IsaacJ22

Joined

• started 9 topics
• posted 289 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by IsaacJ22

• 
  2

  HITLER: THE ATHEIST.

  by whereami in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp_incgh9ky.

  1. 
  2. 
• 

  IsaacJ22

  Awesome. This one's going up on my web site.

  Thanks!
• 
  10

  Do any of you Draw or make things?

  by BlackTwisted in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  well, the title speaks for itself.. .

  i draw sometimes, but most of the time, i make things from different makers, like this one.

  sailor moon maker: www.divine.com/sailor.html.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  IsaacJ22

  I used to draw, but mostly to tell stories. I drew picture books before I was in kindergarten and continued on to draw comics, and finally, funny magazines when I was in high school. By the time I was 12 I started writing. But had always been pretty "craftsy." I made my own toys and action figures as a kid.

  These days, I focus on writing mostly, but still use drawing as an expression of my sense of humor.
• 
  63

  Freemasonry and Jehovah's Witnesses

  by Hammer_Of_Thor in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i've read alot of posts here regarding jw's and freemasonry, and so far i've seen the usual conjecture by non-masons, and a few well written opinions of the inquiring minds among us.. i'm a former jw from texas, and a current freemason in houston.

  my question is:.

  what specifically does the wts say as far as masonic membership.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  IsaacJ22

  When I was a Witness, one of the Elders at my congregation came from a family of masons. I remember him telling me a story about when he was a boy and how he found his father's stash of masonic emblems, though his parents were already JWs by that time.

  At any rate, I had the general impression at the time that being a mason would be like becoming a witch to the WTS with spiritism and all that. As far as I know, it's a DFing offense.
• 
  25

  Richard Dawkins and Me,

  by cyberjesus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  last night i went to caltech to listen to mr dawkins.

  what a most pleasant man to listen.

  intelligent, assertive, witty, funny.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  IsaacJ22

  Another Dawkins fan here, too. Very cool. The God Delusion remains my favorite pro-atheist book.
• 
  19

  I'm coming to the conclusion...the WTBTS is a publishing cult (If its all about the bible why do we have all the books/tracts/magazines. etc)?

  by Joliette in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  was watching a video on you-tube (i wish i could copy and paste the link, but cant do it in mozilla firefox).

  anyways, the video made a really good point about how the wtbts is not only a religious cult but a publishing cult.

  the watchtower has released hundreds of books over the past 100 years.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  IsaacJ22

  If you think about it, it's pretty ingenious...and evil. But still ingenious.

  The WTS provides the literature and it supplies the need for the literature. If only all publishing companies had it that good! Witnesses need the literature because this is how they get their "spiritual food." It's also what the meetings are about, and what they give to people door to door so they can earn their way into the New System.

  If the Society needs to increase donations, they could simply create a new book or tract. If it's being discussed in the meetings, then JWs have to have it. Period. And they're expected to donate for it because Jesus is watching. Actually, if other congregations are like my old one, so is the guy at the literature counter.

  For all intents and purposes, the literature is their bread and butter. Investments go up and down, but the donations for the literature keep rolling in. It's a pretty sweet deal. They even get the Witnesses to help them make it dirt cheap.

  Too bad people are wasting their lives and their donations on a pipe dream.
• 
  181

  The Dawkins Delusion

  by brotherdan in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  so, i recently finished reading "the god delusion" by richard dawkins.

  i read it with a certain amount of hesitation.

  after all, i am still recovering from my disappointment at realizing that the wts is not god's organization.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  IsaacJ22

  I'm an atheist and I liked The God Delusion. Since this doesn't seem like a flame war thread, I thought I'd contribute despite the risk to my health. :-)

  I think one thing that's important in understanding Dawkins' book is that he's an atheist not unlike myself. He favors principles like logic, critical reasoning skills, skepticism, and all that. The sorts of things that most religious believers (or even just believers in things you might regard as superstitious) tend to regard as evidence do not work as good evidence when you apply these principles. Most religious believers disagree with these principles, which is where the problem in reaching out to the other side enters the picture. You guys have a totally different way of seeing things, one that many atheists have chosen to reject. Our viewpoints are very different and simply not compatible for the most part.

  Whenever you try to cross the divide and try to understand atheists, you will encounter this problem. To many of you, Dawkins is being disingenuous or biased. To us, it seems like it's the other way around. In reality, I think we're both trying to cross a gulf that's too wide to be crossed without a major adjustment in how both sides see the world.

  To an atheist like myself or Dawkins, the evidence that believers present for their god doesn't stack up very high when we look at it because we don't value that kind of evidence very highly. No judgments there, just pointing out something I've noticed over the years.

  On the flipside, believers don't seem to value the principles we value very highly, or our kinds of evidence very highly either. So we're pretty much even there. That doesn't upset me or anything like that, so I hope no one takes what I'm saying personally. But if you want to understand where his book is coming from--and where many atheists are coming from--this is an unavoidable problem for BOTH sides. We don't value the same kinds of information in the same way.

  If you ever get into an argument or a debate with an atheist, you may find that your best, most powerful "zingers" in the argument just don't impress us very much. Most religious believers listening to the debate might feel like cheering at those remarks, but most of the atheists will shrug or yawn. Again, when you reverse it, the kind of stuff atheists see as devastating to your arguments bear little weight in your eyes, too. It's a two way street. Try watching some debates over religion or evolution with this in mind, and you might see those debates somewhat differently (though you'll almost surely think that "your guy" won the argument anyway, whether you're an atheist or a theist).

  If have to say that Dawkins is not being dishonest or disenguous in my view, though I'm sure he's a bit of a ham by now. To many atheists, he isn't being very biased either. (Everyone's at least a little biased...) To us, it seems like he's being objective and religious believers are the ones who are biased. Just as you think it's us.

  I'd like to point out that no one mentioned much about all the scientific information Dawkins offers in his book as evidence for atheism. The big issue for most of you was his take on extreme religions, which was only part of his total case. To me, as an atheist, the extremist stuff was moderately interesting, but it was all the other scientific and logical-philosophical stuff that's more important. That's the good stuff to me, not the things you focussed on. Again, you valued different kinds of information in making your decision about Dawkins', his book, and gods VS atheism, than I did as an atheist.

  Not knocking you for this. Just pointing out that you will probably never really get books like this unless you start leaning toward a more atheistic/secular view. You will probably always think that we're biased, just as we tend to think you're the biased ones. What can either side do to bridge the gulf? Be tolerant, that's about all you can do. You can only understand the other sides viewpoint if you try to put yourself in the shoes of that side. (Did that make sense?)

  Sorry for the long post.
• 
  27

  Reverse Shunning

  by gutted in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  i have a confession.

  i am using reverse shunning.. i have ignored the elders calls.

  i do not want to hang out with witnesses anymore (besides my family and one friend).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  IsaacJ22

  I have reverse shunned too, for the most part. The only ones I talk to are my in-laws, and even then only when I must.

  When I first left the KH, they really came after me. It was very bad. I would consider it harassment, now. At the time, I had nothing to really say when they decided to whip out their Bible's and tell me how awful I was. I didn't know what I believed back then, I just needed some time away from all of them to sort out my feelings about being a JW.

  Now, I avoid most of them if I can. Their world view is so incompatible with mine that I can't talk with them about anything except the weather. If I happen to walk past them in public, if they stop me, I won't pick a fight--but I make sure to let them know that I'm not intimidated.
• 
  29

  For those who saw flaws in Watchtower doctrine and left. Why do you not apply the same standard of examination to your current beliefs?

  by nicolaou in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i know that many left because of a lack of real love or for other personal reasons.

  i would never belittle those reasons for exiting, they are as valid as any other, but if that describes your situation then perhaps this topic might not apply so much to you.. i left the watchtower because i came to realise the doctrine was flawed.

  i was in my mid 30's before my mind begin waking up and i started to develop basic critical thinking abilities.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  IsaacJ22

  My reasons for leaving were 2 fold. I stopped going to meetings because I suddenly realized that I had gone from the happiest I'd ever been in my life to the most miserable, and I needed time to think about that. I still thought that I might return at some point in the future. I even prayed about it.

  I then stayed away because I began examining the doctrines and the literature more closely. The doctrines seemed untrue (or at least doubtful and unsupported) and the literature seemed poorly researched (or even intentionally misleading). So that settled it for me. I wasn't going back and I felt pretty good about it.

  All That started me thinking about all religions along these lines, and soon, I began to see myself as an agnostic. Later, an atheist, though the only thing that changed was my definition of the word.

  Like you, Nico, I don't think we threw out the baby with the bath water. I tend to feel take that as an insult, or a convenient attempt by believers to psychologize atheists. I try not to do that back at believers, though I'll fall into that trap more easily with JWs.

  I almost agree with you and the person you were quoting on how beliefs are formed. I wouldn't say that you have no control. People ignore evidence or solid arguments that oppose beliefs they favor. Especially if they have invested a lot in those beliefs. They could try to listen to those points more openly. But that only offers them a very limited amount of control. I would still say that -- IMO -- you're both mostly right about that. :-)
• 
  10

  (If you ever were) Was getting DF'ed a relief? Did you lose patience with 'the fade'?

  by Sapphy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i was wondering about this.. i'm doing a slow fade, i don't want to lose friends and family - but it's frustrating.

  wasting time going to meetings etc when my heart and head isn't in it anymore.

  it feels like a game played by everyone elses rules but mine.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  IsaacJ22

  I wouldn't recommend a long fade unless you see an honest advantage to it--one that's better than wishful thinking, that is. Congregations and families do vary. But in most cases, I wouldn't bother. It just delays the inevitable pain most of the time and offers no real advantage. Some faders tend to hang on forever, never fully embracing the Society and never fully leaving it. They end up being the blacksheep of the congregation and their family either way.

  Even if you move before you stop going to meetings, you are only delaying the inevitable. Families always seem to find out eventually. Of course, moving will make it harder for them to hound you afterward, but otherwise, it doesn't do much for most except to delay the inevitable even further. Even if you aren't DFed, you might wish you had been if your family gets mean about it. Many do. In my view, it's best to get the whole ordeal behind you rather than waiting to yank the bandaid off a little at a time.

  It's obviously your decision. I didn't fade--I just left and never looked back. It took about 2 weeks for the wolves to descend. It was a drawn out, senseless pain in the neck. But it wouldn't have been any better if I'd waited. The sooner you quit, the sooner that part will be over with.

  I do suggest you prepare yourself first. Make some new friends, start hanging out with people and build up a new support group. Not just online, but in the real world where you live. You'll need those friends if your congregation harasses you as mine did to me. In my view, that's usually all a fade is good for; it gives you time to build up a new life outside the WT by keeping up minimal appearances.

  As I said, your situation might be so different from most that a fade really does make sense. I'm not in your shoes. But in most cases, a fade just delays the unavoidable problems. It's still up to you. No judgments intended.
• 
  29

  Blackness. If the JW religion is a majority black religion, is this a majority black board?

  by Quillsky in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  before anyone asks whether it's important.... no it's not, it's just interesting..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  IsaacJ22

  Most people where I live seem to think of JWs as a "black religion," yet my old congregation was predominantly white by far. I've also been to several other congregations locally that were also predominantly white. So the perception was interesting to me.

  I suspect that -- around here at least -- the majority of the WTs growth is among non-whites. We're a bunch of hicks, really, but we have plenty of immigrants. Especially from Spanish speaking countries. Some of them convert. And JWs tend to be more active here in black neighborhoods. It always seemed to me that we were more likely to be asked in by black households, even if the householders weren't interested in converting, just out of respect.

  Still, you would think the majority of people that whites see are whites. So where does the perception come from?

  I think this is interesting too. Also interesting to hear that it's different in other places.