Posts by DT

38

Unbelievable!! Family member at my leasing office!

by IronHill in

ok...i need to vent.

i just finished writing a letter to my leasing office in regards to my own cousin.

she is a jw of course, and has lately been less than courteous with us because we are d'ad and i have honestly had enough!

DT

I like the suggestions made so far. However, I'm not sure if the religious angle should be totally ignored. Isn't that the problem? Dealing with an occasionally rude manager isn't that big of an issue for most people. It's different if that rudeness is prompted by your right to exercise your freedom of conscience and results in unfair treatment. There's a danger that you could be viewed as complaining about something trivial if you leave that out. If it escalates, it could then appear like you are grasping at straws if you then bring up the religious angle. Here is how I might handle it, in case it gives you any ideas.

Dear Office Manager,

I feel obligated to report certain difficulties I have had with Ms. XYZ at the rental office. I believe she has treated me in a rude and discourteous manner. (Provide dates and brief description.)

I felt the need to document these incidents in the event that further discourteous behavior takes place in the future. The manner in which I've been treated leads me to anticipate that this may continue.

If this is part of a general pattern, then you have likely received other complaints and will be able to determine what action is needed to prevent this inappropriate conduct from recurring. However, if this rudeness is directed to me personally, then you may be uncertain about how to respond to my complaint. I realize the difficulty of taking action in light of a single person's description of the tone of two isolated incidents. Of course, I will continue to document any further inappropriate incidents, even by recording phone calls, if necessary. However, I will now present more precise details that may clarify the nature of the problem and suggest how it may be remedied.

In addition to simple rudeness, Ms. XYZ responded inappropriately to our request to make arrangements to collect our pool passes. We were told that we would have to come to the office during office hours to pick them up. When we said that this is impractical due to our work schedule, she only offered the accommodation of picking them up at her apartment, provided our children complete the transaction.

I view this as evidence that this rude behavior is directed at me personally. I don't believe it is appropriate to require a third party to act in my behalf when dealing with the office manager.

I am merely seeking fair treatment. Would it be possible to simply have the passes slid under my door or mailed to me? If this is a reasonable accommodation that would normally be granted to other residents, then I would appreciate that this be done in order to solve the immediate problem of the pool passes. If not, please notify me of my remaining options of getting the passes.

I hope that this problem will not persist. I will be satisfied if this discourteous behavior stops and I am treated in a fair and equitable manner in the future.

I realise that Ms. XYZ belongs to an organization that instructs its members to socially ostracise and avoid people with my beliefs. She is free to do so, if she wishes, provided it doesn't interfere with my rights as a tenant. I have no quarrel if she wishes to avoid me outside of necessary interactions as part of her job. I dislike bringing this up, even though I have documentation to support this. I believe it may provide an explanation for her unusual behavior.

In any case, I am hopeful that this situation can be remedied in an efficient and professional manner.

Thank you.

3

Superman, the Klu Klux Klan, Copyright and the Watchtower Society

by DT in

jw
friends

here is an interesting portion of an article.. "almost too weird to believe: writer stetson kennedy infiltrated the kkk in the late 1940s, and learned the powerful organization's secrets but nobody would publish them.

meanwhile, the superman radio program needed a villain to replace the nazis.. according to mental floss magazine, kennedy managed to work all of the ku klux klan's most secret recruiting and organizational practices into his 1940s radio serial, "clan of the fiery cross.

" and as a result, the man of steel dealt a crushing blow to the racist organization: .

DT

btt

3

Superman, the Klu Klux Klan, Copyright and the Watchtower Society

by DT in

jw
friends

here is an interesting portion of an article.. "almost too weird to believe: writer stetson kennedy infiltrated the kkk in the late 1940s, and learned the powerful organization's secrets but nobody would publish them.

meanwhile, the superman radio program needed a villain to replace the nazis.. according to mental floss magazine, kennedy managed to work all of the ku klux klan's most secret recruiting and organizational practices into his 1940s radio serial, "clan of the fiery cross.

" and as a result, the man of steel dealt a crushing blow to the racist organization: .

DT

Here is an interesting portion of an article.

"Almost too weird to believe: writer Stetson Kennedy infiltrated the KKK in the late 1940s, and learned the powerful organization's secrets — but nobody would publish them. Meanwhile, the Superman radio program needed a villain to replace the Nazis.

According to Mental Floss Magazine, Kennedy managed to work all of the Ku Klux Klan's most secret recruiting and organizational practices into his 1940s radio serial, "Clan Of The Fiery Cross." And as a result, the Man Of Steel dealt a crushing blow to the racist organization:

"As the storyline progressed, the shows exposed many of the KKK's most guarded secrets. By revealing everything from code words to rituals, the program completely stripped the Klan of its mystique. Within two weeks of the broadcast, KKK recruitment was down to zero. And by 1948, people were showing up to Klan rallies just to mock them.""

Here is the link http://io9.com/5394980/how-superman-defeated-the-ku-klux-klan

Now suppose the KKK used copyright infringement as a way to suppress this information from coming out. It would be absurd for a secretive organisation that spreads hatred and even death to use copyright to prevent its secrets from becoming known. Regardless of the letter of the law, we have a right and duty to publicly debate and criticise any organisation that causes harm.

Now an assembly talk outline from the Watchtower Society has been leaked and publicly discussed on Youtube and other places on the Internet. (see also this topic http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/scandals/193671/1/Watchtower-suppresses-critical-video ) The Watchtower Society is using copyright infringement as a way to squelch debate on their ridiculous and damaging doctrinal changes. It's not the first time they have used this tactic. They often manage to successfully shield the public from becoming aware of their dark secrets, including practices that spread hatred and even result in death and broken families.

What do you think about a secretive organisation using copyright as a means of protecting its secrets and avoiding criticism?

113

Watchtower suppresses critical video

by besty in

as many of you know the active jehovah's witness known as v has a youtube channel http://www.youtube.com/user/wtcomments .

v has 27 videos and 1000 subscribers on his channel and over 200,000 views so far.

his most recent video is a satirical expose of the most recent generation doctrine change.

DT

I believe that the use of that outline could be justified under the principle of fair use. Fair use allows for criticism and that appears to be the only intention of that video. Of course, I don't think the Watchtower is Society is concerned with copyright. They just want to use whatever means are available to them to reduce criticism of their laughable doctrinal changes. They want to extend their control mechanisms to public forums. I don't think it will work. This move is already causing a lot of negative publicity for them and their options for dealing with it are limited. I expect that more videos and articles quoting that outline will spring up. They can continue a losing battle of claiming copyright infringement and make themselves appear like monsters who hate free speech and even run the risk of attracting media attention like what happened with Scientology and the Tom Cruise video a few years ago. Or they can back down, which is probably the wisest choice for them, but this will also make them look foolish. They could try some kind of legal challenge, but the negative publicity would be devastating and would only draw further attention towards their ridiculous doctrinal changes. It would also make people angry who don't care about the JW religion, but cherish free speech and the right to criticise absurdities. Also, suppose they tried some kind of legal challenge and the argument was made that using of a talk outline for criticism was an internal religious dispute where the courts can't intervene. The Watchtower Society would face a dilemma. If they won, it could pave the way for a flood of lawsuits where the Watchtower claims protection on the basis of this same principle. I think they would have to drop it and look extremely foolish in the process. This is a great time to bring attention to the Watchtower Society and their oppressive practices. I would love to see a variety of videos and articles that quote various quantities of that talk outline and see how they respond. They might prefer to grant us "apostates" a small victory, rather than escalate a confrontation that they can't win.

12

Need help with a question using WTBS publications only!

by justmom in

jw
friends

hello...... anybody out there that can give me information from their own (wtbs) publications of their stand on disfellowshipped ones attending memorial or even partaking?.

thanks a bunch.

justmom.

DT

What about 1 Corinthians 5:11? "But now I am writing YOU to quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man."

Since JWs like to apply this to all disfellowshipped and disassociated ones, how could they possibly allow them to attend the Lord's evening meal? If one of them partook, wouldn't everyone else have to not partake in order to comply with that scripture?

36

Top 10 Ways to Offend a Jehovah's Witness

by JimmyPage in

jw
friends

1. sing a duet of the national anthem with your gay life partner.

2. smoke a cigarette after donating blood.

3. join the high school football team and have sex with a cheerleader.

DT

Hold you wife's hand during a prayer.

Don't take notes at an assembly, but take notes at your judicial committee.

Say something nice about the deceased at a JW funeral that is unrelated to "theocratic" activity.

Cry at a JW funeral.

Refer to your anniversary as the birthday of your marriage.

Say forgive me fathers, for I have sinned, at your judicial committee.

3

An Irony Concerning God and Evolution

by DT in

jw
friends

many theists have come to regard evolution as a handy tool that god has used in constructing the world as we know it.

i have to admit that this view has some appeal.

it conveniently deals with the scientific evidence for evolution while still making room for a creator to account for the current gaps in scientific understanding.. if i were a deity about to prepare a universe for intelligent life that could provide the adoration i crave, i would likely regard the process of evolution as a great way to to save myself some work.

DT

Many theists have come to regard evolution as a handy tool that God has used in constructing the world as we know it. I have to admit that this view has some appeal. It conveniently deals with the scientific evidence for evolution while still making room for a Creator to account for the current gaps in scientific understanding.

If I were a deity about to prepare a universe for intelligent life that could provide the adoration I crave, I would likely regard the process of evolution as a great way to to save myself some work. I'm assuming I'm not omniscient and would have to expend at least some thought and energy on trying to come up with something close to an optimal solution for my preferred vision of intelligent worshippers.

I might choose to run multiple simulations on some sort of powerful computing device, but real world evolution could also work, especially if I had sufficient patience. This might even be preferable if I desired a universe that developed with minimal interference from me. I could just set things in motion with a reasonable expectation of something developing somewhere that satisfied me.

However, there's a problem. The entire concept of evolution seems to undermine the concept of a creator. It's a human tendency to view things that appear complicated, like a house, to be designed and built by something even more complicated, like a carpenter. Evolution presents a different way of looking at things, so that once you accept the notion that things can become more complex over time, you undermine the main reason for invoking a creator in the first place.

Additionally, since the idea of an eternal creator presents such profound logical and philosophical challenges, many find it easier to discard the notion entirely.

But what about a creator who isn't eternal? You would have to ask who or what created the creator. This is a path that theists seem mostly unwilling to take. Atheists also seemed to be put off by this kind of scenario, viewing it as an unnecessary complication. They would rather view our universe as developing in an entirely natural way, rather than postulate a deity who evolved naturally in a universe, who then interfered in some way in the development of our own universe. One could even speculate on the possibility of a succession of godlike deities who have a natural origin on one end and result in our universe and mankind on the other.

This notion seems inelegant and unnecessarily complicated, yet that is often how reality is. As an example, it is not sufficient for me to explain my own appearance as the result of a natural birth by my mother. I must go further back. Even if I were a theist, I would have to allow for thousands of years of repeated births before invoking a special creative act. I favor the idea of countless generations over many millions of years before the first organism somehow arrived. (Whether it was planted, created or assembled itself spontaneously, I can't say with certainty.) Could it be that our universe has a similar pedigree? Could it be that our universe developed over many generations of previous universes. Could godlike creatures have been responsible for at least some of the births of successive universes?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying this happened. I'm not even saying it's probable. I am saying it's possible and will argue that it's more likely than many people might like to admit.

This is a remarkable irony. Although the concept of evolution seems to argue against the kind of God that theists generally prefer to believe in, it seems to make allowances for the possibility of lesser gods that both atheists and theists tend to find distasteful.

If evolution managed to result in creatures of our intelligence, then it's likely that it could result in far more advanced creatures. (Either this has already happened, or could happen in the future or in a different universe, perhaps one with slightly different laws of physics.) Some of these more advanced creatures may seem godlike from our perspective.

Since we can currently speculate on how new universes could be produced in a laboratory type situation, it may be possible that more advanced creatures (or future humans) could actually produce new universes.

It may be possible for a universe to spawn new universes in a natural way. (For example, suppose that the formation of black holes produces new universes that are pinched off from the original universe. This could result in a type of natural selection process on a multiversal scale. If the new universe had a minor reshuffling of the physical constants and laws of physics of the parent universe, then this could mean that there is a selection process that favors universes that produce black holes. These kinds of universes also appear to be more favorable for the formation of life. This could partly explain the remarkable coincidence that we live in a universe that seems so well suited for life.)

If life develops once in a universe by natural means and evolves to an advanced state, then it's possible that advanced life form could then then seed or design new life forms on other planets. It's even possible that these intended introductions of life could be far more common than the accidental development of life by natural means. Similarly, the intentional creation of new universes could be very common compared to new universes that are formed without intelligent interference.

I find the possibilities to be staggering. Perhaps we are asking the wrong question when we ask if God used evolution to create us? It might be better to question if the existence of one or more godlike creatures is an important part of the process of evolution that eventually resulted in our existence.

Please pardon my rambling thoughts. I just haven't heard these issues discussed very often. I welcome your thoughts.

20

If there is a God, is he an atheist?

by DT in

jw
friends

of course, any god would believe in himself, but would he believe in someone greater than himself?

would he postulate an external cause for the realm in which he lives?

you might expect that a hypothetical god would be all knowing, so he would know if there is another greater god, but he couldn't know if there is another realm that he doesn't and can't know about.

DT

Burn the Ships,

I appreciate this discussion.

"Are you speaking of an omniscient, all knowing deity, or just some big guy in the sky? Because there is a difference between the two scenarios. Omniscience mean the former knows. As I said, your reasoning, if applied to an omniscient, omnipotent deity, is flawed."

To put it crudely, I'm just speaking of some big guy in the sky. This is because I don't believe the other scenario is even possible, according to normal logic. The concept of omniscience poses some tricky logical problems. I'm willing to allow for the possibility of a different realm that has different rules of logic, but I don't regard this as likely and don't have any reference point for discussing this possibility in a meaningful way.

20

If there is a God, is he an atheist?

by DT in

jw
friends

of course, any god would believe in himself, but would he believe in someone greater than himself?

would he postulate an external cause for the realm in which he lives?

you might expect that a hypothetical god would be all knowing, so he would know if there is another greater god, but he couldn't know if there is another realm that he doesn't and can't know about.

DT

God, by most definitions, is the greatest and best. There is none greater, or better, by definition. Such an entity, could not have a greater, or better, because then it would not be God. So, if you want to follow this middle man deity argument, I could tell you that the one I worship is Maximus Optimus, and that your hypothetical deity isn't the one I am talking about when I talk about God.

In short, your argument is fatally flawed.

Yes, some would share your definition of God, but consider the implications. If any higher godlike creature could never be certain that there wasn't a higher godlike creature in some other place or realm, then it would be impossible for any possible godlike creature to regard himself as truly God. It would turn the concept of God into something almost meaningless.

In any case, your definition of God is not my definition. I feel the possibility of a deity in another realm who has had some influence on our realm should be considered, even if evidence is lacking. I see no purpose in making the definition of God too narrow to allow for meaningful discussion, even if that might be the theological preference of some.

Also, I think one of my arguments may have been missed. I believe that a deity in another realm would have good reasons for concluding that he actually is the greatest and best, that there is no other greater deity in another realm, even if he couldn't prove this conclusively. This could cause him to be sympathetic to atheists on Earth who conclude that he isn't likely, because of similar logic. I think it should also be considered that the highest realm of existence may actually be the realm that we inhabit.

20

If there is a God, is he an atheist?

by DT in

jw
friends

of course, any god would believe in himself, but would he believe in someone greater than himself?

would he postulate an external cause for the realm in which he lives?

you might expect that a hypothetical god would be all knowing, so he would know if there is another greater god, but he couldn't know if there is another realm that he doesn't and can't know about.

DT

Category error. "Beginning" is meaningless when it comes to "eternal." Eternity is timeless. You might as well be talking about square circles.

I don't see the error. I never implied that eternity would have a beginning. I did mean to imply that it would be difficult for a deity who perceives that he is eternal to confirm that this is actually the case.