in addition to the happiness of the believer, the atheist will have that extra increment that comes from his surprise at finding himself surrounded by joy in, of all places, his Father's house.

As with any essay, the response elicited will in large measure be the result, not of the essay, but of our individual point of view. I offer mine in that spirit. I should note a couple of things to start: 1. He clearly paints the motives for being an athiest as "superficial". Thats quite a viewpoint to have in view of such things as science and factual discoveries concerning Christianity and world religions in general. 2. He does acknowledge (imo correctly) that each case is complex and individual. Good for him.

He also acknowledges the social pressure he felt to identify himself as an athiest, which I found intriguing, as that is usually one of the biggest reasons I can see for those who continue to believe or stay in a religious community. (i.e. "Yeah, I guess I am a Catholic. No I don't like what I see. I don't agree with their stand on abortion or homosexuality or birth control. But my family is Catholic, so I am not changing...")

I feel that one argument that he tries to make is that athiesm is in fact, a reflex of earlier childhood experiences. Using this as a barometer, anyone can say that nothing they believe is truly unbiased and thus "superficial", because they learned it at childhood. This is convenient for the sake of his arguement, but in defending thiesm, I feel he actually undermines faith and belief in general. (I realze that this is classic Freud, but bear with me.)

For example, with none of the traditional western religions around, who would believe in Jesus? Isn't it true that one must be taught that Jesus is in fact, alive, invisibly in the heavens before any semblance of faith and belief can occur? If you, the reader, were raised in Saudi Arabia for example and only been exposed to Islam, would you believe in Jesus? If we took a transplanted middle eastern baby, raised him with adoptive parents in Manhatten who took him to a synogouge, what would be believe? And yes, if you are raised by athiests, is it likely that you are going to be pre-disposed to not believe in god. There are some, such as the author, who "switched teams" from athiesm to thiesm. There reasons are there own, and do not prove anything on their own. They don't answer the evidentiary questions that have long plagued thiests in the thiest/athiest arguements that continue to spatter about.

Lastly, it might have been a more accurate article to say that he had a problem with Freudian athiests. No athiest I know is one because of Freud. If one wishes to explain thiesm or athiesm through Freudian terms, that is one thing. But Freud represents only one avenue of psychology. (why didn't he discuss Jung? Jung didn't have the open hostility to religion, in fact, some think he sounds a bit "new agey" based on who is reading it) I think many who have any sort of passing knowledge of psychology would acknowledge that Freud plowed the first road in modern psychology, but he certainly didn't pave it. His basic contribution to psychology is the concept that psychological issues can be treated by trained talk therapists. I would largely discredit most of what Freud had to say in general, outside of a few guiding concepts in psychology. It should also be noted that modern therapists actually include one's religious faith as a way to help those who are troubled mentally in their therapy. This is far from what Freud would have endorsed.

In short, to try to marginilize athiests (or anything) using Freudian based psychotherapy is a waste of time. (just one mans opinion)

Since this article seems a bit wordy and overly academic for the average JW or ex JW (and I include myself in that group), I would suggest a more pragmatic playing field. Here is how I see it.

Athiests and agnostics I know, esp ex JW's, are so because they often had little opportunity to critically examine their beliefs, why they believe, who they obey and follow. When actually allowed to do so, (something that JW's for example are forbidden to do) what do they find? God? Jesus? No, these agnostic/athiests find history books with facts and data, and when they decide to become athiests, they do so not because they have had daddy issues, but because of the evidence that they have assimilated. Even if they choose to do so for highly emotional reasons, the fact is, god could sort of show up for all our benefits. (It would really stop these discussions wouldn't it?) Are athiests and agnostics free to come up with their own evidentiary tests for god's existence? It seems to me that all types of thiests are free to do so, why not athiests? If their tests are more stringent, they certainly can't be called unreasonable.

When researching the bible, here is what I found: The bible is a collection of old scrolls. The bible canon that is the foundation of modern western Christianity was the subject of much debate. There is no evidence that it is anything but the writings of man, a collection of wisdom and ancient (though sometimes dubious) history of a small group of people. Whether one chooses to attach faith and mystical significance to this book is a personal decision. But one who chooses to view these books theistically does so "as a matter of faith", as their is no evidence or compelling reason to do so, as evidenced by the survival rate of agnostic and athiests that we observe today.

Athiests cannot prove that god doesn't exist. They also cannot prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist either. I don't see a difference. Believing that Santa exists sometimes makes people feel better, and as long as their aren't any constitutional ammendments demanding that we pray for our X-mas presents in school, then I am totally cool with those who think that Santa is real. Can we talk about the psychology behind that? Or isn't it more accurate to say that the reasons people (mostly children) believe because they have been taught, not because they have daddy issues.

Athiests have got a bad rap from thiests, essentially because they disagree with thiests and thiests cannot answer their questions scientifically. (lets face it: to say I see "god" in a sunset might be deep for you, but it doesn't help prove the existence of god at all. To say there is an ancient prophecy yet to be fulfilled in the bible might do something for you, but you can't prove it) There isn't anything that can be proven thiestically, only persuasion exists. To say that athiests believe the way they do because of psychological issues is a weak attempt to change the real issues involved, in my opinion.

There is a limit, a void that science doesn't fill. Faith and spirituality (defined by me as the quest for meaning and purpose in each individuals life) is important. If one chooses to fill that through organized religion, thats fine with me. However, I think the main problem most athiests and agnostics have isn't religion or god per se, but instead, the enforced group think mentallity we saw in JW's and see at times with the Dobson crowd and the fundamentalists of the GOP. Please, feel free to believe what you want, but don't enforce it through Government. And don't pretend that you are right, that your god exists as certainly as the chair I am sitting on now. Show some humility to what you don't know, and what you can do.... please?

If I ever do chosse to believe in god again, it will likely be because I feel a need to, and it will be quite personal, and I still won't vote Republican, nor will I try to argue for my belief. I doubt I would ever let most people know about it. It would be for me, me alone.

This premise is a fight on an inaccurate playing field. The fight over athiesm/thiesm is on evidence, not psychology.

That article was so long, and I wanted to watch football today and then I have to work Monday. But those are my basic thoughts on it. Thanks for the opportunity to comment on it.

11

Dear friend to be DF'd this week ,advice please!

by wobble in

a dear friend of mine is to be d'f'd this week,coz she re-married a non-jw.

she divorced her arrogant bullying (min serv and reg pio.

) husband a couple of years ago.. she moved from our congo's area at the time ,and i don't think she has associated with another congo.. she also lost her dear mum recently,the funeral is on monday.

AllTimeJeff

I am with Blondie. Technically, they can't DF her until the wedding, unless their are other reasons that are known. (sex beforehand,

I would encourage her to be discreet if she wants to stay "in" for a bit more. On the other hand, maybe thats not what she wants.

Sounds like you want to stick it to the whole JW clan for what they did to her. Ultimately, support her in whatever she wants is the best any of us can do.

105

Atheism as a psychological phenomenon.

by BurnTheShips in

theism in its various forms has been since the beginning subjected to psychological analysis and treated as a phenomenon of the human mind.

perhaps it is time to turn the lens and examine the psychological reasons for atheism as well.

this approach should be especially inoffensive to many atheists/materialists since in their worldview, all phenomena are reducible to natural causes.

AllTimeJeff

This is deep. I have to digest this before commenting on specifics.

However, let me bring out, what seem to me to be, common sense generalizations:

There are thiests who believe the way they do for purely emotional, reactionary reasons.
There are athiests who believe the way they do for purely emotional, reactionary reasons.
There are thiests who believe the way they do after a large amount of soul searching and deep thought.
There are athiests who believe the way they do after a large amount of soul searching and deep thought.

I put it this way because while it is helpful to have a paper written like this about athiests, (which I can see raise some valid points) I think I would also be remiss to point out that generalizations are helpful as an overview.

It is good for all of us to realize that there are powerful, individual reasons why people take such strong stands on their points of view. For example, while I still do not consider myself a thiest, I have reversed a point of view I had when I first left JW's. That is that "all thiests are weak minded people who believe in god purely as a crutch, for no good reason." I have backed way off on that.

I think it important that we not view the other side of the arguement as a danger, but as something to be understood.

What I am concerned about with this paper is the following: It reduces the reasons one is an athiest to a purely irrational, emotional decision, much the same way that I judged all thiests.

I look forward to commenting on this soon.

81

What Gilead Taught ME

by AllTimeJeff in

they mean the leadership.

all of this is code for: one who is not ready to really study and accept how the leadership of jehovah's witnesses use the bible to their own self serving means.

but to be fair, jw's teach that most all of these characters refer to the leadership of jehovah's witnesses, the governing body.

AllTimeJeff

Very interesting story! So how did you get out of africa...how did everything turn out?

I left Africa after 6 months. I was attacked twice in a 4 day span and almost killed. I developed single event PTSD from this and lost about 40 lbs. If I had stayed, I would have died. I couldn't stay. The Service Dept sent a fairy nice letter, comparing my experiences to Pauls. (although I was left with the underlying impression that what they were saying was "Paul stayed, you are leaving") Nonetheless, we had to pay for our ticket back, where when I got back, after recuperating a bit, I left my ex and started over. Today, I am remarried and am in much better shape, although I still suffer from anxiety. It is getting better.

81

What Gilead Taught ME

by AllTimeJeff in

they mean the leadership.

all of this is code for: one who is not ready to really study and accept how the leadership of jehovah's witnesses use the bible to their own self serving means.

but to be fair, jw's teach that most all of these characters refer to the leadership of jehovah's witnesses, the governing body.

AllTimeJeff

Yeah! They flat out told us they didn't want these papers leaving Patterson.

81

What Gilead Taught ME

by AllTimeJeff in

they mean the leadership.

all of this is code for: one who is not ready to really study and accept how the leadership of jehovah's witnesses use the bible to their own self serving means.

but to be fair, jw's teach that most all of these characters refer to the leadership of jehovah's witnesses, the governing body.

AllTimeJeff

For those who are curioius about the tests.

Lance can also comment on this if he wants, but each test is printed for each class. They are kept on computers, and not too many free copies are floating around.

As the video brought out, each student gets a loaded 3 ring binder with the schedules, tests, and homework. Toward the end of the class, there is a "shredding" party that would make Nixon proud. Everyone has to turn in their binders, it is loaded into carts and taken into the Patterson basement, next to a garage, where we gleefully shred every bit of the schedule, and all of the tests. YHWH knows they don't want that crap getting out.

As far as the tests, most of the information is actually in the WT library, believe it or not, as the article I posted demonstrates. Some of the crap is in books that are no longer on WT library for obvious reasons.

The OT and NT are divided into two classes. There is also Theocratic Organization, which is essentially a study of the Proclaimers book, and only one class out of them all that actually deals with missionary life, called Missionary Service.

The Proclaimers book is interspersed with videos of Russell, Rutherford and Knorr talking. Missionary Service classes have videos and experiences of actual missionaries who were crazy enough to stick around in their assignment. Visiting missionaries who have had the life sapped out of them come in and get interviewed, almost always it was by Mark Noumair. Once I think Wally Liverance did an interview.

There is 1 big classroom, and 2 smaller ones. Each of the 3 teachers have their offices in the wing where Gilead is located. Since I left, I have heard that only Noumair is still a teacher, Bowen for sure has moved on. (rumor is he is now claiming to be of the annointed) and I don't know what happened to Liverance. I called and identified myself to ask who was teaching, but strangely, they didn't tell me anything. (lol)