oh wow, thanks all for reading my long winded story.
I never meant to upset any bitter people. Be bitter if you must. I hope you can get over it in time, but I guess if any place, this is the place to speak freely.
To some extent, I'm still in a mental frame of mind where I have to be the 'bigger' person. I feel I cannot resort to the name calling and judging that I have come away from, and try to be better than that. But to some extent it is a facade, because sometimes I just feel like ranting and raving.
Posts by 10p
-
17An interesting discussion with my wife
by 10p inlast night i had an interesting talk with my wife in bed.. oprah had a show on recently about gays.
now i don't normally watch oprah, but she was watching a taped one in the evening, so i was just overhearing stuff.
anyway, i think my wife puts more faith in oprah than in the gb :).
-
-
10p
-
17
An interesting discussion with my wife
by 10p inlast night i had an interesting talk with my wife in bed.. oprah had a show on recently about gays.
now i don't normally watch oprah, but she was watching a taped one in the evening, so i was just overhearing stuff.
anyway, i think my wife puts more faith in oprah than in the gb :).
-
-
10p
Last night I had an interesting talk with my wife in bed.
Oprah had a show on recently about gays. Now I don't normally watch Oprah, but she was watching a taped one in the evening, so I was just overhearing stuff. Anyway, I think my wife puts more faith in Oprah than in the GB :)
So anyway, we were discussing something unrelated, and she said to me "you seem very commenty about the society again lately" I can't even remember what comment I made, but I've been careful not to be 'anti' anymore, so it would have been something benevelont that she was a bit sensitive about. I said I'd been reading this forum lately, and felt sorry for all the bad experiences I'd read about. So she started getting defensive and said am I just reading nasty stuff from bitter and twisted people and its affecting me.
So I said (in a completely calm and loving manner that I haven't really been capable of up to this time when discussing the religion) that yes, there are some bitter people, and even though they may have had bad experiences, their tone and manner makes me just skip over their posts. But there really are plenty of people who are really calm and rational and mostly over the whole thing, but only post because they still have family in the religion - otherwise we wouldn't even hear from them!
THen I said to her, dont assume that all people who've left are all bitter and twisted - that you only see ex-witnesses from one angle, because its the only angle the society ever presents of them!
This is where the gay thing comes in ... I said, its like when I found out one of my friends was gay 10 years ago. Back then, my only info about homosexuality was all wrong, and I judged him. Now, with a broader understanding, I realise that you ARE born gay. I mean, hell, I COULDNT be gay, even if I really wanted to piss god off and be the worst person possible - I could maybe steal or murder to piss god off, but I couldn't be gay!
Well, she agreed with me. Oprah has progressibly opened her eyes about homosexuality, and her (my wife's) view is quite different to the society's. She still thinks its not normal, a defect if you will, but understands from all the real life experiences on Oprah that its not like these are bad people who've chosen to be gay because they want to be bad.
Then I continued, that 20 years ago or so, human society in general viewed gays as been perverted sex maniacs, parading in their "pride" parades in bondage gear etc. So the extreme gays set what society thought of all gays, because the avergae, everyday gay didn't want to be assosiated with that extreme image, and so stayed in the closet.
Apostates are like that - the extremist, vocal ones are the ones you hear about, because they are extreme and vocal. So you think all apostates are like that, and the watchtower publications perpetuate that image. No wonder you think the people I assosiate with on JWD are all 'bitter and twisted'. Some are, but most are just normal people, some of whom have had real shit lives because of the religion. I feel for them, and I feel for myself, because me experience as a witness hasn't been all roses either. I reminded her that her life as a witness has been very protected. Her parents were actually really balanced, and often got into trouble with the elders for things like letting their kids have worldy friends, and go out on dates wthout a chaperone etc etc. I said your parents have protected you from what others in the religion have had to face.
But I must point out, I was amazed at how relaxed I was, I didn't feel that little thing inside me I normally do which is like an attack mechanism. I felt really "buddist" (not that I know anything about buddism).
Then I told her I really dont mind people believeing what they want to believe. The only thing that still bothers me about witnesses is the disfellowshipping rules. I think its absolutely their prerogative to DF people, just like a company has the right to fire someone who isn't abiding by the company rules. fair enough. but a company doesn't have the right to fire other staff if they are seen down at the pub with that ex-employee! I said, I will be really happy if the society changes the rule so that you can assosiate with DF'ed people, but its your conscience. I said, hey - you assosiate with me, and I'm practically apostate - and it hasn't instantly made you leave 'the truth'. People aren't so simple minded, and can look after themselves, and must stand before god on their own anyway.
Well, she agreed with me, and said thats the way she views it anyway - she wouldn't WANT to assosiate with most DF'ed people anyway, but she WILL assosiate with my sister who is DF'ed because she's family and doesn't ever try to influence my wife on her personal religous beliefs anyway. If she tried to, them my wife would tell her to back off, and if she didn't, she'd stop assosiating with her, not because of her apostate ideas, but because who wants to be friends with an arse who doesn't respect your wishes anyway!
I said, if they changed that, and hopefully the blood thing wont be much of an issue anymore, as doctors use it more sparingly and as witnesses can use 'fractions' anyway, there are far less situations where it is an issue. Then I would be happy for her to be a witness, and me to be an atheist, and all would be fine. Her witness friends could come round for dinner etc (if they wanted to - so long as I wasn't disrespecting them by trying to change their beliefs).
I think the one thing that this change in the bookstudy has shown, is that the publishers want things to be a certain way - how come the response has been OVERWHELMINGLY positive from the pubs, when just last month, the official line was that all the meetings were important etc. All the witnesses around the world were faithfully doing as they were told, even though they all felt it would be better not to have the bookstudy! So how many feel the same about disfellowshipping, and would gladly welcome a more humane view? Its time for the GB to stop dictating, and let people actually use their conscience for themselves!
I think its the best discussion I've had with my wife on these topics, and while I'm not hopeful of her leaving the religion ... I feel we are on the same philosophical plane again, weird as that may be when I'm an atheist and she's a JW.
fingers crossed.
PS, I went back and added the highlighting when I realised what a long post it was, so that those who are put off by long posts (like me) could garner the main points. sorry for the long post, and sorry for the highlighting if it annoys you. you cant please everybody!
-
16
FALSE ACCUSATIONS/INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY: DO YOU CARE????
by berylblue ini like to post this from time to time, on various boards -----no, it never goes over well, because people infer things which i am not attempting to convey.
i am merely pointing out that sometimes, when we are soooooooooo damned certain about the guilt of a certain person or persons.... we are wrong.
no, th case in the hyperlink below does not, on the surface, resemble the mormon case.
-
-
10p
It doesn't do your cause any benefit in its current hyperbolic state.
I'm not so sure about this anymore. I think the reasonable people who rationally consider things from all points of view and make a balanced decision after sufficient time to reflect are by far the minority.
The court of public opinion seems to require a somewhat hysterical approach before it takes any notice. How many balanced and reasonable items do you see on the news?
I really don't know anymore ... I find I understand my fellow humans less and less each day, and feel more in common with Dr Spock.
I know two people who were falsely accused of child molestation. At least, there wasn't sufficient proof to actually decide that either of them was a molestor. One hung himself ... after he was imprisoned and cut off from seeing his children and was shunned by everyone he knew. I would probably do the same in the same circumstance. (then again, he may have killed himself from guilt? we will never know) They were all 'wordly' people - I knew through work.
The second I think was protecting someone else (his teenage son). He was an elder, accused of molesting his step daughter, and managed to convince the JC that it was probably demons ... and got rid of some stuff that was supposedly 'demonized'. The authorities were never notified, and whoever it was got away with it. THen again, it may never have actually happened, and the girl may have made it up. again, we will probably never know. -
6
New Scientist - Article on Blood Transfusions mentions JW's
by PopeOfEruke ininteresting reading in a recent new scientist magazine - 26 april 2008 issue.. .
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19826533.500-could-blood-transfusions-actually-cause-harm.html.
to read the complete article you have to buy the magazine.. blood transfusions found to harm some patients26 april 2008 rachel nowakmagazine issue 2653 "for the life of the flesh is in the blood.
-
-
10p
Why dont people read posts that are only 5 down in the list? Zico posted the entire article as well as the page 5 editorial.
Rachel Nowak is a PhD and has been the Australasian editor of NewScientist for many years. her email is [email protected]
I doubt she has any connection to the JWs, but then again, journalists take a lot of information on face value from various sources, so it could be her source information was produced/sponsored by the organisation ... and then again, maybe it is truly becoming apparent that blood isn't the be-all and end-all of medicine, and should be tested by modern methods like double-blind randomised trials to find where it is and isn't useful.
I certainly wouldn't want a blood transfusion in a cholecystectomy (barring some major complications), but I would want one if I had lost most of my blood in a car accident.
So like most of these issues between 'science' and 'religion', often neither are completely right, which is why there is an argument in the first place. JW's have rightly pointed out some of the bad side of blood transfusions, although not in an unbiased and medically helpful manner, but also go way too far by denying them when they truly are needed to prevent a persons death.
Surgeons on the other hand have become accustomed to using this 'medicine' even though it hasn't been thoroughly tested like blood substitute products have to be tested. On the other hand (how many hands have you got? hehe) many deaths have been prevented by transfusions.
Dont you hate it when people are all reasonable and look at both sides of the issue? -
20
"Trying to get former JW's to work together is like herding cats"
by Mickey mouse inotwo said this on the "suing the tower" thread.. why is this?
i have noticed it also.
i wonder whether some people would not be comfortable with the idea of a world without the watchtower?
-
-
10p
And then? Take down the LDS, Scientologists, Muslims, Hindus .......
I think the people doing the best work are people like Richard Dawkins - not because I think he's right, but because he is prompting people to think for themselves again.
I don't know if my 'work' will actually work in the long run, but what I'm doing with my family and friends is just trying to help them think for themselves - not on WT issues - on things like "the secret", which is so popular at the moment.
I point out how positive thinking can explain all the results people have reported (except for a a few who probably are conveniently failing to provide all the details), and that there is no need to invoke a 'law of attraction'. Then I point out how Oprah's guests who are experts on 'the secret' seem to be confused as to whether it is the universe or god who is fulfilling their desires. .... etc etc (I could go on about 'the secret' for a boringly long time)
-
-
-
10p
since when did a cyclone have anything to do with the end coming? wars, reports of wars, earthquakes, pestilences, food shortages - cyclones???
-
11
WTS, the Bible, and Mayan/Pagan beliefs
by sinis indoes anyone see a coorelation between recent changes in the wts, the "urgency" at hand that they keep saying, and the coming of 2012 prophecies of the mayan (end of an era and the coming of kulkulcan) and other cultures that center on that date?
i often wonder if the gb are going outside the bounds of the bible and looking at other cultures to verify or solidify that the end is nigh.
thoughts?
-
-
10p
from http://www.world-mysteries.com/mpl_5.htm On the west side of the podium is the "Trilithon", a celebrated group of three enormous stones weighing about 800 tons each. Is that the one you mean?
-
8
If the light keeps getting brighter, did early christians have it wrong?
by digderidoo inwe are all familiar with the light getting brighter.
new 'truths' replacing old 'truths'.. but what i have been thinking about recently, albeit 12 years too late, is that if that light has been getting brighter over the years, surely centruries ago the early christians got it wrong!!!
well they did if we follow that line of thinking.
-
-
10p
I always hated the light getting brighter analogy.
If you are in a dark tunnel and cant see much, you dont go making bold statements about things you cant see, only to retract those statements when the "light gets brighter".
You simply make no statement at all, and when the light gets brighter, new things get revealed. THere should be no changing of doctrines in "new light" there should only be new doctrines, and all the old ones should still be valid!
That is the true meaning of light getting brighter - all the old things are still valid - unless of course you were making assumptions about things you could only partially see in the darkness, which means you were presumptous! -
-
-
10p
its not GOOD evidence. Besides, that aint that long ago ... where did the steggies go if they were around only 1200-500 years ago?
reminds me a bit of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%BCrer%27s_Rhinoceros
And holy crap, what kind of university art students were those ????? theres something wrong there somewhere- those drawings look like they were done by a class of 6 year olds.
-
7
New Scientist - "Blood doesn't always save lives"
by Zico ini got sent a .pdf copy via e-mail today about blood transfusions that's causing a lot of excitement among local jws.
it was one of those 'look, scientists say we're right' e-mails.
it was in the april 2008 issue of new scientist magazine.
-
-
10p
I subscrive to the mag, just got mine in the mail yesterday
I really hope this sort of evidence keeps coming and makes transfusions a thing of the past in most instances.
For all the obvious reasons, blood transfusions are not an ideal treatment for anything other than major blood loss. Use of blood components would probably still continue for a long time, but its still better to find a cure for haemophilia.
On a JW level too ... it would be good to have this whole issue reduced to a minor thing. Lets face it, those who died from not having a transfusion still died. They might have not fared as well as someone who didn't have a xfusion who LIVED, but when you've died, you're just as badly off as anyone else who died! On the other hand, there are certainly cases of witnesses who didn't have blood who might otherwise have, who DID fare better than their counterparts.
Of course, JWs refuse to store their own blood prior to surgery, which would help in a lot of cases, and they dont donate blood whilst using the general bloody supply for 'fractions'. They're still immoral.
So as far as blood goes, the JWs have been about 80% correct. I've always felt this way anyway - the science has always pointed this way, just surgeons have been slow to follow science. I find it remarkable that there was an item on the news the other night about how there is this big trial going on in New Zealand to use a checklist in surgery. WTF? I thought that would have been the case 100 years ago!!! HEll, they use a checklist to check my car for road worthiness every 6 months - how come they haven't been using a checklist in surgery? I think its time for surgeons to realise they are not gods, and to get their god-complex deflated a little. OF course, there are some nice surgeons out there. I haven't met one yet.