Posts by Oroborus21

41

U.N. Scandal Clarfications Please.

by lowden in

jw
friends

since i joined the forum a short while ago i was confronted by the above scandal, hadn't known about it , haven't been in touch with anything to do with the org for a while.

so i've read all the posts and questions and i think iget the drift, but what i want to kno now is why did they do it?

i hear their excuse of the library card, but that's obviously a load of tosh.

Oroborus21

AuldSoul,

I understand that many NGOs are affiliated with (and some even had their origins within) a religious context but my comment was directed at their declared purpose. Most NGOs appear not to be dedicated to religious purposes. The Society is specifically organized for a religious purpose as are most religions. And also most religions have some form of incorporation so that is not really a distinguishment.

For the most part in day-to-day conversations religious organizations are referred to as non-profit organizations (NPOs) even though they are also NGOs when one talks about their "legal status" or formal structure. In contrast, when one discusses an NGO it conveys that the organization is engaged in work which is supplementary or complementary to the State/Government's activity.

My observation, which I think is valid whether one is discussing with ex-JWs, non-JWs, or current JWs, is that most often in discussing the UN scandal, we are likely to state something to the effect that "the Society became a UN NGO in 1991...". It seems to me that very often we would pair the term "NGO" with the "UN" so I don't think it is inaccurate to state it in that way. Of course the Society was an NGO before but it was a "U.N. NGO affiliate" beginning in 1991.

I don't think that this type of hair splitting is necessary or detracts from the facts of the matter or undermines the criticism. But I don't see that it adds any value either.

My only comment was in response to your chiding of others that it was improper or inaccurate to imply that the Society became an NGO in 1991. This is true but it seems to me that you overlooked the context in which one would be having such a discussion.

You are accurate as far as the technicalities go, but my point was that is doesn't seem profitable to correct others when most who would be discussing it would be specifically limiting their context to the U.N. NGO affiliate membership and not having in mind the broader meaning of the term. Certainly, if you or anyone felt it necessary to do so, you could always educate the person you are discussing by explainng the differences. It just seems a bit petty to me to do so that's all.

respectfully,

Eduardo

153

I've got $500 on Taylor Hicks to win American Idol ( 10 to 1 odds ) : )

by a Christian in

i've got $500.00 on taylor hicks to win american idol.

at 10 to one odds ( pinnacle sports ) !

normally i'm not a gambling man.

Oroborus21

Simon needs to expand his vocabulary beyong "karaoke performance" and "bad cabaret." He is getting tedious, though still the most entertaining on the show.

Go Kelly and Katherine. Looks should count for 3/4 of the competition if we are talking about real Pop Stars anyway. A pop star doesn't need to be able to sing (they fix it all in the studio anyway), they just need to turn us on.

-Eduardo

41

U.N. Scandal Clarfications Please.

by lowden in

jw
friends

since i joined the forum a short while ago i was confronted by the above scandal, hadn't known about it , haven't been in touch with anything to do with the org for a while.

so i've read all the posts and questions and i think iget the drift, but what i want to kno now is why did they do it?

i hear their excuse of the library card, but that's obviously a load of tosh.

Oroborus21

Greetings:

With the exception of the appearances of a few more or less "favourable" articles after becoming an NGO associate of the UN, I haven't seen any evidence that proves or even suggests that the membership was obtained for anything other than the reasons stated by the Society.

(The issue of whether membership was necessary for library access is not really a "motivation" question but concerns other issues of reasonableness and knowledge, and maybe expertise of WT personnel.)

Assertions that the status was obtained to get a foothold in international forums, other (unfavorable) countries, for fairer human rights determinations, etc. are completely speculative. Such claims require proof.

-Eduardo Leaton Jr., Esq.

PS: AuldSoul, I think you are drawing a distinction without a difference. In the context of the JW/U.N. Scandal, everyone understands the term NGO to refer to the membership/association with the U.N. Thus while technically you are correct that the WTS is a non-government organization, it seems pedantic to worry about the accuracy of such statements such as that the "WTS became an NGO in 1991" in the context of a discussion regarding the scandal.

Additionally, it seems that few NGOs are overtly religious - and thus the term as applied to the WTBTS would almost certainly be understood to be in reference to the U.N. scandal and the approx. ten-year period when it was a recognized affiliate member of the U.N.

Incidently found this page to be very useful regarding NGOs: http://docs.lib.duke.edu/igo/guides/ngo/

64

Boycott Tom Cruise and his Mission Impossible 3 movie!

by Elsewhere in

jw
friends

the church of scientology is trying to censor comedy central because of the scientology south park episode!

please write to comedy central about the scientology episode!.

please express support for south park and denounce the way tom cruise is trying to censor south park!

Oroborus21

Greetings:

Cruise has had to deal with rumours and jokes regarding his sexuality all his career. (Whether he really is gay or not isn't the point.) The fact is that being perceived as homosexual hurts him in his career as a leading man and the types of roles that is suited for.

Isn't it possible that the guy is just fed up a bit with yet another parody involving his sexuality? Wouldn't YOU also feel a bit upset. Sure it comes with the territory of being a hollywood actor but these folks do have feelings.

Then if it weren't bad enough, the same parody also makes fun of his religion. As wacky as we might objectively view it to be, to HIM he is sincere and his (religion) is important to him.

Yes, we all should just laugh about the whole thing and he would hopefully laugh with us - just as we ask minorities to laugh at ethnic jokes, or husbands and fathers to laugh at "dumb dad" or "boyfriend" jokes and women to laugh at "dumb blonde" or "wife or girlfriend jokes." Religion, being such an important cultural aspect, has long been an accepted as fair game and a source for humor. So in some sense Cruise and other Scientologists should consider it a compliment that they are now in the same club as Irish Catholics and Middle-American Protestants, Jews and Jehovah's Witnesses.

Most of the time we laugh. But humor, like beauty, is always in the eyes of the beholder. If a person doesn't laugh at what others think is funny, we might say they don't get it, or as in the article, label them "humorless." Yet, sometimes what others find to be very funny (Andrew Dice Clay, Andy Warhol, Eddie Murphy, Chris Rock, etc.) is considered quite offensive to some. When this is the case, we don't begrudge them if they walk out of the performance, or boycott or protest. That is their right and option.

So Cruise (if such "insider information" is accurate) threatens to bail out of any publicity for MI3. [I wonder whether such info is accurate however, as most players have contract provisions locking them into a certain amount of publicity commitment; and also, not doing publicity for MI3 would only hurt the movie (and his own pocket) not South Park or Comedy Central.].

The guy is upset, he is sick of being portrayed as a homo and to add insult to injury, his sincerely held religiious beliefs are made fun of. Are we really surprised that he might be upset. I know that I probably would be after a certain point.

Humorless? Maybe so. But irrational or abnormal? Probably not.

-Eduardo

146

The Trinity... is it a false teaching as the WTBTS claims?

by Honesty in

in the old testament god revealed himself to his chosen people, the israelites as i am:.

ex 3:14-15 - god replied to moses, i am who i am.

this is what you are to say to the israelites: i am .

Oroborus21

Greetings:

I don't believe in the Trinity. It doesn't make sense to me and never has. And I don't buy into the whole, "its a wonderful mystery" crap either.

Just one reason why I accept that Jesus was not only a creation but also a perfect HUMAN without any divinity (only a divine pre and post-human existence) is because I am willing to ascribe to him all of the normal actitvity of being human (though perhaps in some areas he didn't necessary act upon his humanness for example sex.)

I say to all Trinitarians if you can believe that any part of the God Head or God the Son or whatever, leaned against the tree and relieved himself, or took a nice big smelly dump beside the road, during his many travels, etc. than you have a much less elegant view of God than I do.

-Eduardo

9

proclaimers book question.

by moomanchu in

.

under 1918 in the back of the book, it says rutherford gave a lecture on "millions now living may never die".. in the same paragraph it says the name of the lecture was "millions now living will never die".. what's up with that?

?

Oroborus21

The first talk in Los Angeles in February 1918 used the word "May" but the talk in Boston in March used the more definite "Will." There isn't any specific explanation for the change but we can suppose that the change from "may" to "will" was viewed as conveying more certainty about their conviction.

This was followed incidently with the first Watchtower article in the April 1 issue: "The World Has Ended--Millions Now Living Will Never Die"

Both the talks and the article posited that the end could occur any time between 1918 and 1925. The publication of the booklet in 1920, using the same title, kicked off a massive 5 year build-up to 1925. The resulting fall-out after 1925 and after the publication of the Birth of a Nation article the same year, (over the objections of the Editorial Committee) kicked off the largest wave of defections from the Organization during the Rutherford Era.

-Eduardo

34

Not ONE JW superhero!!!

by Bumble Bee in

jw
friends

i found this site today.

it lists pretty much every superhero out there and what religion they are supposed to be.

i scrolled through the list and saw a bunch of religions i've never even heard of before but not one jw superhero!!

Oroborus21

Looks like the field is wide open. Lots of possible converts.

-Eduardo

49

Isaac Hayes quits South Park, apparently over Scientology episode

by DanTheMan in

story here.

lol, all the hell that that show has given to xtians and jews over the years, and he never batted an eye.

cultists are a sensitive lot ain't they?

Oroborus21

Chef gets his end...

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/402624p-340803c.html

-Eduardo

5

Watchtower and civil liberties?

by MsMcDucket in

i was just wondering if anyone else feels like the watchtower is discriminating against former members by refusing to let us choose are own religion and beliefs?

it seems like an obstruction of civil liberties to have a former member segregated from the congregation because they choose not to believe in the religion anymore.

not only do they segregate us from the congregation, but our families.

Oroborus21

MsMcDuckett: please note the first word in the First Amendment: "CONGRESS ...."

The Constitution and the Amendments to it concern what rights and privileges individuals have vis a vis the Government. The First Amendment applies to the Federal Government and via the Fourteenth Amendment to the State governments.

Private persons, of which a corporation is legally deemed, have no 1st Amendment rights against each other.

The Government cannot prevent you from speaking or preaching from your soap box in a public forum or in the public byways but a private person CAN prevent you from speaking or preaching on their doorstep.

regarding the Quotes site, the site had numerous problems involving copyright infringement, including the offering of CD-ROMS of copyrighted material for SALE. In my opinion too, Mossier erred by not including "comment, criticism, evaluation, etc." all of which is expected and the REASON that Fair Use or Fair Dealing is permitted as an exception to copyright law. He boasted that what he was reprinting were the words of the Watchtower and only the words of the Watchtower without any "editorializing" and that is exactly what is not permitted to be done with copyrighted material. Thus, the Quotes site was legitimately attacked.

It is not a question of combatting CRITICISM as can be seen by the continued operations of many websites which have been functioning for many years and also the publication of books and other publications which have been published since the beginning of the Organization that have been critical of the Society/JWs and sometimes made limited legitimate use of copyrighted materials.

It should be noted that this is a different viewpoint than for example, the Church of Scientology, which has viewed certain writings as trade secrets and copyrighted, and made attempts to keep the material secret and within authorized user's hands. Thus Scientology has agressively litigated against persons and websites that had such "secret" material. In contrast, with a few exceptions, like service manuals and the elder's manual, most material is meant by the Society to be distributed to the public.

Secondly, the CoS has adopted policies which are meant to discredit and, if possible, overwhelm any source of criticism whenever possible. Thus it or its members or certain affiliates have engaged in aggressive litigation, counter-PR, mud-slinging, etc. against any and all critics, even when the legal claims have been meritless or the information is known to be untrue or obtained in illegal or immoral ways.

In contrast, thus far it would seem, the Society has not engaged in such tactics. (With some limited exceptions pertaining to Olin Moyle, Merriman and May, and to a lesser degree Carl Olaf Jonsson, Walter Salter, Ray Franz, et al., and other former Witnesses (deemed apostates) who were "bad-mouthed" in their home territories.)

The Society is not actually too eager to squash all criticism since as its culture drifts closer to the mainstream, and as it as a religious organization is more accepted worldwide, criticism (and especially any form of government oppression or religious persecution) are reinforcing to the theology and worldview. JWs see themselves and the Organization as the only true religion (church) and thus expect that Satan and his dominion will persecute it. The need for this is even greater now that there are few other mechanisms (or doctrines) keeping members anxious about Armageddon.

-Eduardo

58

Diary of an Unborn Child - switch your rational mind off for ten minutes.

by nicolaou in

this article from awake!

in may 1980 is an example of the worst sort of emotional argument.

i'm just going to post it, barf, and then comment later.. *** g80 5/22 p. 16 ***.

Oroborus21

howdy,

I think that arguments about whether it is logical or real to give a foetus conscious thought miss the point of the piece. As Scully says it is meant to invoke an emotional response.

But I differ from Scully, in that I think that it is obviously meant to address "standard" abortion situations, the majority of cases, when the pregnancy is not the result of rape or incest or in undesirable socio-economic circumstances. It is a piece written specifically with a narrow purpose in mind and as such it does a brilliant job.

The "diary" is supposed to make us sympathetic to the unborn child, thousands of which humankind are killing each year. Whether you believe that is right or wrong - the diary is touching, beautiful and sad.

As a father of a beautiful three-year old girl, who is the light of my life, I thank God that her mother chose to have her and consider it unfair that I could only "give my two cents" but not actually make such a decision in part.

The diary isn't about the reality of what a foetus thinks or actually experiences. It is about the beauty and joy of living and hoping for a happy life in the future. It is about the mother (not the helpless unborn child) who has the power in this situation to fulfill that hope or to end it.

-Eduardo