Posts by SweetBabyCheezits

13

Excellent YouTube video for those raised in JW home (or any dogmatic faith)

by SweetBabyCheezits in

jw
friends

there are some really intelligent videos from users, qualiasoup, and his brother, theramintrees, on youtube.

this one tells an analogous story that deals with being raised in a religiously dogmatic household..... http://www.youtube.com/user/theramintrees#p/u/0/kaiprrzvnjg.

Excellent YouTube video for those raised in JW home (or any dogmatic faith)

by SweetBabyCheezits in

jw
friends

there are some really intelligent videos from users, qualiasoup, and his brother, theramintrees, on youtube.

this one tells an analogous story that deals with being raised in a religiously dogmatic household..... http://www.youtube.com/user/theramintrees#p/u/0/kaiprrzvnjg.

SweetBabyCheezits

I'll attempt to embed it so hopefully more will take a look.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/TheraminTrees#p/u/0/kAIpRRZvnJg">Video</a>

Edit: Well, no good. Tried it using latest versions of IE, FF, and Chrome... all to no avail. Would someone with a little more YouTube-embedding luck give it a shot please?

SBC

13

Excellent YouTube video for those raised in JW home (or any dogmatic faith)

by SweetBabyCheezits in

jw
friends

there are some really intelligent videos from users, qualiasoup, and his brother, theramintrees, on youtube.

this one tells an analogous story that deals with being raised in a religiously dogmatic household..... http://www.youtube.com/user/theramintrees#p/u/0/kaiprrzvnjg.

There are some really intelligent videos from users, QualiaSoup, and his brother, TheraminTrees, on YouTube. This one tells an analogous story that deals with being raised in a religiously dogmatic household....

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheraminTrees#p/u/0/kAIpRRZvnJg

105

Does the name Jehovah actually exist in the original Hebrew language?

by Yizuman in

source: http://www.familybible.org/articles/messianic/jehovah.htm.

well, then, where did the word jehovah come from?.

thus the artificial name jehovah came into being.. (yahweh, the new encyclopedia britannica, vol.

SweetBabyCheezits

I'm not saying anything about this thread but... wouldn't it be funny if, on the other side of the world, a bunch of Muslim's were burning their time and getting all riled up, arguing over the name Allah?

Interestingly, if I misspell, mispronounce, or flat-out use the wrong name (like "Rodney" for example), the Flying SpaGHeTTi Monster doesn't get petulant.

*yawn* Now that that's solved, I'm gonna go have a beer and play some games with my kids. Best of luck to you folks!

32

Is the WTBTS mistaken or deceptive?

by exwhyzee in

when i look back at history, i see the great lengths people have gone to, to prove their devotion to god and to carry out what they though to be his will.. do you think the watchtower organization is truly trying to deceive people and cover things up or do you think they are honestly misguided or mistaken in some of their beliefs and policies ?

if so, what purpose would they have for doing this?.

SweetBabyCheezits

Yeah, in most cases I try to apply "Hanlon/Heinlein's Razor" (the play on Occam's Razor): Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Of course, the WT's "admission" to blowing 1975 out of proportion was definitely deceptive as was the "enlightenment" regarding organ transplants in 80. They weaseled their way out from under the yoke of responsibility, no doubt about it. The wording still makes me sick.

Debator, compare the two quotes below and explain how the Society could worm their way out of their previous official position without being intentionally deceptive:

1967 WT 11/15 QfR:

"When there is a diseased or defective organ, the usual way health is restored is by taking in nutrients. The body uses the food eaten to repair or heal the organ, gradually replacing the cells. When men of science conclude that this normal process will no longer work and they suggest removing the organ and replacing it directly with an organ from another human, this is simply a shortcut. Those who submit to such operations are thus living off the flesh of another human. That is cannibalistic. However, in allowing man to eat animal flesh Jehovah God did not grant permission for humans to try to perpetuate their lives by cannibalistically taking into their bodies human flesh, whether chewed or in the form of whole organs or body parts taken from others."

And now the new light, in which WTBTS projects their previous policy as simply having been a matter of someone's strict conscience...

1980 WT 3/15 QfR:

"Some Christians might feel that taking into their bodies any tissue or body part from another human is cannibalistic. They might hold that the transplanted human material is intended to become part of the recipient's body to keep him alive and functioning. They might not see it as fundamentally different from consuming flesh through the mouth. Such feelings may arise from considering that God did not make specific provision for man to eat the flesh of his fellowman when he made provision for humans to eat the flesh of animals that had been drained of their life-sustaining blood. They may give consideration also to the way people in Bible times viewed sustaining themselves by taking in human flesh. "

I didn't see one mention in the 1980 QfR of "this magazine once stated" or "Jehovah's Witnesses once held" or ANYTHING that indicated an admission of official policy. Why didn't the GB man up, Debator?

32

Is the WTBTS mistaken or deceptive?

by exwhyzee in

when i look back at history, i see the great lengths people have gone to, to prove their devotion to god and to carry out what they though to be his will.. do you think the watchtower organization is truly trying to deceive people and cover things up or do you think they are honestly misguided or mistaken in some of their beliefs and policies ?

if so, what purpose would they have for doing this?.

SweetBabyCheezits

When my wife was a believer she always asked me, "What is the GB getting out of this if they aren't really appointed by God?" I totally agreed that it didn't seem like money was their personal motivation.

Like VB said, I think there are other incentives like power and control for some members who hunger for that. But I also agree with Booby, that there may well be sincere GB members who moved up through the ranks like any other elder... misguided but working hard for something they believe in. I've seen such examples in the R&F publishers so why couldn't such a man make it to the top?

Along with that theory, surely there have been relatively humble GB members who had doubts or concerns but lacked the courage to stand up and admit they couldn't see the emperor's new clothes. Who wants to be that guy??

Having said all that, I once met Stephen Lett when he was visiting speaker at our DC and I couldn't put my finger on it but he seemed incredibly superficial and slimy. Honestly, I try not to prejudge anyone based on looks but there was something about this guy that came across like a smarmy televangelist who keeps Heidi Fleiss on his speed dial. He seemed to be the deceptive type but I've been wrong before.

150

Is it unacceptable to stand up for Jehovah's Witnesses on a site called Jehovah's-Witness.net?

by THE GLADIATOR in

jw
friends

i fail to see why people such as alice in wonderland, bane and others, are regularly singled out as tolls.

demands are repeatedly made that they are shunned and thrown off the forum; while people like perry, who rant on with pages of controversial drivel, are considered acceptable?.

i personaly don't view any of them as trolls, just people who feel a need to stand up for what they believe.

SweetBabyCheezits

"Arguing people often have one thing in common. They are usually totally unable to admit they are wrong no matter how well facts are laid before them."

You're right, Gladiator. And to make things more difficult, pure faith seems to be, by nature, at odds with critical reasoning. A person who builds unfaltering faith cannot let go of their attachment to being right. Otherwise, it ceases to be faith, right?

Someone recently posted some HeinLein quotes... he put it much better:

“The great trouble with religion — any religion — is that a religionist, having accepted certain propositions by faith, cannot thereafter judge those propositions by evidence. One may bask at the warm fire of faith or choose to live in the bleak uncertainty of reason — but one cannot have both.” –Robert Heinlein

33

The Amish

by James_Slash in

i watched an interesting programme last night on the amish religion.

i remember watching the film "witness" many years ago with harrison ford so i already had an insight into what sort of people they were.. they seem a peaceful, family/community orientated group who stick to the teachings in the bible like glue.

when jesus spoke about 'being separate from the world' surely no-one could have followed this more than the amish.

SweetBabyCheezits

No personal experience here, though I did see Witness. The Amish provide a good example to use when talking to JW family.

JW: "Jesus said his followers would be known by the love they have among themselves. The could be identified by their 'good fruits'."

SBC: "JWs aren't the only ones who display love for their own, though, are they? Mormons, Amish, and others are recognized for their close-knit families and communities... as much if not more so than Witnesses. Why are they not God's people?"

JW: "Well who else fulfills the commission at Matt. 24:14 to preach the good news in all the earth? Who is KNOWN for that work?"

SBC: "You mean a very literal, self-fulfilling understanding of that verse? Of course, JWs believe they do. But Amish might ask the same question about John 17:16 where he said that his followers would be 'no part of this world', right? They are KNOWN for that and truly believe they fit the description perfectly by taking it to a literal extreme."

Of course, in using this reasoning, I've yet to break any barriers with family so maybe it's only effective in my head.

150

Is it unacceptable to stand up for Jehovah's Witnesses on a site called Jehovah's-Witness.net?

by THE GLADIATOR in

jw
friends

i fail to see why people such as alice in wonderland, bane and others, are regularly singled out as tolls.

demands are repeatedly made that they are shunned and thrown off the forum; while people like perry, who rant on with pages of controversial drivel, are considered acceptable?.

i personaly don't view any of them as trolls, just people who feel a need to stand up for what they believe.

SweetBabyCheezits

You guys offer some really good perspectives/insights on dealing with... or better yet, understanding some posters. I wish I'd read this thread before my last post to Bane. Now I feel like a d-bag. That's not the kind of person I want to be but it comes out sometime. Very good posts in this thread, though.

I'm the kind of person who tends to reflect the temperament of the other party in the conversation, whether in real life or online. If that person shows a certain amount of humility, I try to be careful to show respect and avoid being offensive, even though I may disagree with their view. But if their tone is arrogant and dogmatic, the desire to revile consumes me. I want to personally knock them off their high horse. Maybe that's my own immaturity bleeding through. And maybe that's how the other person feels about me.

But lately when I read Bane's comments, I see the face of my brother-in-law - a guy who is judgmental, hypocritical, immature, and arrogant. While I recognize that I probably acted the same way as a devout JW (and obviously still do), I would never have dropped in on an "apostate" forum and spewed messages of contempt like he does.

Also, when my brother-in-law (or any other JW) thinks he can quickly solve a puzzle (607 vs 587/6) in a couple hours that I studied/researched off and on for a few years, it really gets under my skin. He was so quick to assume I wanted a way out and, even if it meant sacrificing my family, would be willing to drop the Org over the most minor issue. So I take that personally and my frustration comes out, ready to fight.

Plus it ticks me off that he doesn't even understand the Gregorian calendar - much less Bible chronology - and yet he tells my wife after 2 minutes on Google (regarding 607 doctrine), "Oh, it's just a misunderstanding between BCE and CE, that's all." vent/off. Sorry, guys. Again, nice thread, Gladiator.

90

1914 Doctrine is FALSE -- Questions for JW's

by UnDisfellowshipped in

jw
friends

is there any jehovah's witness who can answer these questions about 1914?.

can you demonstrate, using the holy scriptures, that the messianic kingdom was established in 1914, that jesus got the full legal right to become king that year, and that jesus returned invisibly in 1914, and that the "last days" began that year?.

1:) no encyclopedia, no history book, and no archaeology book that i have ever seen have ever said that nebuchadnezzar destroyed jerusalem and the temple in the year 607 bce.

SweetBabyCheezits

"So you are going to hold the organization for something they did 30 years ago?" "How's that workin for ya?" - Bane

Yeah, it's called justice and it allows me to eliminate religions in my search for some kind of "truth".

Bane, does your Society not point their big fat finger of condemnation at other religions, holidays, traditions, etc... by specifically digging into the history of each?

Yet I don't hear the Catholic Church whining, "Oh, so you're going to hold the church responsible for something that occurred a few hundred years ago like the Spanish Inquisition? How's that workin for ya?" Despite all their flaws, at least they've learned to start accepting responsibility when they realize they can't revise or hide from their history. (Not that that relieves them of it.)

But to totally write off blemishes in a religion's history as being 'nothing'... oh, that's gold.

I'll just take one simple point (out of a long list) in which the Society should be held accountable for something they (it) did 30 years ago: the organ transplant policy's implementation and subsequent reversal ALONE makes your Society bloodguilty even by it's own standard of condemnation. Your beloved organization's dogma is responsible for the deaths of many good people. Can you admit this?

Whether it amounts to one person or a million would be irrelevant. All it takes is the death of one person to create bloodguilt according to the Society so.... own up, beyotch. You aren't "winning" [edit] for yourself or your organization. You're just another arrogant, self-righteous hypocrite, claiming to be a sincere JW, yet ultimately "disloyal" and disobedient to the Society you try to defend by posting on this forum (like others have said). If you disagree, prove me wrong and carry your ass elsewhere.

Otherwise, feel free to stick around. I'm fine with it, but be aware that people on this board are smart enough to see right through you and your amateur BS. You're late to the party and we've already seen several girls come and go with that same ill-fitting dress on.

(In case you don't get the analogy, I mean you might produce a new argument that hasn't already been decimated with reason and logic.)