Posts by Nemesis

12

Improper English in the Watchtower....

by Preston in

machislop posted a quote from a watchtower on a thread that went something like this:.

"....c. t. russell was patently of that governing body back there in the last quarter of the nineteenth century.".

excuse me, but the expression "back there" makes the governing body sound like a bunch of backwood hicks.

Nemesis

Hi Preston,
I think age may have a lot to do with it. They don’t want these new fangled modern “worldly words and grammar” to invade their space. It makes me laugh when they use the phrase “folks” all the time in the magazines. The only people I ever hear use that kind of language here are extremely old people lost in the past. It may be normal usage in the US, but it would sound ridiculous in everyday conversation here; you would just get laughed at.

I don’t think they will ever change, they are too old and senile and too set in their ways. As far as they are concerned they are right and the rest of the JW world will have to go along with whatever language and terminology they want to use.

25

WTS Hypocrisy Digging Their Own Grave WT 6/15/02

by Reborn2002 in

jw
friends

i received the 6/15/02 watchtower in the mail today.. for those that do not know, 2005 is the new predicted end date for this "system of things.".

reference: .

http://quotes.jehovahswitnesses.com/2005.htm.

Nemesis

Hi Reborn2002,
I posted a picture of page 15 of that issue on another thread, in regard to their comments on the Internet (see top of pic) and as you have said how they try and discredit scholars and then used them and misquote them at their leisure when it’s convenient to do so: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=26852&site=3

One other point that really bugged me was the first article, basically making out all the humanitarian aid in trying to help the starving, and diseased etc. is not doing any good. They then keep saying: “God’s kingdom is coming to solve all mankind’s problems etc.” Even showing some little girl with a bunch of flowers in hand and the text above her says: “Soon, through the messianic Kingdom complete relief from problems will come.”

The bit they conspicuously forget to mention is not that God is going to take over all world governments like a major Divine election, he is not going to feed the starving and heal the sick etc. either, but what he is going to do [according to the Watchtower], is massacre and obliterate 99.9% of the worlds population! That’s not exactly “solving mankind’s problems” is it?

Can you imagine if your family had contracted say TB, and you all went to the hospital, and a new JW doctor said we have a cure better then all these “worldly” cures that only bring half relief, and you say: “what cure? How do we get better?” And the JW doc pulls out a gun and kills you all! “There, you no longer suffer or have TB!” he says. Problem solved! Why does the Watchtower always miss out their “minor” detail of mass genocide and slaughter? Maybe because most people would not come within ten miles of a Kingdom hall if the JWs actually spoke and wrote the truth of what they really believe and want to happen to humanity!

86

Silliest thing that Witnesses told you was wrong?

by gilwarrior in

there are two things.

in the early and mid 80s there were witnesses saying that the cartoon characters the smurfs were not acceptable for witnesses.

i had two smurf cartoon books and my mother made me throw them away.

Nemesis

Two incidents come to mind with a stupid old fart of an elder who was stuck in the past. One time when someone said “oh heck” as they forgot some of their talk, and nobody cared or noticed, a bit like dropping a piece of paper and picking it up. But after he had finished his talk, at the end of the meeting he was approached by the self-righteous old elder, and told that it was a disgrace that he said “heck” on the platform as he was evoking the name of an Egyptian frog deity, called Hek, or Heket or something very similar and was akin to practising spiritualism in Jehovah’s house!

The same old fool embarrassed a brother in front of half the hall when he cornered him before the meeting. The brother in question worked for an electrical installations company and didn’t finish work until just before the meeting, so some times he would come to the meeting in his work clothes rather than miss the meeting. He was reasonably smart in a subtle uniform. But the old bigot elder cornered him and said he could never come to the hall in his work clothes again, why? Because on his necktie, there was a microscopic logo of his company, you needed a magnifying glass to see it, and then you would not know what it was unless you asked. But the elder thought this was “clearly bringing worldly commercialism and trading into the house of Jehovah”, so that necktie never appeared again!

He also used to do the same with sisters who had handbags or clothes with logos on them. They would get a serious telling off for having a Gucci, Prada, Louis vuitton, or whatever bag/clothes, even the smallest logo was classed by him as “bringing world commercialism into Jehovah’s house” and was scorned upon heavily. He would also spit feathers if anyone wanted or even spoke about transplants (this was back in the early nineties long after 1980 when they re-allowed them) I remeber him saying they were sick and wicked. Also this elder’s wife ended up in a mental home, I’m sure it was because of being married to this stupid old bigot.

13

When JW's Can't Pigeon Hole A Situation....

by Englishman in

jw
friends

......it puts them into a state of disequilibrium.. take, for example, the case of someone who has been disfellowshipped from the organisation.

heads will nod knowingly and wisely if that person should:.

do drugs.. become alcoholic.. become promiscuous.. such is the price paid for someone who "turns his back on jehovah".

Nemesis

Yes its sad to say they love to play the good-bad label game. I posted a post on the same theme a while ago in a debate with ‘You Know’, it’s my second post on this link: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=25362&site=3&page=6
It just shows no matter what you do or what happens to you as an ex-JW it will automatically be interpreted as the work of Satan, and proof of God’s condemnation. I think in the end it’s a waste of time trying to reason with them as you now it’s a lose-lose situation, and they will never accept that you could be a good person or real Christian without the Watch Tower organisation in your life.

17

Elijah caught up to heaven???

by amac in

here is a question...the account in 2 kings 2:11 (i may be off a verse or 2) refers to elijah being caught up to heaven by a fiery war chariot.

the organization has explained several times that he did not die here but was transplanted to another part of the earth.

their proof of this is that "years later", "at least five years later" he writes a letter to king jeho'ram of judah.

Nemesis

Hello Amac and welcome,

The only thing that pops to mind is that Jesus said no one had ascended to heaven before him. So logically Elijah could not have gone to heaven—as in the spirit dwelling of God.

One thing that I have wondered about is the disappearance of Enoch; see what the verse says here: “And Enoch kept walking with the [true] God. Then he was no more, for God took him.—Genesis 5:24

If you notice in all the other descriptions of death before and after say: “. . . years and he died.” For example:

1. And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died.—Genesis 5:8
2. And all the days of Enos were nine hundred and five years: and he died.—Genesis 5:11
3. And all the days of Cainan were nine hundred and ten years: and he died.—Genesis 5:14
4. And all the days of Mahalaleel were eight hundred ninety and five years: and he died.—Genesis 5:17
5. And all the days of Jared were nine hundred sixty and two years: and he died.—Genesis 5:20
6. And Enoch walked with God: and he [was] not; for God took him.—Genesis 5:24
7. And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died.—Genesis 5:27
8. And all the days of Lamech were seven hundred seventy and seven years: and he died.—Genesis 5:31

They are all described as just dying, except for Enoch, for God “took him”. This cannot mean took to heaven, as this would contradict what Jesus said about he being the first to be resurrected to heaven. But interestingly Enoch could have been resurrected to spirit and still not have arisen to heaven. The Watch Tower specifically ignores that part. Satan is not in heaven according to the Bible, but he still exists, as there is far more to the universe—material and spiritual—than just heaven. The Watch Tower’s reasoning is like saying if you are not in the White House with the president then you must be dead, as where else could you be? Well there is a whole world out there that you could be in, and just the same in the spirit world.

Also Jesus roamed about in this realm for 40 days before he ascended to heaven, he was obviously not dead, but just in a lower level of the spirit realm, and had not yet ascended to heaven. So logically Enoch could have been resurrected and others also like Elijah and still not contradict what Jesus said about him being the first to ascend to heaven. They would have had to wait until Jesus had arisen to heaven before they could also.

10

WT 15 June - Approves of Internet?

by Nemesis in

i just noticed this in the latest mags (15 june, 2002, see picture below) on the top box: if we want .

a concordance to the bible, we can find no better than the internet.. im just wondering if this will lead more witnesses to indulge in some web surfing, with the inevitable consequences of them coming across some critical matter?

lets hope so!

Nemesis

I just noticed this in the latest mags (15 June, 2002, See picture below) on the top box: “If we want . . . a concordance to the Bible, we can find no better than the Internet.”

I’m just wondering if this will lead more witnesses to ‘indulge’ in some web surfing, with the inevitable consequences of them coming across some ‘critical’ matter? Let’s hope so! “Come on Brothers, lets find out some answer to all the societies teachings.” (Do they no what they are in for—will they be able to handle the real truth?)

I also noticed here in paragraph 16, after spending pages on how important Bible study is, we are “guided” to the society’s publications [paragraph 15], but in paragraph 16 we are discouraged from looking up the Hebrew and Greek meaning of words with the emotive ‘answer in a question’ technique so commonly used by the Watch Tower: “Do you think that such approaches are likely to impart deep and motivating faith?” (End of paragraph 16)

Is it just me, or have they just said, “Do as we say and not as we ourselves do”? How on earth are you supposed to fully understand anything without deep study?

77

Does This Make Me A Racist?

by Englishman in

jw
friends

todays newspapers are full of the le pen story.

much concern is being voiced that right-wing organisations will ride on this story to make their own agendas more widely known, ie, send all the immigrants back home, britain for the british, sod off everyone else!.

now i personally love different cultures.

Nemesis

Lisa you asked:
“What percent of Group X living in poverty/middle income/wealthy are responsible for the commission of those crimes?”

Not sure where “commission” comes into it, but the income is not put on crime surveys, income/employment etc. are on social surveys/economic surveys not crime surveys. The figures are from the Home office, Police, and British Crime surveys, and can be obtained from each organisation. The race/crime relation is published later this year (as I have said and will post when I have a copy), and shows how race and crime are linked, or at least what race is doing what etc. That is also from the Home Office, based on police/court/prison etc. figures.

“Would you tell me what was the poverty line in 1979 and in today's dollars, what is the same poverty line?”

It’s not done in exact sums as it’s related to the size of the family, and circumstances, etc. and the country’s economy. Those who classify it usually class anyone who gets less than 50% average mean income after housing costs as living in poverty.

“. . . West-Indians commit crimes/hate incidents far in excess of all others groups. . . ‘Would you please provide evidence of this claim, as well as the source of all of your statistics?’”

Well if you have over 14 million in poverty, and another 46 million (UK population), but only just over 800,000 (population, not poverty) blacks and coloureds (according to OSN [Office of National Statistics]) it doesn’t take much to see where the biggest poverty group is. As for crime I have said several times, when the crime/race figures come out, I will happily post them, until then you will have to wait. I gave the crime figures for London without race a few posts back, the rest of the country’s don’t come out until they are collated with race.

“ALSO would you please find the statistics for white collar crime in the UK which you haven't mentioned at all? I'd like to know if you have the statistics for WHO commits the white-collar crimes and also whether you find this type of crime more acceptable if it is committed by UK naturals”

Can I ask you what is your definition of ‘white collar crime’? Just fraud? Or what? And it would have to fit into one of the already existing categories. And no I don’t find it acceptable, but I would rather have a neighbour who fiddled his taxes than a neighbour who fiddled his benefits, house, welfare, etc. and then robs, sells crack, rapes, and kills people.

26

For those who left: Are you better persons now?

by caballoSentado in

jw
friends

hi friends,.

i've read the thread "how many left over the un issue?".

i know ginosko, he is the elder, a very good friend of mine, i told you about when i wrote the threads about the un and my congregation.

Nemesis

Hello Caballo,

You said: “DO PEOPLE AROUND YOU THINK SO? (That is what counts, isn't it?).”

Well I would have to say, why would I care what people thought? After leaving the Watch Tower organisation, why would I—or anyone—want to then willingly put ourselves under the judgment of another human to validate ourselves based on what they think of us? Surely Jesus and God’s opinion are the only ones that matter.

As the others have said, you are still you, it’s just you are not a puppet anymore, those strings have been cut, and we fell down and got a bump, but now we realise we can work fine without those organisation’s strings pulling on us like ropes of bondage.

People have commented how I have an increased sense of humour, I laugh much more easily than I have for as long as I can remember. I no longer have nightmares, or wake up feeling dread of Armageddon, or God’s wrath. I feel free to think and feel without feeling guilty all the time. I also feel much more open to others. I still do have a lot of anger about how much time has been wasted with a mind control sect like the JWs. But any abuse takes time to heal, one day I hope to look back and feel nothing negative, just passive fact, and of no power over me whatsoever.

As for going back? Why would I jump back in the fire after I have only just got out alive? Bad habits are hard to break, but by God I will never go back to the sickness that is the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society.

77

Does This Make Me A Racist?

by Englishman in

jw
friends

todays newspapers are full of the le pen story.

much concern is being voiced that right-wing organisations will ride on this story to make their own agendas more widely known, ie, send all the immigrants back home, britain for the british, sod off everyone else!.

now i personally love different cultures.

Nemesis

Hi Lisa,

What percent of "Group X" (choose any group you've preivously cited) live at or below the poverty level?

The problem with that Lisa is that we have millions of native whites who have lived for decades under the poverty line, and although the crime levels are higher in all poverty situations, that are dramatic magnitudes higher with some communities like black West-Indians and their descendants, many of whom are living in situations far better than many natives, and who also have far more resources specifically just for them. Do you think blacks are the only ones living in poor areas? I can tell you they are not, but they stand out as the most criminal group. 1 in 4 (14.3 million) people in the UK were living in poverty in 1998/9 compared with under 1 in 10 in 1979. Poverty has risen sharply. In 1983, 14% of households lacked three or more necessities because they could not afford them. That proportion had increased to 21% in 1990 and to over 24% in 1999. By the end of 1999, 26% of the British population were living in poverty, measured in terms of low income and multiple deprivation of necessities. Roughly 9.5 million people cannot afford adequate housing conditions.

The natives of the UK are the most poverty stricken of all, and by your reasoning their proportion of crime should be the same as all other poor groups, but it isn’t, as West-Indians commit crimes/hate incidents far in excess of all others groups regardless of their socio-economic conditions. They are also six times more likely to be in prison compared to all other groups.

It's my contention that RACE doesn't breed violence, poverty breeds violence.

I have never said “race breeds violence”, It’s not just poverty, it’s their cultural attitude and morals/ethics (or lack of them) of certain races that cause the problems.

And to bring this thread back to where Englishman started it: “So I do sometimes wonder why people from another country choose to emigrate to Britain if they do not intend to adopt the host’s country’s culture and language. It would seem to be a one way street, where some immigrants love the UK welfare state but put nothing much back into their adopted country in the way of making a useful contribution to British society.”

Any immigrant community is not contributing and integrating if they 1. Can’t bothered or do not wish to learn some basic English. 2. Expect the natives to house, feed and take care of them costing the natives billion of pounds, at the same time as letting the destitute natives rot in poverty or sleep in the streets. 3. Have no qualifications/skills and do not work. 4. Have very little knowledge or respect for the natives culture with no intention of changing that, but then hypocritically expect the natives to respect their culture and learn about it and pay for festivals related to it. 5. Cause a disproportionately large amount of crime and hate regardless of their socio-economic status and situation. Who on earth would want to encourage immigrant groups like that to their country?

I welcome immigrants who 1. Learn some English, and mix with the natives and get to know them. 2. Rent/buy private housing with their own money. 3. Have some qualifications/skills and work for a living paying tax, which helps the country. 4. Abide by the laws of the land and have respect for their fellow countryman and the culture and heritage of the natives.

77

Does This Make Me A Racist?

by Englishman in

jw
friends

todays newspapers are full of the le pen story.

much concern is being voiced that right-wing organisations will ride on this story to make their own agendas more widely known, ie, send all the immigrants back home, britain for the british, sod off everyone else!.

now i personally love different cultures.

Nemesis

Hi yrs2long,

Allow me to demonstrate for you what you call my circular reasoning:
Say there are 5000 white people in England and 5000 blacks. And let's say 3000 of the white people feel superior to the blacks because of their race. On the other hand, only 1000 of the blacks feel racially superior to the whites. Of the 1000 blacks who feel superior, 10 have committed crimes against the whites. According to your reasoning, this means that the blacks are more racist.

Point one, that is not one of my illustrations but one of yours. And point two, you then proceed to use a false line of reason that I haven't used. Why do you assume there are 3000 whites that feel superior, and only 1000 blacks? Before you have even stated you make assumptions that are neither mine, nor rational when trying to be objective. Point three you use very dubious maths in your supposed calculations. How would I deduce that 10 black crimes denoted more racism? You haven't given any figures for the white crimes, and to boot your entire 50/50 split is not representative of here in the UK, or even in the US.

If you want a more realistic maths problem, then how would you answer this problem? There are 1000 whites, and 50 blacks in England. The whites commit 10 race hate incidents* on the blacks, and the blacks commit 20 race hate incidents on the whites. Which race is the most racist based on these figures?

You might answer from a maths point of view, “well the blacks appear to be committing twice as many attacks as whites commit, and therefore blacks are twice as racist.” That would be faulty maths, as the black population is not the same size as the white, if there were 1000 blacks that would be correct, but there are only 50! So 1 in 100 whites are committing a racially motivated offence, and 1 in 2.5 blacks are committing a racially motivated offence. Therefore the black population would be not just be twice as racist/violent/criminal etc. as the white community, but a staggering 40 times more racist/violent/criminal.
*A racially motivated incident is any incident that can have a racial basis/motivation, from a street brawl to gang rape to murder etc.

As you will note, unless you conduct a poll of all of these residents and the residents answer truthfully, you would be hard pressed to get an accurate measurement of this form of racism. . . What criteria were you basing this upon? Just race hate attacks? If that is the case, fine, provide documentation and reword your statement to reflect that. If not, that is why I mentioned prejudice, housing and employment discrimination. These would also need to be figured in if you want to spout racism statistics.

The British Crime Survey, and the Home Office, collate and gain the figures from all over the country from each police borough/district for the figures. They are not mine, but their figures. As for criteria, they are based on all the victims and the victimisers, unless you are suggesting all the white victims, of rape, robbery, and worse all made the colour of their attacker up, and so did any witnesses? But then if you reason like that you would have to be balanced and apply the same rational to all the non-whites also, therefore making it void.

As for housing, I have already spoken of. And employment would have to be related to their educational levels, which black men have the lowest in the capital, increasingly due to them being excluded due to violence, drugs, and other serous offences they commit in the schools. Many also do not even attend school, as you would find that out even from many black organisations. All of that is going to have a massive effect on employment. I also mentioned London councils, which you have also ignored. The same applies to transport workers and many other sectors that are massively over represented by non-white ethnic groups.

On just race hate attacks 165,000 (65%) in the year 2000 were committed by
non-white ethnic minorities against whites! That's less than 5% of the UK's population causing 65% of all race hate attacks. When broken down to race it gets worse as for every 1 white racist in the white population there are 45 black racists in the black population! 4,500% more racist in the black community is no joke.

As for race hate/violence/murder etc. It doesn’t take Einstein to work out that less than 5% of a population is committing over 65% of all hate related crime, that there is a major problem with that group. (That 65% is just crimes on whites, when one minority attacks another minority and these figures are collated, minority hate crimes figures committed by non-white ethnic groups are a lot higher than 65%), Splitting that 5% group down to their parts shows even worse figures than 65%. If you feel for every one white man attacking a black, there are 45 black men attacking whites, that this is OK, and of no concern then that just shows your inability to accept reality no matter how in your face it is. I have given specific figures, which you seem to reject as generalisations, why? They are based on ALL police forces areas, not just London. That takes in the entire population, and all crimes within a calendar year from April to April.

Your reaction doesn’t surprise me, no amount of black crime would convince you otherwise, your mind seems to be geared to just write it all off as some anomaly, but if they were reversed white for black, then you would hold the figures with great concern for the welfare of all the poor black victims—that’s not very consistent is it yrs2long? And more akin to what we experienced in the Watch Tower mindset. We see this all the time here, whenever a black person does something remotely worthy of credit, we are constantly told of their colour. We saw that with Halle Berry, “Thanks for the award, but look everyone, ‘I’M BLACK, yes BLACK and don’t you forget it. . .” The same here: “a black man has got a music award. . .”, not just a man, but also a BLACK man “look everyone he’s black”. But if he’d just mugged and raped a 12 year old white girl we are suppose to instantly ignore his race, and not utter a word of condemnation—well I don’t buy that double standard crap. White scum, black scum, Pakistani scum all deserve equal condemnation. And when one group outstrips all the others with their crimes and prejudice then they will get publicity from me, even when the left-wing media shy away from reality, and cry racist to anyone who dares to open their mouth and say the truth.

A few years back one the metropolitan police commissioners [Paul Condon] gave the London street robbery figures, and mentioned that over 80% were committed by blacks. He got crucified for just speaking a factual truth, and got called all the names under the sun! If you don’t like reality yrs2long that is not my fault, it’s just how things are—if you choose to ignore it, fine—that’s your prerogative!