How you respond depends on what you're seeking to accomplish and what you're willing to risk. From your friend's response, I assume that you're still a Witness. Your friend obviously buys into the whole Witness thing lock, stock, and barrel. I mean, if he doesn't recognize Losch's gun illustration as 100% CRAZY, then he's got the dub mind-control going on big-time.
I hate to be a pessimist, but I think it's highly unlikely that anything you say to your friend will wake him up. Your friend's response just has that JW/cult tone to it. If it were me, I would just drop it. Perhaps you've planted a seed. But I see a lot of downside with very little upside if you respond.
With that said, if you want to address his comments, here are my thoughts:
Ignore the stuff about night clubs and social networking sites. That's just a distraction. If you do want to touch on those statements, you could dismiss them by pointing out that you don't feed your family based on what you learn in a night club or on Myspace. It's completely irrelevant.
Focus on his statement that the Society has been warning JWs against college for years. Tell him that's your whole point! Perhaps mention the 1969 Awake article that stated forcefully that young people need to face the fact that they will never grow old or fulfill a career in this system. Remind him that high school students reading that article are now almost 60 years old.
If applicable, perhaps mention one or two middle-aged or elderly witnesses that you know who have had financial problems because of following the Society's counsel not to go to college in the 50s/60s/70s.
If you want to "go there" you can next tell him that statements like the one in the '69 Awake caused you to lose confidence in the Society's advice regarding education and careers. From there, you can transition to the history of false predictions. Ask him if he would take career advice from someone who has a 130 year history of being wrong 100% of the time!
Of course, if you say what I wrote in the previous paragraph, you're going to end up in an elders' meeting.
Olin Moyles Ghost
JoinedPosts by Olin Moyles Ghost
-
16
NEED HELP RESPONDING TO THIS EMAIL, REGARDING HIGHER EDUCATION
by whereami inhelp me respond in a way that's not confrontational.
i'd like some sound resonable answers to this email, thanks.
he's a good freind and i know he means well.. .
-
-
Olin Moyles Ghost
-
54
OMG! a horrible lie in the July WT with a jesus pic....
by oompa inbad day today...how the hey did everyone miss this??
?....or did i miss a post about it?.....i am not supposed to talk about anything jw with my hardcore jw wife...but while on the toilet takin care of biz..i was reading the lit she leaves in a basket...it was a wt..july 08, but dont know which one....once i showed it to her it disappeared...but damm the last page i think... it had a drawing of jesus and the text under it said this "jesus used the name jehovah in his prayers"....or close....and that is a fluckkin lie!...zero support for it!...so i said just freakin show me where he did...i think my pants were still down...i had already come to terms with the fact that jesus never once uttered the name jehovah ever...because what kid...esp in a serious discussion with his dad (like prayer) would ever call him by his first name???
?...she disagreed...how i dont know...but where is the evidence that jesus ever said the divine name in a prayer?!?!!??
-
-
Olin Moyles Ghost
Fascinating. I bet 1% of Witnesses--at most--know that there are no New Testament manuscripts with the divine name.
-
30
most dubs are exactly like us faded ones!...l have proven it lately
by oompa inrecently, with my dad and two of my closest friends, i stumbled upon an interesting situation....they all know where i stand and what the issues were that became a wt dealbreaker for me...but all three of them have recently (and in the past) expressed opinions that go directly against fds teachings...not doubts....they just do not agree with something taught.
but two of them have actually put a mental block on a wt teaching they do not agree with, but what is funny is they both told me "i don't think we have ever been taught that so directly" (by the slave)....both times i was stunned!....these two teachings are huge wt dogma and taught very often....but because it conflicted with what they actually believe....they thought it must no be a real wt teaching.. 1. the first one was my dad...i told him i was mad at god and wt....he asked why...so i said well it could be this frikkin reading glasses i cant get used to, or my bad knee thats aching, and my back sometimes goes out!....and i was told all my life that for sure i did not need a college degree or great job cause i would never grow old or die and the end was just a few short years away!!
!.....so then he said the above quote...and i was like "what about the talk and books "million now living will never die"....so he says that is not as specific as to what my gripe was.....so i do my research and send him an email with two dozen quotes...my fave is the may 22,1969 awake that said youths "you better face this fact..you will never finish a carreer in this system...you dont need college....cause you will never grow old or die....the end is few short years away.
-
-
Olin Moyles Ghost
Oompa,
Sounds like you've been having some interesting conversations. I've used the whole "only JWs get saved" bit to show self-righteous JWs that they're apostates, too.
Another WT teaching that most Witnesses don't believe revolves around whether resurrected ones in the new system can marry. Jesus clearly stated that in the resurrection, resurrected ones don't marry and are like angels. Nonetheless, lots of JWs believe that if their marriage mate dies in this system they can remarry in the new system...sad. -
45
#1 reason they go in service...be honest!..........
by oompa inya a beautiful fall day here....trees ablaze with color...and a slight drizzle...me sippin yummy coffee...wife crammin her bookstudy book, then off to meeting and service........god she dresses up a lot!....i fogot how much i did that.....i have about $2000,00 of suits getting dusty in my closet if anybody needs a 42 long btw......so i just asked myself and sooo wanted to ask my wife "why are you really going out in service today?
".......and there are many automatic jw answers:.
1. jesus said we must go and make disciples, and it is the loving thing to do..........2. because the time is short and have to save as many as possible......3. because we love our neighbors ( but i cant frikin have them over for a grillout!).........
-
-
Olin Moyles Ghost
My reason for going out in service was to get it over with. Like many others, I wasn't excited about starting Bible studies. I just didn't want to be irregular. So I went out once or twice a month.
I remember feeling good after I came home from a Saturday morning of service. I felt like I had done what I was supposed to do--and that I wouldn't have to do it again for another week or two (or three or four...). It seems silly now, but this "good" feeling reinforced my belief that JWs were the true religion. -
3
so wish i could post my evil emails to dad and jw-buddy...but...
by oompa instill live in a bit of fear....even after two years out as a fader...ya, it may seem pathetic....but i still have a few friends in the borg, and with wife still hardcore (ya...barf) i dont want to blow what little social life i have left.....but if you want my sizzling....up your cultminded asss emials...i may oblige in an email to you..........thanks....and for all the great info here..........oomps.
geeze i cant believe i am not dfd as a good ol apostate!....but these emails to two elders and another bud may do it.
-
-
Olin Moyles Ghost
Hey, I would be interested in seeing those emails...you've got my email address.
-
40
JWs and National Oaths of Allegiance Expose' by Marvin Shilmer-Please Read
by AndersonsInfo inthe following three paragraphs are part of a startling new essay written by a well-respected poster on jwd.
he spent much time and money to gather proof of duplicity on the part of watch tower leaders.
marvin shilmer (not his real name) has given permission for me to put his entire essay on my website, www.watchtowerdocuments.com.
-
-
Olin Moyles Ghost
Thanks for the great article. Last year I came across this article: 1/15/1973 WT, p. 63:
[beginning of article] ? Without compromising one’s position as a Christian, can one take a ‘loyalty oath’?—U.S.A.
Whether a Christian can conscientiously take a certain oath or not depends primarily on the purpose, content or nature of the oath.
Back in the first century C.E., Jesus Christ corrected the Jews for making light, loose and indiscriminate oaths. They swore by heaven, by the earth, by Jerusalem and even by their own heads. But Jesus reproved them, saying: “Just let your word Yes mean Yes, and your No, No; for what is in excess of these is from the wicked one.” (Matt. 5:33-37) A worshiper of God should not need to back up every statement by an oath in order to make it more believable.
Under certain circumstances, however, the Mosaic law required oaths. (Ex. 22:10, 11; Num. 5:21, 22; Deut. 21:1-9) And Jesus himself did not object to being put under oath by the Jewish high priest. (Matt. 26:63, 64) So Jesus’ statement about swearing cannot be used as a basis for condemning all oaths. But what kind of oaths may a Christian take without injuring his conscience?
This he must determine for himself by comparing the oath in question with Bible principles. Jesus Christ stated: ‘Pay back Caesar’s things to Caesar, but God’s things to God.’ (Matt. 22:21) Hence a Christian could not swear to anything that would require him to do things that are contrary to God’s law. But there would be no objection to his taking an oath to ‘uphold or defend’ the provisions of the law that do not stand in opposition to God’s law. The Christian recognizes that his defense and support of Caesar’s law must be within the limitations imposed by God’s Word. He can ‘defend’ the law by word, by his daily conduct and, in legal matters, by his testimony in court. Christians are told: “Let every soul be in subjection to the superior authorities.” (Rom. 13:1) So there would be nothing objectionable to swearing to do something that one is already obligated by God to do.
Many enlightened countries, though, recognize the reasonableness of the Christian’s other obligation, to ‘give to God what belongs to God.’ Thus the Constitution of the United States, as well as that of many other nations, guarantees freedom of religion. It is understood, then, that a Christian is not going to be required to do anything contrary to his religious beliefs and his obligations to God. There is no danger to the country in this provision, because true Christians do not engage in subversion; rather, they strive to be exemplary, law-abiding citizens.
Since a true Christian takes his worship and his relationship with God very seriously, he ought to give careful thought to any oath he is asked to take. He should be convinced in his own mind that the oath will not cause a violation of his conscience or compromise his neutral position as regards the political nations and their controversies. (Compare Romans 14:5.) If, after reasoning on the matter, he finds that he can take a particular oath, he will have to bear his own responsibility. He should always keep in mind his prior obligation to the Supreme Sovereign, Jehovah God, before ever putting himself under any other obligation.
[end of article]
This article appears to back up the position taken by the WT officials in Marvin's article. When I read this WT article, I thought 'wow, this sounds awfully reasonable--but why doesn't this apply to other oaths like the pledge of allegiance?" As has been enunciated by others on this thread, it's another example of the WT leadership using the rank-and-file as cannon fodder, while having a different set of rules for the leadership.
An example of the type of loyalty oath that is a "conscience matter" according to the '73 WT is the oath that attorneys must take in order to be admitted to a state bar. Typically, these oaths include a promise to bear full allegiance to the Constitution and that you take the oath without reservation or purpose of evasion. No doubt the WT attorneys take such oaths. I wonder if Rutherford and Covington took such an oath before they represented the Gobitis and Barnette kids in the flag salute cases before the supreme court... -
7
Judge Rutherford: it's OK to say "God damn" (Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire)
by Olin Moyles Ghost inin the u.s., the first amendment prohibits the government from abridging freedom of speech.
of course, there are some exceptions, such as obscenity and the classic example of falsely shouting "fire!
" in a crowded theater.
-
-
Olin Moyles Ghost
The Supreme Court opinion can be found here: http://supreme.justia.com/us/315/568/case.html
-
7
Judge Rutherford: it's OK to say "God damn" (Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire)
by Olin Moyles Ghost inin the u.s., the first amendment prohibits the government from abridging freedom of speech.
of course, there are some exceptions, such as obscenity and the classic example of falsely shouting "fire!
" in a crowded theater.
-
-
Olin Moyles Ghost
In the U.S., the First Amendment prohibits the government from abridging freedom of speech. Of course, there are some exceptions, such as obscenity and the classic example of falsely shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater. Another exception is known as "fighting words." The most important Supreme Court case regarding "fighting words" is Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. Mr. Chaplinsky was a JW, but for reasons laid out below, this case is not mentioned in the Proclaimers book.
Brother Chaplinsky was street witnessing one Saturday afternoon in Rochester New Hampshire in 1940. Apparently a mob of 50 or so people surrounded him and behaved in a threatening manner. According to Chaplinsky, one member of the crowd even attempted to spear him with a flagpole. At some point, a police officer showed up, and Chaplinsky asked the cop to arrest the ones responsible for the disturbance, but the cop refused. In response, Chaplinsky allegedly called the officer "a God-damned racketeer" and "a damned Fascist." Chaplinsky was subsequently arrested, tried, and convicted for violating a state law against public cursing. Chaplinsky appealed the decision all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. "Judge" Rutherford and Hayden Covington represented him.
At trial, Brother Chaplinsky admitted making the statements with the exception of saying "God-damn" (he argued that he merely said "damn"). In any event, in their brief to the Supreme Court, Rutherford and Covington defend Chaplinsky's right to say "God-damn." I quote from page 11 of the brief: "Jehovah God has condemned racketeers and hence the expression 'God damned,' even if, as and when used in such circumstances, imports verity or constitutes a simple definition of fact. The right to use such definitive and descriptive language in a proper manner and time is guaranteed by the Constitution regardless of whether the one so described agreed or not."
Thus, Judge Rutherford is on the record saying that it's okay to say "God damn."
By the way, Chaplinsky lost his appeal. I guess that during WW2, calling someone a Fascist and racketeer was fighting words, whether prefaced with "God damn" or not. -
19
Review of the 2008 Guided by Gods Spirit District Convention
by Olin Moyles Ghost ini attended the guided by gods spirit district convention this summer.
out of an abundance of caution (some may say paranoia), i will not elaborate further on when and where i feasted at jehovahs table.
my observations on the program are below.
-
-
Olin Moyles Ghost
Gymbob, AAG: Yes, I have a strong stomach and a high tolerance for BS. In a perverse way, I enjoy assembly parts much more than I did when I was mentally "in." Now, I look forward to the Kool-Aid talks the way everyone else looks forward to the drama. And this year, we all got what we wanted: a Kool-Aid drama!
-
19
Review of the 2008 Guided by Gods Spirit District Convention
by Olin Moyles Ghost ini attended the guided by gods spirit district convention this summer.
out of an abundance of caution (some may say paranoia), i will not elaborate further on when and where i feasted at jehovahs table.
my observations on the program are below.
-
-
Olin Moyles Ghost
Cunning said: "It's interesting that they didn't appeal to the organization being chosen in 1919 as evidence for their spirit-directedness. Perhaps they thought it was too difficult to explain or they're doubting it themselves."
Good point. 1919 wasn't mentioned. I'm still waiting for the Society to trot out some evidence of Christ selecting them in 1919. I probably shouldn't hold my breath on that one...