as i've mentioned a few times before, i'm working on a round of articles for austin cline's site.
the final "big daddy" article is an evaluation: is the wts a controlling, harmful cult?
but i don't plan on doing an attack article.
jgnat: Practice pulling out the logical fallacies in his argument.
Since this is a different setting, I wasn't trying to be objective in my mistaken remarks. But that's my plan for the article exactly.
Thanks again to everyone for the recommendations. I'm still waiting to hear back on the articles I've already submitted. I have a dozen so far, and may need to add a few more to supplement the one about the "cult question." This is meant to be the last of the first set of them.
IsaacJ
the more i uncover, the more i realize how little i really know.. after putting my org chart together, i have a question: who or what is this worldwide order?.
if this is the formal name of the full-time members within the overall organization, what is the name of the overall organization?
could it be something like new world society?.
Wow, I was a JW for 30 years and never once heard of this special 'order' of full-time JW's. Thanks.
Same here. Anyone know anything about this? Could be interesting.
IsaacJ
as i've mentioned a few times before, i'm working on a round of articles for austin cline's site.
the final "big daddy" article is an evaluation: is the wts a controlling, harmful cult?
but i don't plan on doing an attack article.
IsaacJS2, if you are going to write a balanced article, you are going to have to read the contributions you receive a little more carefully. Those comments I posted are not mine, but those of a JW apologist.
So glad to hear that. I was like, whoa! Very sorry about the misunderstanding, though. My bad.
I didn't see any indication that you were still quoting from someone since it was just printed as regular text after the boxed quote. I naturally thought you were saying this to me directly and had no way of knowing that you still quoting from someone else. Anyway, thanks a lot for the post and again, real sorry about the misunderstanding. I hope you can see how I made such a mistake. No hard feelings, I hope.
IsaacJ
what would it change in your life right now if the watchtower fell apart and didn't exist anymore?.
maybe some would want to join another realigion right away, because they still believed a bit of what they preached and didn't want to join a false religion, just as the jw's brand all other religions..... .
.
I don't think it would affect me at all, really. The only thing would be the spillover from my wife and in-laws, but like someone else mentioned, I'm sure something would rush in to fill the void.
IsaacJ
as i've mentioned a few times before, i'm working on a round of articles for austin cline's site.
the final "big daddy" article is an evaluation: is the wts a controlling, harmful cult?
but i don't plan on doing an attack article.
I just wanted to thank everyone for making their suggestions of sites to visit. The articles I'm writing are for another site, Austin Cline's Atheist/Agnosticism area of About.com. All kinds of people will be reading them. As always, JWD rocks. Best ex-Witness forum I know of. Glad Tall Penguin pointed me to it.
I didn't realize this used to be a predominantly pro-Witness forum. Guess the name makes more sense, now. Weird how these things turn out.
IsaacJ
as i've mentioned a few times before, i'm working on a round of articles for austin cline's site.
the final "big daddy" article is an evaluation: is the wts a controlling, harmful cult?
but i don't plan on doing an attack article.
Jgnat, I completely disagree with you. But you have a right to an opinion, even if your experiences differ wildly from mine and many others. My experience is that there are liberal congregations that pop up now and then who ignore the admonishment of the travelling overseers, and that are condemned by their neighboring congregations. You clearly have a different experience. I certainly haven't traveled to all of them. I would suggest that your comments are a little strong, nonetheless.
I won't go too far into this since I don't want to debate with you and since that would take us further off topic. But I do feel strongly compelled to point out that comments such as " Gripes, complaints, murmuring, accusations, falsehoods....these are all the tools of those who find Biblical Christianity too demanding for them" are incredibly insulting and presumptuous things to say. I also disagree with the "not true" part. The criticisms, as you listed them, have at least some merit, even if some of the critics exaggerate the details or are too quick to leap on every conspiracy theory they can find.
You don't have to carry some sort of emotional stigma about your WT years to believe the criticisms, nor must you be a weak person who can't live up to their obligations. My time in the WT ended 10 years ago and I don't have an axe to grind. I simply have an article to write, and I'm actually trying to give both sides their due. Perhaps you should start a thread about why you think the criticisms aren't valid and invite others to offer their side. I might even use the best of your remarks. My thread was just a request for sites I might use to show the WT's side of the criticisms that critics often make. Which is weird, since I would think you'd prefer that approach given the things you said.
I'll certainly agree that there are plenty of sites that go overboard and that attack the Society. They make everyone seem a little crazy and do as much harm as good. I acknowledged this before, and it's why I'm trying to offer a balanced article here. Balance is what we need. I think everyone can appreciate that. I really don't need the other comments that put everyone who disagrees with you down, though. Please, let's not go there again unless its in a thread you create. Thanks for the offering of a web site to review, though. But I would ask you to keep the insults out of the thread before others find them and turn this into a big debate thread. I hope you understand.
IsaacJ
as i've mentioned a few times before, i'm working on a round of articles for austin cline's site.
the final "big daddy" article is an evaluation: is the wts a controlling, harmful cult?
but i don't plan on doing an attack article.
I know that the Society discourages web sites and that most of us don't consider anything pro-WT to be "decent," but I trust you know what I really meant. Right? Decent, as in, containing a decent amount of content for my purposes.
I'm not really expecting any of these webmasters to help me or answer any questions. If they would talk to me, I could do just as well to ask a JW in-law or an Elder or something like that. But a public web site that tries to defend their org can be quoted, which is really the point behind the idea. I simply want to compare the criticisms and the refutations for those who don't know a lot about the WT, and if I can use a source that readers can check for themselves, so much the better. I want to offer as fair and reasonable an examination as I can. Offering their side in their own words is better than me paraphrasing them. It's harder to criticize my characterization of their views if I'm actually using their own words. See what I'm getting at?
It's easier for someone who's never been a Witness to take a more objective examination seriously. An article that just says: the WT is an evil cult that brainwashes people, etc, now here's the reasons why you should hate their guts as much as I clearly do... sounds far too biased to be trusted by those who don't know anything. It would clearly show that I have a problem with this group and an axe to grind. But an even handed article that says "Here's criticism #1..." "Here's their refutation to #1..." "Now here's the evidence..." is far more effective and lets the reader decide. Treating the WT's side with respect makes it harder to just shrug off my points as paranoia or immature lashing out. It makes my presentation more trustworthy, and that's how it should really be. If they're as bad as most of us think they are, then I should be able to present both sides evenly and still support my conclusions. That's the best way I can go.
I was wondering if there was much of anything out there that suited my needs. If not, I may be forced to paraphrase using the literature, but that makes the article longer. I'm already squeezed for space. I'm hoping to keep it down to 3 parts, but I may have to stretch it into more. Either that, or I'll have to offer some more articles that cover those topics so I can just link to them for the details. We'll see, I guess.
Anyway, I hope that clears up any confusion about the thread. Thanks a lot for the responses so far.
IsaacJ
as i've mentioned a few times before, i'm working on a round of articles for austin cline's site.
the final "big daddy" article is an evaluation: is the wts a controlling, harmful cult?
but i don't plan on doing an attack article.
As I've mentioned a few times before, I'm working on a round of articles for Austin Cline's site. The final "big daddy" article is an evaluation: Is the WTS a Controlling, Harmful Cult? But I don't plan on doing an attack article. I feel that only undermines the point of the thing. I plan to present both the criticisms and the defenses against them side by side to expose the weakness of their refutations.
I would prefer to get Witness refutations to our criticisms from sources other than myself because I want to do a fair, balanced article that lets the readers decide. Since my articles have been more negative than positive overall, I feel that posting my own interpretations will cheapend the thing. WT defenders will only claim that I didn't give them a fair shake, yet that's what I'm really trying to do.
Note that, like most of us, I believe these refutations don't hold up. But I wish to present them anyway and to evaluate them, using the literature to see which side has the strongest supporting evidence. I believe this is a better way to approach the cult question than a simple attack or a list of complaints which will only scream "bias!" to the readers. I hope you see the value of what I'm trying to do with this.
Has anyone ran into any pro-Witness sites that offer responses to critics? I haven't found anything good yet. I don't expect anyone to my job for me, but I was wondering if you'd found anything useful in your web travels? This way, I can quote those pro-WT sources along with the criticisms, or at least refer to them.
Thanks a lot for any help.
IsaacJ
i am curious today about people that cannot wake up.
i have a problem with waking up.
i do not hear alarms.
Most of my own investigations into this kinda thing were more along the lines of Sleep Paralysis and hypnogogia. It seems to run in my mother's side of the family. After hearing about their ghostly encounters all my life, I finally learned about these disorders and came to suspect that they have a sleep disorder since virtually all their weird experiences happend while asleep or trying to sleep.
I don't know if your situation is related to any of these conditions. But I did find various groups online that help with sleep disorders some time back. Probably a dumb question, but have you looked into finding such a group on the net? Even if they don't mention anything like you're experiencing, you could try emailing the site operators and asking if they know more.
IsaacJ
the world is full of complex biological systems (for one example see below):.
here is a brief overview of the biochemistry of vision.
when light first strikes the retina, a photon interacts with a molecule called 11-cis-retinal, which rearranges within picoseconds to trans-retinal.
There are some random elements in the process of evolution because mutations are random. But it is a process--a painfully slow one at that--not a sudden random change of one species into another out of the blue every so many generations. To say that it is all about randomness is to greatly oversimplify the process and to misunderstand how it works. Still, I know of no better explanation for it than Dawkin's mount improbable. It makes sense, even if you know nothing more about evolution than what you learned in high school. BTW, most of us were taught wrong in high school about evolution and history. If you want to understand evolution, you really have to dig a lot deeper. If you have dug deeper and read the scientific responses to the I.D. (and other creationist) objections to evolution, but still support I.D. as a more scientific view, then it might help if you could tell us where the scientists are wrong. Right now, you seem to be repeating the arguments that scientists have already refuted.
I would like to point out that evolution doesn't have to be unscientific to be wrong. Ultimately, we nonscientists have nothing more to go on than the word of people who know gobs more about it than we do any way. I just don't know of any good reason to take the word of I.D. advocates over that of the scientific community, which is just one of the issues I have with I.D. and why I honestly have a hard time listening to these debates any more. Again, if you want to convince the pro-evolution crowd of creationism, then start refuting the scientists objections instead of covering the same ground they've already refuted themselves. If you don't want to convince us, then I'm not sure what point a thread like this really serves.
One last thing: I honestly have no idea how anyone could say a 9 year old could debate with Dawkins or refute his book. No disrespect intended, but I honestly wonder if you read the same book that I did. But I don't want to argue about it since that always gets me into trouble. Here's a suggestion then: If someone wants to refute the God Delusion book, maybe they could start a thread which does so and let Dawkin's fans like myself see where we are wrong. I would read such a thread. But please offer up strong arguments to back up your claims. Explain the reasoning and the evidence for each point you raise so we can have the chance to be convinced that we are wrong. And yes, I really am more than willing to admit my mistakes once I see them.
IsaacJ
