Jankyn

Joined

• started 27 topics
• posted 543 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Jankyn

• 
  7

  Anyone here like Billy Bragg?

  by Lozhasleft in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i saw his live show tonight in aid of 'hope not hate'.

  incredible guy, powerful gutsy music.. loz x.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jankyn

  Love him.
• 
  10

  Article and pictures of JW's paradise

  by compound complex in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://www.unc.edu/~elliott/icon.html.

  this is really good; please click on.. coco.

  but surely the utopian hope that nurtures the vision of the total resolution of all evil and injustice in a millennial paradise on earth is precisely the consequence of the witnesses' obdurate refusal to accept "life as it is.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jankyn

  I've got Holden's book on the Witnesses; it's very good. He's a sociologist, and what he does is observe and describe the group dynamics and behavior, then use sociological theory to explain it. He's not making judgments; he's doing research. He followed a congregation in England for quite a while to do the book.

  From the posted cv, his affiliation with North Carolina (a very prestigious institution), and the fact that he's ABD ("all but dissertation") in cultural anthropology, I'd say that Elliott is doing many of the same things--but he's still in his academic "apprenticeship." However, his background before UNC is mostly religious institutions (Baylor, Abilene Christian, Southern Christian) and he has a master of divinity degree. So he's a very well-educated Protestant--probably Baptist--and his interest in JWs is probably not entirely academic, but may also involve a desire to debunk their theology.

  Of course, if it's really important to you to know, you could just ask him.
• 
  26

  Assembly talk admits that meetings are boring.

  by easyreader1970 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i made a post yesterday about some of the stupidity that has been flowing from my most recent assembly program.

  one things i forgot to mention was this:.

  hd television, video games, cell phones, and other interactive electronics - all of these things are very highly stimulating to the eyes and ears and kids (and maybe some adults, too) get used to receiving this type of visual and auditory input.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jankyn

  This is really going to date me, but in the early '60s, there was a lot of talk about not having televisions for precisely that reason--we'd become accustomed to entertainment, and wouldn't have the discipline to receive "spiritual food." So my family was roundly criticized for having a TV.

  Then, in the late '60s, it slowly became OK to have a TV (for "news and educational programs," you understand), but getting a COLOR TV would be too much of a distraction (and so we were then roundly criticized for having a color TV).

  Still, whenever the Rose Bowl came around, our couch was crowded with elders and ministerial servants, who usually couldn't be bothered to bring their own beer!

  My parents were criticized for giving me a radio (I might listen to "rock" music) and then a record player of my own (my first album: Cher's "Gypsies, Tramps and Thieves," which is obviously unscriptural, immoral, and the reason I'm out now).

  To all you younger JWs & ex-JWs, this is just a reminder that the more things change, the more they stay the same.
• 
  39

  Jehovahs Witnesses have a lot more mental problems and much higher suicide rate

  by TastingFreedom in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  jerry bergman, ph.d. .

  the first american study.

  the watchtower influence was often not positive, and there was no evidence that it had in the long run helped those who had emotional problems when they joined.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jankyn

  Given how iffy some of Bergman's other "scholarship" is (check out his exchanges with the biologist P.Z. Myers over evolution), I'd really want to hold out for work from a researcher in a peer-reviewed journal. That doesn't mean he's wrong; that just means this may not be the proof it seems to be.
• 
  43

  For Atheists & Strong Agnostics: (Believers can counter-post also!)

  by UnDisfellowshipped in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  for atheists and strong agnostics (those who believe that we cannot know about god if he exists):.

  i am posting this thread because i think it greatly help myself (and other christian believers) to better understand your beliefs and your viewpoints, if you posted a short (or long) summary of what the reasons and basis are for your not believing that there is a god, or for believing that we cannot know god if he exists.. you can include arguments against god, against the bible, against the christian interpretations of the bible, etc.. you can include scientific evidence that you believe contradicts the bible, or contradicts the existence of a god/creator/designer.. christians believers: you are welcome to post counter-arguments, or summaries for why you believe in god/creator/designer or why you believe in the bible or the christian interpretations of the bible.. i also thought it might be good to link to another lively thread we had on this website a while back: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/175688/1/god-morals-and-atheists.

  when you include your reasons for why you don't believe in god or the bible, or why you do believe in god or the bible, please include at least a little bit of the evidence (or link to the evidence) that backs up your statement.. for example, it doesn't do much good to claim "evolution is false" and just leave it at that, or on the other hand, to say "the bible is full of scientific errors" and just leave it at that.. here are two threads i posted where i explained the reasons why i personally believe in god and the bible:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jankyn

  When I was a little kid, I thought it was "magic" how my grandpa could make a penny come out of my ear. Once I grew up, I recognized that the penny hadn't really come out of my ear. My perceptions--as well as a bit of sleight of hand and encouragement on the part of dear ol' Grandpa Curt---led me to believe that the penny had come out of my ear. There was a perfectly sensible, rational, NATURAL explanation.

  Once I recognized the flawed reasoning in Jehovah's Witnesses, I thought that, since they were wrong, someone else MUST be right. I examined all sorts of religious traditions, and found that all of them contained the same flaw: The assumption that because we don't understand something right now, it must mean that God did it. That's a basic flaw in reasoning from my perspective.

  I've been sober in AA for 24 years, and for a long time, I used the traditional Christian-flavored approach to a higher power. However, it eventually became apparent that the changes in my personality and behavior that were being attributed to the "grace of God" could also be explained by cessation of drinking, altered actions, changed attitudes and the presence of a group that supported those changes. While I still attend meetings, I now describe myself as a permanent member of "We Agnostics." Coincidence isn't proof of God. The willingness to change one's own behavior isn't proof of God. I just don't buy it; while I doubt that I could have recovered from alcoholism without the support of the group, I don't think God had anything to do with it. There's nothing particularly "holy" about abstaining from alcohol, taking responsibility for your own actions, and trying to live in peace with other people. It doesn't need God to explain it.

  Now there are plenty of good things to be found in all religions--even Jehovah's Witnesses!--a sense of belonging and of community being foremost among them. But on whole, the bad outweighs the good, because religion fosters an "us-against-them" mentality (and that's true of most religious and political affiliations).

  I recognize and respect the power of stories to transmit emotional truths (the sacrifice and rebirth/resurrection stories are particularly powerful, because they touch on a level of unselfishness that most of us don't have and many of us wish for), but emotional truths are not the same as facts. I don't think that one religious text is more worthy than another because someone's experience of it was powerful, whether the text in question the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Quran or Science and Health with a Key to the Scriptures. They're all just books; like any book, they're interesting and possibly helpful. That's all.

  Atheism is not a belief for me; it's a state that I've come to recognize over the years as being most descriptive of my views. I simply haven't come across a concept of God/god/gods that holds up to scrutiny, which makes me an atheist (non-theist is also accurate). I'm no different than any believer; I've just rejected one more god than the Muslim and Jew and three-in-one more gods than the Christian has rejected.

  I simply don't understand how anyone could think that a wandering group of Bronze Age shepherds living in tents in the desert could possibly have a better grip on biology, cosmology, psychology, etc. ad nauseum than our current understanding. Nope, doesn't make sense.

  I do better with contemporary believers who take the Holy Writ to be metaphorical. It's not a metaphor that works for me, but hey, if it's working for you, more power to you.

  And lately I've begun to practice what I think of as secular Buddhism---Buddhism without a higher being. There are sound reasons why meditation and breathing exercises help us physically, mentally and emotionally, and I find no reason at all to clutter it up with any notion of God/god/gods. I do keep a little statue of the Laughing Buddha on my desk, to remind me that life is short and to be enjoyed, but I'm not under any delusion that it's a god or idol. It's just a reminder to take myself less seriously and to take responsibility for caring for the helpless (the Laughing Buddha, "Fat Buddha," Budai/Hotei, is traditionally noted for kindness to children, charity, poverty and contentment).

  I will defend to the death your right to believe--and to practice that belief--but I do not want religion subsidized or given preferential treatment by the government. Your right to practice your religion ends where my life begins, so when I say "No, thanks," to your proseltyzing, please respect it.
• 
  8

  MORE on how JWs inadvertently helped support same sex marriage

  by AndersonsInfo in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://oyetimes.com/views/columns/5119-jehovahs-witnesses-support-same-sex-marriage-inadvertently .

  jehovahs witnesses support same sex marriage inadvertently sunday, 08 august 2010 10:16 written by stephan pate 5 commentsdespite jw fundamentalist ban of gay marriage, old supreme court ruling in their favour used to defeat prop 8 in california.

  the california decision by united states district chief judge vaughn r walker reversed prop 8s ban of same-sex or gay marriage in the state.. part of the legal argument for gay marriage comes from a 65 year old supreme court ruling that granted freedom of religious expression to jehovahs witnesses.. walker said that the majority opinion does not eliminate fundamental rights for a minority.. ironically jehovahs witnesses ban same-sex marriage.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jankyn

  My understanding is that Engardio was never baptized. He went door-to-door as an unbaptized publisher. And he's so nice to JWs because he wants his JW mother to love him (understandable enough, but it won't work).
• 
  20

  Legitimate question maybe a lesbian could answer for me?

  by WuzLovesDubs in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  up front and first off....some of my bestest friends on the planet are lesbian and i love them to death so this has nothing to do with acceptance or not of it.

  im all over same sex marriage and respecting all human beings' rights to live their lives as they see fit.

  i was wondering...and i have wondered this for awhile....why some lesbians, who obviously dont like men, then choose to dress in men's clothes, have men's haircuts, wear men's shoes, flatten their chests, wear no makeup and look and act like men.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jankyn

  Then there's always this: Men's clothes allow free movement. They can be purchased in a size that's reasonably close to what our bodies really are, are usually from non-chafing or clinging fabrics, and can be worn in a variety of settings instead of having a different "outfit" for every event.

  In short, men's clothing is more sensible.

  I generally wear women's clothing (mostly because I am well-endowed, so men's shirts don't fit), but my wife prefers men's clothing. It's not so much that she can't stand "girly" styles, but she's outdoors a lot (research scientist) and men's clothes are made better, cheaper to replace, and more comfortable and versatile for what she's doing.

  As for the haircuts: This too is an issue of convenience! If you like (or are willing) to spend 40 minutes every morning making your hair look perfect, more power to you! But the real advantage for short and simple (i.e., "mannish") cuts is that you wash the hair in the shower, dry it, maybe run a comb through it or a little gel/mousse/wax, and go.

  When two women are sharing a bathroom, it helps to cut down on time spent primping.

  Oh, and have you ever considered that most of women's primping is done to please/attract men? And if you're not interested in either pleasing or attracting men, you can save a whole lot of time and money for other things.

  Basically, don't think "man-like." Think: sensible, comfortable and convenient!
• 
  7

  Big Deal California Case (Prop. 8) "Decided"...

  by AGuest in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  for those who are interested (may you all have peace):.

  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/04/proposition-8-overturned_n_670739.h.

  tml.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jankyn

  You know, Shelby, if all Christians were like you, I'd like a lot more of them. Thanks for this well-thought and compassionate opinion.
• 
  19

  Did We Evolve from Monkeys?

  by Dogpatch in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  most people think we didn't evolve from monkeys.

  i would buy drugs with the fifty dollars.

  i would buy drugs with the fifty dollars.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jankyn

  It's cute, Randy. But no, we didn't evolve from monkeys. However, humans and monkeys have an ancestor in common.

  It's sort of like this: Your cousin is not your brother, but you do have ancestors in common.

  (And the reason I decided to interject some non-humor here is because, all too often, the mistaken idea that humans evolved from monkeys--we didn't--is used to dismiss evolution.)
• 
  23

  What is your reaction when you see dubs with name badges? Here was mine:

  by SnakesInTheTower in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  one of the things i really like about being out of the cult is that i no longer have to go to those long, boring district conventions.

  instead, i can do other things with my new family (fiancee and soon to be step son).

  we were out and about sunday, i had taken the day off from work, no point in bothering people with collections on a sunday and a holiday.. we had planned to go to a suburb of st. louis, mo (st. charles) and see some of the vendors on the riverfront in the afternoon and then wait for the fireworks in the evening .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jankyn

  They're meeting at the Convention Center in downtown Sac this summer, which is just a few blocks from my apartment. So of course, they were lined up out the door at my favorite Starbucks on Sunday morning when I stopped in for my coffee and my Sunday NYTimes. It kinda freaked me out, mostly because I was afraid with that crowd, they'd have sold out of the Times (it sometimes is gone quite early).

  Then I remembered that they were all JWs, and thought, "Nope. Not gonna take my Times."

  And they didn't. I just grabbed the Times and sat and read it until they'd cleared out for the opening session, then paid for it and got my coffee, too.

  This week was a Spanish-language assembly, but it seemed to me that most of the attendees--at least the 50 or so in my Starbucks--spoke English well enough to handle an English assembly (oh, wait--they don't call 'em assemblies any more, do they? I mean "convention").

  Ought to be a fun summer.