Dave,
Best to you in your search. I've only been here a short while and have appreciated your struggle, publically advertised here in the face of animosity. You're not alone. There's a lot of anger out there, my friend - and some of it is manifest on this very page. You, on the other hand, TRY to respond kindly and with respect. That is a big first step. Move on and do what you need to do. There are those (here and there, if you know what I mean) who are sincerely concerned for your well-being. Leave it in the hands of those who can really make a difference. Just know that there are some people who genuinely care.
God bless,
Carlos
Carlos_Helms
JoinedPosts by Carlos_Helms
-
30
Taking my life back
by Junction-Guy ini have come to the crossroads where something has to give.
i no longer enjoy visiting any xjw forum.
i have to pull myself away from the negativity or else i will implode from within.
-
-
Carlos_Helms
-
14
JWS are businessmen who exploited Religion to create an Empire
by Homerovah the Almighty injehovah's witnesses are businessmen who exploited religion to create an empire or a kingdom of their own design true or false.. complete with servitude slaves and the laws to keep them in line.. after just listening to some of da judge rutherford speeches he certainly was a narcissistic opportunist that wanted it all.
and its not too easy to understand why a lot of people fell for his tritely bullshit, what a charismatic salesman.. you can really see how he was intensionally was trying to build a kingdom around himself with himself sitting of course at the steering wheel.. in modern terms we would call a person like this a power junkie out of control .
its apparent i suppose he did finally get the power and wealth that he desired, unfortunately at the cost of the love and respect of his family.. and its unfortunate too that this disingenuous character's legacy still remains and maintains itself in the wts.
-
-
Carlos_Helms
Well, as for me...I was either too dumb, too desperate, or too dysfunctional. Who in their right mind would believe someone who claims to be the answer to a rhetorical question?
I did. I read, researched, studied, and believed.
Everyone else was duped, I guess. Actually...I'd rather be dumb than gullible.
Peace!
Carlos -
108
Gay Marriage - The War for Equality
by Inquisitor ini've just read lola28's thread "for those against gay marriage".
i thought i should present a clear message on what i think the gay marriage issue is all about.
the trouble with most discussions on this issue is that it gets clouded by a plethora of side-issues, non-issues, cave-men chest-thumping and medieval puritanism.
-
-
Carlos_Helms
I am opposed to "gay" marriage and yet, curiously, I'm not homophobic.
I'm not "threatened" by homosexuals. What is there to fear?
What "disturbs" me (please pardon me if it's already been said, but I only occasionally check in with some of the latest posts) are individuals or small groups of people who believe that the rest of the world needs to bend to their will. Some homosexuals (read: very vocal homosexuals) - like so many other individuals or groups - are so self-absorbed that they can't possibly see the effects of their desired course of action in a greater context; in this case, societal survivablity. As a side note, I find it interesting that little of "love" is spoken about when sexuality is a topic on discussion boards. Typically, when sexuality is theme, it is more about having a quantity or quality of sex with whomever - and in a variety of ways. I believe it is in that context that we find the proverbial "slippery slope."
Viewing the homosexual marriage matter circumspectly, we have a problem with the "health of a society" as determined by the society vs. the "individual rights" claimed by individuals or groups of individuals. History shows that individual rights are accommodated to the degree possible within a society...that is, until the society feels that the good of the whole is (or will be) negatively effected. Please understand that this can be applied across the board to many different kinds of activities or lifestyles, homosexual marriage notwithstanding. The lines only become blurry when we substitute the "morality" of an activity in place of its effects on overall societal health. In morality, violations are "sins" and sinners are "bad" people. In society, violations are outside mutually-arrived-at "healthful" tolerances...outside the "law," so to speak. I wouldn't presume to make a moral judgment on homosexual marriage. Moral judgments are irrelevant. Societal health IS relevant and much more than just a concept. Within are found common tried and proven institutions which determine a society's success or failure. The society itself, then, is empowered to determine what is "acceptable." It's not personal...it's simply what works. Marriage and family are institutions that, by and large, have thrived for thousands of years in their traditional forms. Together they are the cornerstone of a society. When a society deviates far enough from those traditions, when marriage and family are no longer "solid," the society deteriorates.
That being said, I have no problem with homosexuality. My realtor (who happens to be homosexual), is a man I choose to do business with because he is a friend and a quality human being. As such, he is also an outstanding spokesman for the homosexual community. He represents himself well and, his sexuality being "second nature" (as it should be with everyone), he rarely finds himself in conflict with anyone (incidentally, he is opposed to homosexual marriage). Allow society to determine what is best for society (it has far greater minds than ours) so that everyone can enjoy the rights and privileges of being human.
Peace,
Carlos -
83
A kind response to Jim Penton & Ros of Channel C
by Amazing inthe following are transports of postings on http://www.channelc.org/ made by jim penton and ros regarding myself and james caputo respectively.
the reason that i did not post directly on channel c is that ros and many of her board participants do not like to see anything that resembles catholic discussion, even if the responses are done respectfully and in a spirit of clarifying a false claim or misunderstanding.
i too do not like "catholic" discussions on channel c, and have not posted there for 9 months until i recently posted an announcement about tom cabeen's interviews on ewtn and with randy watters.
-
-
Carlos_Helms
Good for you, Frank!
You got in your "last word." That's like a 2-point conversion at the end of a 4 touchdown spanking.
Were you ever threatened by "those Catholics"? You act as if this whole thing was directed at you.
Carlos -
20
Do people really change?
by Anti-Christ ini was talking about this with some friends yesterday, i believe that we do not change, we might change the way we see the world around us, we might change our belief, we will learn new things that will make us change our outlook on life but when it comes down to it i think we are who we are.
my friends say that we do change, that we are never the same person year after year, i was the only one who did not agree.
i told them that i have seen people "change" but deep down there were the same person, all they change was their "mask".
-
-
Carlos_Helms
I agree with WTW...and I've seen "the change" in others and - to a degree - in myself. More than just an adaptation to environmental stressors (learning to go along to get along), there are - by means of outside influence - changes that can occur to the essential personality. The real test is in how one responds to adversity or some other experience which takes him or her outside daily routine - where he has no "rote" to depend upon. Carlos
-
83
A kind response to Jim Penton & Ros of Channel C
by Amazing inthe following are transports of postings on http://www.channelc.org/ made by jim penton and ros regarding myself and james caputo respectively.
the reason that i did not post directly on channel c is that ros and many of her board participants do not like to see anything that resembles catholic discussion, even if the responses are done respectfully and in a spirit of clarifying a false claim or misunderstanding.
i too do not like "catholic" discussions on channel c, and have not posted there for 9 months until i recently posted an announcement about tom cabeen's interviews on ewtn and with randy watters.
-
-
Carlos_Helms
I agree, Jim. Apparently there is now some disagreement on what is meant by "kind." I would guess that the very mention of "disagreement" is perceived unkind by someone.
I have been to sites where everyone agrees with everyone else (some may recall "Al's" board, "Jehovah's Judgment," dedicated entirely to hate-filled attacks by Witness "faithfuls" on members of other boards..and those - needless to say - were never permitted to respond in their own defense). That site was (is?) nothing but a back-slapping, good ol' boy orgy of hate where the circumstances, intentions and motives of others is thrown out the window in favor of an uncivil and mutually-agreed upon hyper-critical (and often obscene) judgment of others. It is a logical extension of unreasonable censorship.
There is a fair amount of "I may not always be right...but I am NEVER wrong" present on all discussion boards; but public response to public criticism is almost always considered fair-play. Not to compare Caputo to Jesus; but as I recall, Jesus was quite disagreeable at times. Some no doubt felt his (rather long) criticisms were "unkind." I've seen nothing in the Caputo posts that even comes close to Jesus' animadversions. To the contrary, I see them as engaging attempts to respond to criticisms of Catholicism in a media with self-imposed limitations. Ya gotta do what ya gotta do!
Peace!
Carlos -
13
Way to go, Dubya!
by nvrgnbk inbush's comments in israel fuel angerlinking of nazis, iran seen as jab at obama.play-btn-box346x270 {position:relative;width:346px;height:270px;}.play-btn-box346x270 .play-btn {position:absolute;width:78px;height:48px;top:111px;left:134px;background:url(http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/images/player/play-button-med.png) no-repeat;_background:none;_filter:progid:dximagetransform.microsoft.alphaimageloader(src=http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/images/player/play-button-med.png,sizingmethod=scale);cursor:pointer;}.play-btn-box346x270 a {position:absolute;top:0;left:0;}.play-btn-box346x270 b {display:none;}videobush: america stands with israelpresident bush, in jerusalem to help celebrate the 60th anniversary of the state of israel, told israeli lawmakers that the united states is firm in its commitment to the friendship between the two nations.
launch video playerby michael abramowitzwashington post staff writer .
friday, may 16, 2008; page a08 .
-
-
Carlos_Helms
I might be a little "old world," but negotiating with criminals has always meant compromising with criminals - which is what they depend upon. I'm for no negotiations with the current leadership of the Palestinians. They have not demonstrated, to me anyway, that they have the best interests of Palestinians at heart. You don't form a nation out of hatred for or the destruction of another nation. To negotiate with Hamas can only mean disadvantage for the Jews....which is unacceptable. I saw nothing at all wrong with "Dubya's" comments. Kind of calling a spade a spade.
Peace,
Carlos -
43
KISS-OFF letter to me from an old JW friend I recently saw again
by Terry ini thought i'd start a different thread for this from the funeral experience where i saw this jw again after 30+ years.. after her first e-mail to me i wrote her back and answered direct questions she'd asked me.
i didn't push any agenda.. here is her kiss-off:.
first my apologies for how long my reply has taken.
-
-
Carlos_Helms
Wow...that was beautiful, Anewme.
I have to be regularly reminded that where we are is most often an extension of who we are. I now know exactly why I participated in the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses. Some people need structure as a matter of survival, perceived or real. Some people learn to survive on their own (so to speak)...some never do because they lack the faith (confidence) necessary to succeed. The nature of the structure is entirely dependent on the individual's perceived or real needs. Who am I to deny those needs without providing support or an alternative? If the foundation is shaky, any structure built on top of it will be tenuous at best...so we do the best we can. It's been my observation that most Jehovah's Witnesses have not experienced much in the way of unconditional love (or they deny it as 'too good to be true' - reinforced by 'you'll never be good enough'). Yet unconditional love is the very foundation upon which a spiritual life must be built. The replacement mechanism is often a high-control, heavily-structured social environment which offers distraction from the inevitable pain felt at being loved conditionally.
Some people "need" structure...other's appreciate structure...still others (within or without) have a reliable internal "governor," if you will...and the remainder are basket-cases who have none of the above. The former and the latter we usually keep at arm's length. One is needy; the other, dangerous.
Peace,
Carlos -
239
I Do Not Understand Why JWs Leave & Become Catholics!
by minimus inout of all religions, catholicism, to me, is wrong and clearly could never be the truth.
-
-
Carlos_Helms
Interestingly, I'm beginning to understand "hell" as I never had before (or it was never so well articulated): eternal life apart from God is a result of choosing (on a day-to-day basis) a life apart from God. It's the same issue that was presented to mankind from the get-go: "And the LORD God said, 'The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.'" (Gen 3) In essence, God has respected our choices and allowed us to become "gods unto ourselves." Unfortunately, I live in a world dominated by those those who continue to choose spiritual "victim-hood," those who feel they are entitled to decide poorly and reap the benefits of those who choose well. Those and a significant number of folks who just choose not to think about (painful) cause-and-effect. Why not hell? Been there, done that. I choose not to go there again. Thanks, Tom.
Peace,
Carlos -
15
Believer's how long will you allow this blasphemy?
by dawg inas all of you know, i do not believe the bible's divine... but if i did, i find that much of what the society says is outright blasphemy.
notice this insert from the april 15th, wt... you can look it up for yourselves as i'm certain i'm not taking this out of context.
if you believe the bible is the word of god (i find it hard to believe that anyone can take it literal) but if you do, then what about the souls of your family still in?
-
-
Carlos_Helms
Well, Mr. Dawg...you well know that elders regularly "go beyond what is written." In fact, the watchtower society is chock-full of tradition, super-scripturally enforced completely at the expense of its adherents. But what is the watchtower society without those who subject themselves to it? Its adherents place themselves in a submissive position to a hierarchy without any scriptural authority. I dare say that, if all the adherents decided to ignore kingdom hall meetings and subsequent interaction with the society, the doors would close within the month. There is something (I call it "ego-need") which compels people to continue to do what is not good for them despite indications to the contrary. I think the force behind it is the so-called "spirit of the world." People just don't real-ize God's power to change them...so they remain within a closed system that reinforces to them that they are not good enough...and never will be. Their faith is entirely dependent on an "acceptable" level of mutual emotional abuse only present within their peculiar social construct.
The best way to deal with pain is avoid it (nature's plan)...and then ignore its pleas to 'come participate again.'
Peace,
Carlos