Posts by Max Divergent

40

Now I'm not a JW, is it ok for me to...

by Julia Orwell in

jw
friends

...drink a lot?

gosh i love wine.

i like a good bottle of wine each night, and i have a high tolerance to alcohol, though i never drank much (except for a couple of times with the vodka, but i don't keep that stuff in the house anymore, way too dangerous) as a jw because getting slightly happy is a 'sin'.

Max Divergent

I notice you're refering to JWs in deciding if a bottle of wine a day would be OK. F the JWs. They have nothing to do with your choices now unless you let them. You can select another basis for your decisions now.

On the question you ask, is a 750ml bottle of wine a day OK, assuming its drunk over 5 hours.

1) 5 hours a day of drinking makes drinking a big part of someone's day. 7 days x 5 hours a day = 35 hours a week, or nearly as much as a full time job. Anyone can decide for themselves if that's heathy given all the other things you can do in a day and in a week.

2) A bottle of red wine is usually about 8 standard drinks (where a standard drink is 10 grams of alcohol), 7 days x 8 standard drinks = 56 drinks or 560 grams of alchohol. That amount of alchohol would usually cause long term health effects including irreversable liver disease and brain damage. How you think you feel at the time (eg: no hangover) is irrelevent to your health; what is relevent is how many grams of alcohol enter your body each day.

http://www.drinkwise.org.au

Cheers!

12

Serious question: Can a Jehovahs Witness join a democratic non-religious organisation? If it's not political, can they vote?

by The Quiet One in

e.g a nonprofit organisation that helps people, that requires its members to vote.

is all voting evil and wrong, even if it's not a political party?.

Max Divergent

There was no problem in expressing one's views via a vote.

Votes were taken in the KH over expenditure issues and other points too.

The essential issue was remaining seperate and nutural in the governance arrangements of 'Satan's system of thing', or whatever normality was called. If the vote was to be relevent to government, it was forbidden. If it wasn't, it was OK.

And joining non-religious, non-political groups was OK, except they'd be jelous of the time and engery membership took and would warn anyone who'd listen about the potential 'bad / worldly associations' etc etc.

48

Religious people are less intelligent than atheists, according to analysis of scores of scientific studies stretching back over decades

by besty in

jw
friends

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/religious-people-are-less-intelligent-than-atheists-according-to-analysis-of-scores-of-scientific-studies-stretching-back-over-decades-8758046.html.

study found 'a reliable negative relation between intelligence and religiosity' in 53 out of 63 studies.

a new review of 63 scientific studies stretching back over decades has concluded that religious people are less intelligent than non-believers.. .

Max Divergent

From Quendi...

I suppose such a study glosses over people like Isaac Newton...

No. A regular study takes a random sample from a population. If believers with the mental acumen of Newton or the others you listed were in the sample, they were included. If not, they weren't. No glossing over involved.

In any case, it's not very useful to list a whole bunch of clever belivers: there are a lot of clever non-believers who could be listed too.

I like to think that since I possess two college degrees (one in mathematics) and am involved in public education, I would be considered to have above average intelligence.

Neither has anything much to do with intelligence. Degrees are intellectual endurance tests, not intelligence tests (but few dullards achieve degrees in mathematics). Involvement in public education is meritorous, but again it is not a measure of intelligence.

By the way, you do not seem to be writing like someone with tertiary training in the mathematical sciences could be expected to on a statistical report: you wrote from emotion, not understanding.

If you want to believe that religious people are stupid, you can certainly find all kinds of data to support such a conclusion.

I'm not sure there is any reliable evidence for the proposition 'religious people are stupid' at all. But, in any case, no one has put that idea including the study's authors and those commenting on it. Only you did.

But I think it is equally important to point out that those of high intelligence have also committed atrocities against humanity. Their learning did not stop them from formulating weapons of mass destruction, drawing up plans for genocide, swindling governments, societies and individuals and other crimes.

Intelligence makes it easier to work out how to do things like split the atom, make a nerve toxin or get away with huge crimes. Intelligence is a different thing to good sense or morality. The observation is irrelevent.

This study reminds me of the old saying, “When you point a finger at somebody, it is good to remember you have three more pointing back at you.” Those eager to impugn believers would do well to remember this.

No one is impugning anyone, simply noting the relative level of measured intelligence between believers and non-believers. Folk wisdom has its places. Rebutting a properly conducted survey is not one of them.

25

Why were we so fortunate to escape clutches of the WT?

by jam in

when i came out i knew of very few ex-jw's.

for years i. question my decision.

was i being selfish, couldn't cut the.

Max Divergent

Something happened in our lives one day. That's all.

One day we would not see the reality that was around us. The next day somthing changed in our minds and we allowed ourselves to see it. When we did, we saw the WT rubbish for what it was and left. Maybe it was just a few words from somone that crystalised a thought we had lurking anyhow; maybe it was something that just seemed wrong and needed investigation.

All of us go though changes in our outlook in response to whatever is going on around us. One day somthing will happen to make most JWs receptive to seeing TTATT: if they find the right informaiton for themselves at the right time, they will see reality and may leave the JWs.

It's why we remain persistant in refreshing and renewing how we express the TTATT, including in response to New Truths (is that TTATNT?).

444

The music that moves you....

by FlyingHighNow in

once when i was profoundly sad for too many days, my brother in law sent us a mix tape.

he named each song after a person in our family.

this is the one he named heather.

Max Divergent

A Vietnam war lament.

"Why does the Channel 7 chopper chill me to my feet, and what's the rash that comes and goes, can you tell me what it means .... God help me, I was only 19"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Urtiyp-G6jY

37

A new DVD for 2013: The Return of the Prodigal Son

by Oubliette in

in another thread, what's new for 2013 - lo nuevo de 2013, jwn member, oppostate, posted news of dc releases at this year's district conventions.

among the releases was this: .

a new dvd for 2013: the return of the prodigal son.

Max Divergent

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uu5ltMSj5Dw

19

Knocking on a Kingdom Hall door

by trujw in

i have been thinking latley about having a little fun.

i want to dress up in a suite go to the kingdom hall during a meeting and knocking on the door to offer them a religious track.

maybe i will record it and put it on youtube.

Max Divergent

Hold on .... this is without the silly prolouge in the You Tube above...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLfWJ5mNgw8

19

Knocking on a Kingdom Hall door

by trujw in

i have been thinking latley about having a little fun.

i want to dress up in a suite go to the kingdom hall during a meeting and knocking on the door to offer them a religious track.

maybe i will record it and put it on youtube.

Max Divergent

You could let them know you're on a life saving work 'advertising, advertising and advertising', that 'religion is a snare and a racket', that they need to 'face the facts' including that 'millions then living are now dead'.

Why put yourself up for something that starts fun and ends in a major headache?

Yeah, but what major headache could result? Assuming there's no personal fallout, nothing illegal is proposed. And if it's a bona fide religious message (rather than my tounge-in-cheek suggestion) then it's probably a protected religious activity just like the JWs work is. You could even find old JW legal cases and do what they did years ago, went to court over and won.

Or..... here's the template for a bona fide religious message you can adapt to suit the Old Testamnet rejecting JWs...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJy2WaxtPBQ

15

Classic 1969 footage from the BBC on 1975...

by wizzstick in

found this on you tube:.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4as2abu8cm4.

relevant jw bits are from:.

Max Divergent

Good find! Hard to deny the expectation of 1975 didnl texist back then or that the publicaitons were manipulted to exclude the exact statement when it was openly reported on 6 years before the date.

the brother trying to prove 1914 calls 607 BC the start year "according to Witness chronology". Mmm

An honest JW explaining 1914 honestly, well, well, well... Anyone know what happened to that bro? Was he purged? Or did he wake up to himself and start talking Watchtower-truth?

And what is that Englishwoman's thing from that era (1969) with speaking without moving the lips? They end up with a wierd look and sound. Margaret Thatcher did it too. Is it a socila class thing?

147

Your views and ideas on forum areas and organization?

by Simon in

this may come as a shock to some people, but the current forum structure was kind of thrown together without much real thought and then evolved a bit over time.

there are a few things that particularly grate on me and areas where i don't think the subjects work particularly well.

'friends' is a bit vague and becomes a dumping ground, news & world events vs politics & current affairs is hard to decide sometimes, child abuse is a scandal but isn't contained withing 'scandals & coverups' etc.... with a new forum platform imminent, it's a good time to solicit ideas to improve things.

Max Divergent

I use 'Active Topics' view and see the forum name more as a category than an actual forum.

I think keeping forums broard and spliting them up as much by 'tone' of the conversation rather than topic might address some of the perennial issues. So, support and discussion is open to anyone. Debates etc is open to those willing to sign up and log in. That lessens the 'It's a bad witness to wavering JWs to be rude to each other' consideration.

And a lot of the 'fluff' is useful to people at one stage or another, so 'Life after the Witnesses' is intended to encompass everthing a JW needs to know about the world but couldn't ask an elder: politics, relationships, work issues, health, jokes, exploring new ideas etc.

How about:

Open / JW / Life after the Witnesses (Support and discussion)
Open / JW / Personal Experiences & Opinions (Support and discussion)
Open / Watchtower / Beliefs, Doctrine & Practices
Open / Watchtower / Scandles, abuses and cover-ups
Open / Watchtower / History [thanks SBF]
Open / Forum / Messages
Open / Forum / Messages (auto delete in 6 months)
Members / JW / Life after the Witnsses (inc. adult, politics and debate)
Members / JW / Personal Experiences & Opinions (inc. adult, politics and debate)
Members / Watchtower / Scandles, abuses and cover-ups (inc. adult and debate)
Members / Watchtower / Criticism, activism, campaigning
Members / Forum / Apostofests and meetups
Members / Forum / Messages
Members / Forum / Messages (auto-delete in 6 months)
Members / Forum / Technical and forum support and comment (auto-delete in 6 months)

Do music and You Tube threads (there are heaps) need their own forum? Or do they just fit into whatever theame the music or You Tube is about?Trouble is when the links break you get zillions of dead posts.

Plus, have some comprehensive FAQs about how to post You Tubes and all that usual forum support stuff. Maybe some general articles (not threads, just articles, maybe crowdsourced) can be permenently posted in a prominant place summarising some of the ideas in the 'best of' threads on the topics that keep coming up... how to fade, how to reason critically, what logical falacies are, what evolution is, the 'must read' list for departing JWs, what alternative beleif structures exist and what each is all about: from Christianity to paganism to athisim, how to get an education and a good job etc etc.

Having the option to post anything into Messages and have is go after 6 months (or whatever) whould let people put somthing short-term / trival up if they want without people being surprised by a clean-up later.

Just my thoughts. Really I'd just be happy with a spell checker...